Non-Absoluteness of Model Existence at ω

Abstract

In [FHK13], the authors considered the question whether model-existence of Lω1,ω-sentences is absolute for transitive models of ZFC, in the sense that if V ⊂eq W are transitive models of ZFC with the same ordinals, ∈ V and V " is an Lω1,ω-sentence", then V " has a model of size α" if and only if W " has a model of size α". From [FHK13] we know that the answer is positive for α=0,1 and under the negation of CH, the answer is negative for all α>1. Under GCH, and assuming the consistency of a supercompact cardinal, the answer remains negative for each α>1, except the case when α=ω which is an open question in [FHK13]. We answer the open question by providing a negative answer under GCH even for α=ω. Our examples are incomplete sentences. In fact, the same sentences can be used to prove a negative answer under GCH for all α>1 assuming the consistency of a Mahlo cardinal. Thus, the large cardinal assumption is relaxed from a supercompact in [FHK13] to a Mahlo cardinal. Finally, we consider the absoluteness question for the α-amalgamation property of Lω1,ω-sentences (under substructure). We prove that assuming GCH, α-amalgamation is non-absolute for 1<α<ω. This answers a question from [SS]. The cases α=1 and α infinite remain open. As a corollary we get that it is non-absolute that the amalgamation spectrum of an Lω1,ω-sentence is empty.

0

Turn this paper into a lesson

ArcXiv compiles a structured reading guide from this paper's metadata: plain-English importance, contributions, prerequisite concepts, which sections to read first, flashcards, and a quiz. Grounded in the abstract, never invented.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion.

Loading comments…