Sunteți pe pagina 1din 13

7

6
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
1
-
0
5
-
0
8







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
1
-
0
5
-
0
8


On regular reduced products

Juliette Kennedy

Department of Mathematics
University of Helsinki
Helsinki, Finland
Saharon Shelah

Institute of Mathematics
Hebrew University
Jerusalem, Israel
October 6, 2003
Abstract
Assume
0
,
1
,
+
. Assume M is a model of a rst order
theory T of cardinality at most
+
in a vocabulary L(T) of cardinality
. Let N be a model with the same vocabulary. Let be a set of
rst order formulas in L(T) and let D be a regular lter on . Then
M is -embeddable into the reduced power N

/D, provided that


every -existential formula true in M is true also in N. We obtain
the following corollary: for M as above and D a regular ultralter
over , M

/D is
++
-universal. Our second result is as follows: For
i < let M
i
and N
i
be elementarily equivalent models of a vocabulary
which has has cardinality . Suppose D is a regular lter on and

0
,
1
,
+
holds. We show that then the second player has
a winning strategy in the Ehrenfeucht-Fraisse game of length
+
on

i
M
i
/D and

i
N
i
/D. This yields the following corollary: Assume
GCH and regular (or just
0
,
1
,
+
and 2

=
+
). For L,
M
i
and N
i
be as above, if D is a regular lter on , then

i
M
i
/D

=

i
N
i
/D.

This paper was written while the authors were guests of the Mittag-Leer Institute,
Djursholm, Sweden. The authors are grateful to the Institute for its support.

Research partially supported by grant 1011049 of the Academy of Finland.

Research partially supported by the Binational Science Foundation. Publication num-


ber 769.
1
7
6
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
1
-
0
5
-
0
8







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
1
-
0
5
-
0
8


1 Introduction
Suppose M is a rst order structure and F is the Frechet lter on . Then
the reduced power M

/F is
1
-saturated and hence
2
-universal ([6]). This
was generalized by Shelah in [10] to any lter F on for which B

/F is

1
-saturated, where B is the two element Boolean algebra, and in [8] to all
regular lters on . In the rst part of this paper we use the combinatorial
principle 2
b

of Shelah [11] to generalize the result from to arbitrary ,


assuming
0
,
1
) ,
+
). This gives a partial solution to Conjecture 19 in
[3]: if D is a regular ultralter over , then for all innite M, the ultrapower
M

/D is
++
-universal.
The second part of this paper addresses Problem 18 in [3], which asks if
it is true that if D is a regular ultralter over , then for all elementarily
equivalent models M and N of cardinality in a vocabulary of cardinality
, the ultrapowers M

/D and N

/D are isomorphic. Keisler [7] proved


this for good D assuming 2

=
+
. Benda [1] weakened good to contains
a good lter. We prove the claim in full generality, assuming 2

=
+
and

0
,
1
) ,
+
).
Regarding our assumption
0
,
1
) ,
+
), by Changs Two-Cardinal
Theorem ([2])
0
,
1
) ,
+
) is a consequence of =
<
. So our
Theorem 2 settles Conjecture 19 of [3], and Theorem 13 settles Conjecture 18
of [3], under GCH for regular. For singular strong limit cardinals
0
,
1
)
,
+
) follows from 2

(Jensen [5]). In the so-called Mitchells model ([9])

0
,
1
) ,
1
,
2
), so our assumption is independent of ZFC.
2 Universality
Denition 1 Suppose is a set of rst order formulas of vocabulary L.
The set of -existential formulas is the set of formulas of the form
x
1
...x
n
(
1
...
n
),
where each
i
is in . The set of weakly -existential formulas is the set
of formulas of the above form, where each
i
is in or is the negation of a
formula in . If M and N are L-structures and h : M N, we say that h
is a -homomorphism if h preserves the truth of -formulas. If h preserves
also the truth of negations of -formulas, it is called a -embedding.
2
7
6
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
1
-
0
5
-
0
8







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
1
-
0
5
-
0
8


Theorem 2 Assume
0
,
1
) ,
+
). Let M be a model of a rst order
theory T of cardinality at most
+
, in a language L of cardinality and
let N be a model with the same vocabulary. Let be a set of rst order
formulas in L and let D be a regular lter on . We assume that every
weakly -existential sentence true in M is true also in N. Then there is a
-embedding of M into the reduced power N

