On 04 Dec 2010, at 18:50, Brian Tenneson wrote:
On Dec 4, 2:52 am, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
I just said that if M1 < M2, then M1 [=] M2. This means that M2 needs
higher order logical formula to be distinguished from M1.
Elementary embeddings (<) are a too much strong notion of model
theory. It is used in context where we want use non standard notions,
like in Robinson analysis.
Doesn't the archemedian property show that R is not elementarily
equivalent to R*? I mean the following 1st order formula true in only
one of R and R*:
for all X there is a Y such that (Y is a natural number and X<Y)
Note that you cannot define "natural number" in a first order theory
of the reals. In the reals, natural numbers are second order notions,
or you have to add a first order axiomatic of the sinusoïdal function.
This is true in R but not in R*. This would appear to me to be an
example of why R is not [=] to R*.
That means that R (standard model of the first order theory of the
reals + archimedian axiom, without the term "natural number") is not
elementary embeddable in R*, given that such an embedding has to
preserve all first order formula (purely first order formula, and so
without notion like "natural number").
Bruno
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
