Misplaced Pages

This article includes a list of references, related reading, or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please help improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (August 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

In model theory and related areas of mathematics, a type is an object that describes how a (real or possible) element or finite collection of elements in a mathematical structure might behave. More precisely, it is a set of first-order formulas in a language L with free variables x₁, x₂,..., x_n that are true of a set of n-tuples of an L-structure ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}}$. Depending on the context, types can be complete or partial and they may use a fixed set of constants, A, from the structure ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}}$. The question of which types represent actual elements of ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}}$ leads to the ideas of saturated models and omitting types.

Formal definition

Consider a structure ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}}$ for a language L. Let M be the universe of the structure. For every A ⊆ M, let L(A) be the language obtained from L by adding a constant c_a for every a ∈ A. In other words,

${\displaystyle L(A)=L\cup \{c_{a}:a\in A\}.}$

A 1-type (of ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}}$) over A is a set p(x) of formulas in L(A) with at most one free variable x (therefore 1-type) such that for every finite subset p₀(x) ⊆ p(x) there is some b ∈ M, depending on p₀(x), with ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}\models p_{0}(b)}$ (i.e. all formulas in p₀(x) are true in ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}}$ when x is replaced by b).

Similarly an n-type (of ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}}$) over A is defined to be a set p(x₁,...,x_n) = p(x) of formulas in L(A), each having its free variables occurring only among the given n free variables x₁,...,x_n, such that for every finite subset p₀(x) ⊆ p(x) there are some elements b₁,...,b_n ∈ M with ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}\models p_{0}(b_{1},\ldots ,b_{n})}$.

A complete type of ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}}$ over A is one that is maximal with respect to inclusion. Equivalently, for every ${\displaystyle \phi ({\boldsymbol {x}})\in L(A,{\boldsymbol {x}})}$ either ${\displaystyle \phi ({\boldsymbol {x}})\in p({\boldsymbol {x}})}$ or ${\displaystyle \lnot \phi ({\boldsymbol {x}})\in p({\boldsymbol {x}})}$. Any non-complete type is called a partial type. So, the word type in general refers to any n-type, partial or complete, over any chosen set of parameters (possibly the empty set).

An n-type p(x) is said to be realized in ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}}$ if there is an element b ∈ M such that ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}\models p({\boldsymbol {b}})}$. The existence of such a realization is guaranteed for any type by the compactness theorem, although the realization might take place in some elementary extension of ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}}$, rather than in ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}}$ itself. If a complete type is realized by b in ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}}$, then the type is typically denoted ${\displaystyle tp_{n}^{\mathcal {M}}({\boldsymbol {b}}/A)}$ and referred to as the complete type of b over A.

A type p(x) is said to be isolated by ${\displaystyle \varphi }$, for ${\displaystyle \varphi \in p(x)}$, if for all ${\displaystyle \psi ({\boldsymbol {x}})\in p({\boldsymbol {x}}),}$ we have ${\displaystyle \operatorname {Th} ({\mathcal {M}})\models \varphi ({\boldsymbol {x}})\rightarrow \psi ({\boldsymbol {x}})}$. Since finite subsets of a type are always realized in ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}}$, there is always an element b ∈ M such that φ(b) is true in ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}}$; i.e. ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}\models \varphi ({\boldsymbol {b}})}$, thus b realizes the entire isolated type. So isolated types will be realized in every elementary substructure or extension. Because of this, isolated types can never be omitted (see below).

A model that realizes the maximum possible variety of types is called a saturated model, and the ultrapower construction provides one way of producing saturated models.

Examples of types

Consider the language L with one binary relation symbol, which we denote as ${\displaystyle \in }$. Let ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}}$ be the structure ${\displaystyle \langle \omega ,\in _{\omega }\rangle }$ for this language, which is the ordinal ${\displaystyle \omega }$ with its standard well-ordering. Let ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {T}}}$ denote the first-order theory of ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}}$.

Consider the set of L(ω)-formulas ${\displaystyle p(x):=\{n\in _{\omega }x\mid n\in \omega \}}$. First, we claim this is a type. Let ${\displaystyle p_{0}(x)\subseteq p(x)}$ be a finite subset of ${\displaystyle p(x)}$. We need to find a ${\displaystyle b\in \omega }$ that satisfies all the formulas in ${\displaystyle p_{0}}$. Well, we can just take the successor of the largest ordinal mentioned in the set of formulas ${\displaystyle p_{0}(x)}$. Then this will clearly contain all the ordinals mentioned in ${\displaystyle p_{0}(x)}$. Thus we have that ${\displaystyle p(x)}$ is a type. Next, note that ${\displaystyle p(x)}$ is not realized in ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}}$. For, if it were there would be some ${\displaystyle n\in \omega }$ that contains every element of ${\displaystyle \omega }$. If we wanted to realize the type, we might be tempted to consider the structure ${\displaystyle \langle \omega +1,\in _{\omega +1}\rangle }$, which is indeed an extension of ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}}$ that realizes the type. Unfortunately, this extension is not elementary, for example, it does not satisfy ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {T}}}$. In particular, the sentence ${\displaystyle \exists x\forall y(y\in x\lor y=x)}$ is satisfied by this structure and not by ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}}$.