/D.
By letting be the set of all rst order sentences, we get from Theorem 2
and Los Lemma:
Corollary 3 Assume
0
,
1
) ,
+
). If M is a model with vocabulary
, and D is a regular ultralter over , then M

/D is
++
-universal,
i.e. if M

is of cardinality
+
, and M

M, then M

is elementarily
embeddable into the ultrapower M

/D.
We can replace weakly -existential by -existential in the Theorem,
if we only want a -homomorphism.
The proof of Theorem 2 is an induction over and
+
respectively, as
follows. Suppose M = a

: <
+
. We associate to each <
+
nite
sets u

i
, i < , and represent the formula set as a union of nite sets
i
.
At stage i, for each <
+
we consider the
i
-type of the elements a

of the
model whose indices lie in the set u

i
, <
+
. This will yield a witness f

(i)
in N at stage i, . Our embedding is then given by a

(i) : i < )/D.


We need rst an important lemma, reminiscent of Proposition 5.1 in [11]:
Lemma 4 Assume
0
,
1
) ,
+
). Let D be a regular lter on . There
exist sets u

i
and integers n
i
for each <
+
and i < such that for each i,
(i) [u

i
[ < n
i
<
(ii) u

i

(iii) Let B be a nite set of ordinals and let be such that B <
+
.
Then i : B u

i
D
(iv) Coherency: u

i
u

i
= u

i

Assuming the lemma, and letting M = a

: <
+
we now dene, for
each , a function f

: N.
3
7
6
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
1
-
0
5
-
0
8







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
1
-
0
5
-
0
8


Let =

: < and let A

: < be a family witnessing the


regularity of D. Thus for each i, the set w
i
= : i A

is nite. Let

i
=

: w
i
, and let u

i
, n
i
be as in the lemma.
We dene a sequence of formulas essential to the proof: suppose <
+
and i < . Let m

i
= [u

i
[ and let
u

i
=
,i,0
, ...,
,i,m

i
1

be an increasing enumeration of u

i
. (We adopt henceforth the convention
that any enumeration of u

i
that is given is an increasing enumeration.)
Let

i
be the
i
-type of the tuple a

,i,0
, ..., a

,i,m

i
1
, a

) in M. (So ev-
ery (x

,i,0
, ..., x

,i,m

i
1
, x

)
i
or its negation occurs as a conjunct of

i
, according to whether (a

,i,0
, ..., a

,i,m

i
1
, a

) or (a

,i,0
, ..., a

,i,m

i
1
, a

)
holds in M.) We dene the formula

i
for each i by downward induction on
m

i
as follows:
Case 1: m

i
= n
i
. Let

i
=

i
.
Case 2: m

i
< n
i
. Let

i
be the conjunction of

i
and all formulas of the
form x
m

i
(x
0
, ..., x
m

i
1
, x
m

i
), where satises u

i
= u

i
and hence
m

i
= m

i
+ 1.
An easy induction shows that for a xed i < , the cardinality of the set

i
: <
+
is nite, using n
i
.
Let i < be xed. We dene f

(i) by induction on <


+
in such a way
that the following condition remains valid:
(IH) If

< and u

i
= r

1
, ..., r

k
, then N [=

i
(f

1
(i), ..., f

k
(i), f

(i)).
To dene f

(i), we consider dierent cases:


Case 1: n
i
= m

i
.
Case 1.1: n
i
= 0. Then

i
is the
i
type of the element a

. But then
M [=

i
(a

)
M [= x
0

i
(x
0
)
N [= x
0

i
(x
0
),
4
7
6
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
1
-
0
5
-
0
8







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
1
-
0
5
-
0
8


where the last implication follows from the assumption that N satises the
weakly -existential formulas holding in M. Now choose an element b N
to witness this formula and set f

(i) = b.
Case 1.2: n
i
> 0. Let u

i
=
1
, . . . ,
m

i
. Since m

i
= n
i
, the formula

i
is the
i
-type of the elements
1
, . . . ,
m

i
. By assumption =
m

i
is the
maximum element of u

i
. Thus by coherency, u

i
= u

i
=
1
, . . . ,
m

i
1
.
Since < , we know by the induction hypothesis that
N [=

i
(f

1
(i), . . . , f

i
(i)).
By the formula construction

i
contains the formula x
m

i
(x
1
, . . . , x
m

i
),
since u

i
= u

i
and since m

i
< n
i
. Thus
N [= x
m

i
+1

i
(f

1
(i), . . . , f

i
(i), x
m

i
+1
).
As before choose an element b N to witness this formula and set f

(i) = b.
Case 2: m

i
< n
i
. Let u

i
=
1
, . . . ,
m

i
. We have that M [=

i
(a

1
, . . . , a

i
, a

),
and therefore M [= x
m

i
+1

i
(a

1
, . . . , a

i
, x
m

i
+1
). Let = max(u

i
)=
m

i
.
By coherency, u

i
= u

i
and therefore since < by the induction hy-
pothesis we have that
N [=

i
(f

1
(i), . . . , f

i
1
(i), f

(i)).
But then as in case 1.2 we can infer that
N [= x
m

i
+1

i
(f

1
(i), . . . , f

i
(i), x
m

i
+1
).
As in case 1 choose an element b N to witness this formula and set f

(i) = b.
It remains to be shown that the mapping a

(i) : i < )/D satises


the requirements of the theorem, i.e. we must show, for all which is in ,
or whose negation is in ,
M [= (a

1
, . . . , a

k
) i : N [= (f

1
(i), . . . , f

k
(i)) D.
So let such a be given, and suppose M [= (a

1
, . . . , a

k
). Let I

= i :
N [= (f

1
(i), . . . , f

k
(i)). We wish to show that I

D. Let < so that


5
7
6
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
1
-
0
5
-
0
8







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
1
-
0
5
-
0
8


is

or its negation. It suces to show that A

. Let <
+
be such
that
1
, ...,
n
. By Lemma 4 condition (iii), i :
1
, ...,
n
u

i
D.
So it suces to show
A

i :
1
, ...,
n
u

i
I

.
Let i A

such that
1
, ...,
n
u

i
. By the denition of

i
we know that
N [=

i
(f

1
(i), . . . , f

k
(i)). But the
i
-type of the tuple
1
, . . . ,
k
) occurs as
a conjunct of

i
, and therefore N [= (f

1
(i), . . . , f

k
(i)) 2
3 Proof of Lemma 4
We now prove Lemma 4. We rst prove a weaker version in which the lter
is not given in advance:
Lemma 5 Assume
0
,
1
) ,
+
). There exist sets u

i
: <
+
, i <
cof()), integers n
i
and a regular lter D on , generated by sets, such
that (i)-(iv) of Lemma 4 hold.
Proof. By [11, Proposition 5.1, p. 149] the assumption
0
,
1
) ,
+
)
is equivalent to:
2
b

: There is a
+
-like linear order L, sets C

a
: a L, < cf()), equiva-
lence relations E

: < cf()), and functions f

a,b
: < , a L, b
L) such that
(i)

a
= b : b <
L
a (an increasing union in ).
(ii) If b C

a
, then C

b
= c C

a
: c <
L
b.
(iii) E

is an equivalence relation on L with equivalence classes.


(iv) If < < cf(), then E

renes E

.
(v) If aE

b, then f

a,b
is an order-preserving one to one mapping from
C

a
onto C

b
such that for d C

a
, dE

a,b
(d).
(vi) If < < cf() and aE

b, then f

a,b
f

a,b
.
(vii) If f

a,b
(a
1
) = b
1
, then f

a
1
,b
1
f

a,b
.
(viii) If a C

b
then E

(a, b).
6
7
6
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
1
-
0
5
-
0
8







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
1
-
0
5
-
0
8


This is not quite enough to prove Lemma 5, so we have to work a little
more. Let

= a/E

: a L.
We assume, for simplicity, that ,= implies

= . Dene for
t
1
, t
2

:
t
1
<

t
2
(a
1
t
1
)(a
2
t
2
)(a
1
C

a
2
).
Proposition 6

, <

) is a tree order with cf() as the set of levels.