So, we wish to realize the type in an elementary extension. We can do this by defining a new L-structure, which we will denote ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}'}$. The domain of the structure will be ${\displaystyle \omega \cup \mathbb {Z} '}$ where ${\displaystyle \mathbb {Z} '}$ is the set of integers adorned in such a way that ${\displaystyle \mathbb {Z} '\cap \omega =\emptyset }$. Let ${\displaystyle <}$ denote the usual order of ${\displaystyle \mathbb {Z} '}$. We interpret the symbol ${\displaystyle \in }$ in our new structure by ${\displaystyle \in _{{\mathcal {M}}'}=\in _{\omega }\cup <\cup \,(\omega \times \mathbb {Z} ')}$. The idea being that we are adding a "${\displaystyle \mathbb {Z} }$-chain", or copy of the integers, above all the finite ordinals. Clearly any element of ${\displaystyle \mathbb {Z} '}$ realizes the type ${\displaystyle p(x)}$. Moreover, one can verify that this extension is elementary.

Another example: the complete type of the number 2 over the empty set, considered as a member of the natural numbers, would be the set of all first-order statements (in the language of Peano arithmetic), describing a variable x, that are true when x = 2. This set would include formulas such as ${\displaystyle \,\!x\neq 1+1+1}$, ${\displaystyle x\leq 1+1+1+1+1}$, and ${\displaystyle \exists y(y<x)}$. This is an example of an isolated type, since, working over the theory of the naturals, the formula ${\displaystyle x=1+1}$ implies all other formulas that are true about the number 2.

As a further example, the statements

${\displaystyle \forall y(y^{2}<2\implies y<x)}$

and

${\displaystyle \forall y((y>0\land y^{2}>2)\implies y>x)}$

describing the square root of 2 are consistent with the axioms of ordered fields, and can be extended to a complete type. This type is not realized in the ordered field of rational numbers, but is realized in the ordered field of reals. Similarly, the infinite set of formulas (over the empty set) {x>1, x>1+1, x>1+1+1, ...} is not realized in the ordered field of real numbers, but is realized in the ordered field of hyperreals. Similarly, we can specify a type ${\displaystyle \{0<x<1/n\mid n\in \mathbb {N} \}}$ that is realized by an infinitesimal hyperreal that violates the Archimedean property.

The reason it is useful to restrict the parameters to a certain subset of the model is that it helps to distinguish the types that can be satisfied from those that cannot. For example, using the entire set of real numbers as parameters one could generate an uncountably infinite set of formulas like ${\displaystyle x\neq 1}$, ${\displaystyle x\neq \pi }$, ... that would explicitly rule out every possible real value for x, and therefore could never be realized within the real numbers.

Stone spaces

It is useful to consider the set of complete n-types over A as a topological space. Consider the following equivalence relation on formulas in the free variables x₁,..., x_n with parameters in A:

${\displaystyle \psi \equiv \phi \Leftrightarrow {\mathcal {M}}\models \forall x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}(\psi (x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})\leftrightarrow \phi (x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})).}$

One can show that ${\displaystyle \psi \equiv \phi }$ if and only if they are contained in exactly the same complete types.

The set of formulas in free variables x₁,...,x_n over A up to this equivalence relation is a Boolean algebra (and is canonically isomorphic to the set of A-definable subsets of M). The complete n-types correspond to ultrafilters of this Boolean algebra. The set of complete n-types can be made into a topological space by taking the sets of types containing a given formula as a basis of open sets. This constructs the Stone space associated to the Boolean algebra, which is a compact, Hausdorff, and totally disconnected space.

Example. The complete theory of algebraically closed fields of characteristic 0 has quantifier elimination, which allows one to show that the possible complete 1-types (over the empty set) correspond to:

• Roots of a given irreducible non-constant polynomial over the rationals with leading coefficient 1. For example, the type of square roots of 2. Each of these types is an isolated point of the Stone space.
• Transcendental elements, which are not roots of any non-zero polynomial. This type is a point in the Stone space that is closed but not isolated.

In other words, the 1-types correspond exactly to the prime ideals of the polynomial ring Q over the rationals Q: if r is an element of the model of type p, then the ideal corresponding to p is the set of polynomials with r as a root (which is only the zero polynomial if r is transcendental). More generally, the complete n-types correspond to the prime ideals of the polynomial ring Q, in other words to the points of the prime spectrum of this ring. (The Stone space topology can in fact be viewed as the Zariski topology of a Boolean ring induced in a natural way from the Boolean algebra. While the Zariski topology is not in general Hausdorff, it is in the case of Boolean rings.) For example, if q(x,y) is an irreducible polynomial in two variables, there is a 2-type whose realizations are (informally) pairs (x,y) of elements with q(x,y)=0.