Proof. We need to show (a) t
1
<

t
2
<

t
3
implies t
1
<

t
3
, and (b) t
1
<

t
3
and t
2
<

t
3
implies t
1
<

t
2
or t
2
<

t
1
or t
1
= t
2
. For the rst, t
1
<

t
2
implies there exists a
1
t
1
and a
2
t
2
such that a
1
C

a
2
. Similarly t
2
<

t
3
implies there exists b
2
t
2
and b
3
t
3
such that b
2
C

b
3
. Now a
2
E

b
2
and
hence we have the order preserving map f

a
2
,b
2
from C

a
2
onto C

b
2
. Recalling
a
1
C

a
2
, let f

a
2
,b
2
(a
1
) = b
1
. Then by (vi), a
1
E

b
1
and hence b
1
t
1
. But
then b
1
C

b
2
implies b
1
C

b
3
, by coherence and the fact that b
2
C

b
3
. But
then it follows that t
1
<

t
3
.
Now assume t
1
<

t
3
and t
2
<

t
3
. Let a
1
t
1
and a
3
t
3
be such that
a
1
C

a
3
, and similarly let b
2
and b
3
be such that b
2
C

b
3
. a
3
E

b
3
implies we
have the order preserving map f

a
3
,b
3
from C

a
3
to C

b
3
. Letting f

a
3
,b
3
(a
1
) = b
1
,
we see that b
1
C

b
3
. If b
1
<
L
b
2
, then we have C

b
2
= C

b
3
c[c < b
2
which
implies b
1
C

b
2
, since, as f

a
3
,b
3
is order preserving, b
1
<
L
b
2
. Thus t
1
<

t
2
.
The case b
2
<
L
b
1
is proved similarly, and b
1
= b
2
is trivial. 2
For a <
L
b let
(a, b) = min : a C

b
.
Denoting (a, b) by , let
tp(a, b) = a/E

, b/E

).
If a
1
<
L
... <
L
a
n
, let
tp(a
1
, ..., a
n
)) = l, m, tp(a
l
, a
m
))[1 l < m n
and
= tp(a) : a
<
L.
For t = tp(a), a
n
L we use n
t
to denote the length of a.
7
7
6
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
1
-
0
5
-
0
8







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
1
-
0
5
-
0
8


Proposition 7 If a
0
<
L
... <
L
a
n
, then
max(a
l
, a
m
) : 0 l < m n = max(a
l
, a
n
) : 0 l < n.
Proof. Clearly the right hand side is the left hand side. To show the
left hand side is the right hand side, let l < m < n be arbitrary. If
(a
l
, a
n
) (a
m
, a
n
), then (a
l
, a
m
) (a
m
, a
n
). On the other hand, if
(a
l
, a
n
) > (a
m
, a
n
), then (a
l
, a
m
) (a
l
, a
n
). In either case (a
l
, a
m
)
max(a
k
, a
n
) : 0 k < n. 2
Let us denote max(a
l
, a
n
) : 0 l < n by (a). We dene on a
two-place relation

as follows:
t
1
<

t
2
if there exists a tuple a
0
, . . . a
nt
2
1
) realizing t
2
such that some subsequence
of the tuple realizes t
1
.
Clearly, ,

) is a directed partial order.


Proposition 8 For t , t = tp(b
0
, . . . b
n1
) and a L, there exists at
most one k < n such that b
k
E
(b
0
,...,b
n1
)
a.
Proof. Let = (b
0
, . . . , b
n1
) and let b
k
1
,= b
k
2
be such that b
k
1
E

a and
b
k
2
E

a, k
1
, k
2
n 1. Without loss of generality, assume b
k
1
< b
k
2
. Since
E

is an equivalence relation, b
k
2
E

b
k
1
and thus we have an order preserving
map f

b
k
2
,b
k
1
from C

b
k
2
to C

b
k
1
. Also b
k
1
C

b
k
2
, by the denition of and by
coherence, and therefore f

b
k
2
,b
k
1
(b
k
1
)E

b
k
1
. But this contradicts (viii), since
f

b
k
2
,b
k
1
(b
k
1
) C

b
k
1
. 2
Denition 9 For t , t = tp(b
0
, . . . b
n1
) and a L suppose there exists
k < n such that b
k
E
(b
0
,...,b
n1
)
a. Then let u
a
t
= f
(b
0
,...,b
n1
)
a,b
k
(b
l
) : l < k
Otherwise, let u
a
t
= .
Finally, let D be the lter on generated by the sets

t
= t : t

<
L
t.
We can now see that the sets u
a
t
, the numbers n
t
and the lter D satisfy
conditions (i)-(iv) of Lemma 4 with L instead of
+
: Conditions (i) and (ii)
8
7
6
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
1
-
0
5
-
0
8







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
1
-
0
5
-
0
8


are trivial in this case. Condition (iii) is veried as follows: Suppose B is
nite. Let a L be such that (x B)(x <
L
a). Let a enumerate B a
in increasing order and let t