Omitting types theorem

Given a complete n-type p one can ask if there is a model of the theory that omits p, in other words there is no n-tuple in the model that realizes p. If p is an isolated point in the Stone space, i.e. if {p} is an open set, it is easy to see that every model realizes p (at least if the theory is complete). The omitting types theorem says that conversely if p is not isolated then there is a countable model omitting p (provided that the language is countable).

Example: In the theory of algebraically closed fields of characteristic 0, there is a 1-type represented by elements that are transcendental over the prime field Q. This is a non-isolated point of the Stone space (in fact, the only non-isolated point). The field of algebraic numbers is a model omitting this type, and the algebraic closure of any transcendental extension of the rationals is a model realizing this type.

All the other types are "algebraic numbers" (more precisely, they are the sets of first-order statements satisfied by some given algebraic number), and all such types are realized in all algebraically closed fields of characteristic 0.

References

• Hodges, Wilfrid (1997). A shorter model theory. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-58713-1.
• Chang, C.C.; Keisler, H. Jerome (1989). Model Theory (3rd ed.). Elsevier. ISBN 0-7204-0692-7.
• Marker, David (2002). Model Theory: An Introduction. Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Vol. 217. Springer. ISBN 0-387-98760-6.

v t e Mathematical logic
General	Axiom list Cardinality First-order logic Formal proof Formal semantics Foundations of mathematics Information theory Lemma Logical consequence Model Theorem Theory Type theory
Theorems (list)  and paradoxes	Gödel's completeness and incompleteness theorems Tarski's undefinability Banach–Tarski paradox Cantor's theorem, paradox and diagonal argument Compactness Halting problem Lindström's Löwenheim–Skolem Russell's paradox
Logics	Traditional Classical logic Logical truth Tautology Proposition Inference Logical equivalence Consistency Equiconsistency Argument Soundness Validity Syllogism Square of opposition Venn diagram Propositional Boolean algebra Boolean functions Logical connectives Propositional calculus Propositional formula Truth tables Many-valued logic 3 finite ∞ Predicate First-order list Second-order Monadic Higher-order Fixed-point Free Quantifiers Predicate Monadic predicate calculus
Set theory	Set hereditary Class (Ur-)Element Ordinal number Extensionality Forcing Relation equivalence partition Set operations: intersection union complement Cartesian product power set identities Types of sets Countable Uncountable Empty Inhabited Singleton Finite Infinite Transitive Ultrafilter Recursive Fuzzy Universal Universe constructible Grothendieck Von Neumann Maps and cardinality Function/Map domain codomain image In/Sur/Bi-jection Schröder–Bernstein theorem Isomorphism Gödel numbering Enumeration Large cardinal inaccessible Aleph number Operation binary Set theories Zermelo–Fraenkel axiom of choice continuum hypothesis General Kripke–Platek Morse–Kelley Naive New Foundations Tarski–Grothendieck Von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel Ackermann Constructive
Formal systems (list), language and syntax	Alphabet Arity Automata Axiom schema Expression ground Extension by definition conservative Relation Formation rule Grammar Formula atomic closed ground open Free/bound variable Language Metalanguage Logical connective ¬ ∨ ∧ → ↔ = Predicate functional variable propositional variable Proof Quantifier ∃ ! ∀ rank Sentence atomic spectrum Signature String Substitution Symbol function logical/constant non-logical variable Term Theory list Example axiomatic systems (list) of arithmetic: Peano second-order elementary function primitive recursive Robinson Skolem of the real numbers Tarski's axiomatization of Boolean algebras canonical minimal axioms of geometry: Euclidean: Elements Hilbert's Tarski's non-Euclidean Principia Mathematica
Proof theory	Formal proof Natural deduction Logical consequence Rule of inference Sequent calculus Theorem Systems axiomatic deductive Hilbert list Complete theory Independence (from ZFC) Proof of impossibility Ordinal analysis Reverse mathematics Self-verifying theories
Model theory	Interpretation function of models Model equivalence finite saturated spectrum submodel Non-standard model of arithmetic Diagram elementary Categorical theory Model complete theory Satisfiability Semantics of logic Strength Theories of truth semantic Tarski's Kripke's T-schema Transfer principle Truth predicate Truth value Type Ultraproduct Validity
Computability theory	Church encoding Church–Turing thesis Computably enumerable Computable function Computable set Decision problem decidable undecidable P NP P versus NP problem Kolmogorov complexity Lambda calculus Primitive recursive function Recursion Recursive set Turing machine Type theory
Related	Abstract logic Algebraic logic Automated theorem proving Category theory Concrete/Abstract category Category of sets History of logic History of mathematical logic timeline Logicism Mathematical object Philosophy of mathematics Supertask
Mathematics portal

• Concepts in logic
• Mathematical logic
• Model theory