= tp(a). Clearly
t
t
B u
a
t
.
Condition (iv) follows directly from Denition 9 and Proposition 8.
To get the Lemma on
+
we observe that since L is
+
-like, we can assume
that
+
, <) is a submodel of L, <
L
). Then we dene v

t
= u

t
: < .
Conditions (i)-(iv) of Lemma 5 are still satised. Also having D a lter of
instead of is immaterial as [[ = . 2
Now back to the proof of Lemma 4. Suppose u

i
, n
i
and D are as in
Lemma 5, and suppose D

is an arbitrary regular lter on . Let A

: <
be a family of sets witnessing the regularity of D

, and let Z

: < be
the family generating D. We dene a function h : as follows. Suppose
i < . Then let
h(i)

[i A

.
Now dene v

= u

h()
. Dene also n

= n
h()
. Now the sets v

and the
numbers n

satisfy the conditions of Lemma 4. 2


4 Is 2
b

needed for Lemma 5?


In this section we show that the conclusion of Lemma 5 (and hence of
Lemma 4) implies 2
b

for singular strong limit . By [11, Theorem 2.3 and


Remark 2.5], 2
b

is equivalent, for singular strong limit , to the following


principle:
o

: There are sets C


i
a
: a <
+
, i < cf()) such that
(i) If i < j, then C
i
a
C
j
a
.
(ii)

i
C
i
a
= a.
(iii) If b C
i
a
, then C
i
b
= C
i
a
b.
(iv) supotp(C
i
a
) : a <
+
< .
Thus it suces to prove:
9
7
6
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
1
-
0
5
-
0
8







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
1
-
0
5
-
0
8


Proposition 10 Suppose the sets u

i
and the lter D are as given by Lemma 5
and is a limit cardinal. Then o

holds.
Proof. Suppose / = A

: < is a family of sets generating D. W.l.o.g.,


/ is closed under nite intersections. Let be the union of the increasing
sequence

: < cf()), where


0
. Let the sequence

: < cf())
satisfy:
(a) [

(b)

is continuously increasing in with as union


(c) If
1
, ...,
n

, then there is

such that
A

= A

1
... A
n
.
The sequence

: < cf()) enables us to dene a sequence that will


witness o

. For < cf() and <


+
, let
V

= < : (

)(A

i : u

i
).
Lemma 11 (1) V

: < ) is a continuously increasing sequence of


subsets of , [V

, and

: < cf() = .
(2) If V

, then V

= V

.
Proof. (1) is a direct consequence of the denitions. (2) follows from the
respective property of the sets u

i
. 2
Lemma 12 supotp(V

) : <
+

+

.
Proof. By the previous Lemma, [V

. Therefore otp(V

) <
+

and
the claim follows. 2
The proof of the proposition is complete: (i)-(iii) follows from Lemma 11,
(iv) follows from Lemma 12 and the assumption that is a limit cardinal. 2
More equivalent conditions for the case singular strong limit, D a regular
ultralter on , are under preparation.
10
7
6
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
1
-
0
5
-
0
8







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
1
-
0
5
-
0
8


5 Ehrenfeucht-Frasse-games
Let M and N be two rst order structures of the same vocabulary L. All
vocabularies are assumed to be relational. The Ehrenfeucht-Frasse-game of
length of M and N denoted by EFG

is dened as follows: There are two


players called I and II. First I plays x
0
and then II plays y
0
. After this I
plays x
1
, and II plays y
1
, and so on. If (x

, y

) : < ) has been played


and < , then I plays x

after which II plays y

. Eventually a sequence
(x

, y

) : < ) has been played. The rules of the game say that both
players have to play elements of M N. Moreover, if I plays his x

in M
(N), then II has to play his y

in N (M). Thus the sequence (x

, y

) : < )
determines a relation MN. Player II wins this round of the game if
is a partial isomorphism. Otherwise I wins. The notion of winning strategy
is dened in the usual manner. We say that a player wins EFG

if he has a
winning strategy in EFG

.
Note that if II has a winning strategy in EFG

on M and N, where M
and N are of size [[, then M

= N.
Assume L is of cardinality and for each i < let M
i
and N
i
are
elementarily equivalent L-structures. Shelah proved in [12] that if D is a
regular lter on , then Player II has a winning strategy in the game EFG

on

i
M
i
/D and

i
N
i
/D for each <
+
. We show that under a stronger
assumption, II has a winning strategy even in the game EFG

+. This makes
a big dierence because, assuming the models M
i
and N
i
are of size
+
,
2

=
+
, and the models

i
M
i
/D and

i
N
i
/D are of size
+
. Then by
the remark above, if II has a winning strategy in EFG

+, the reduced powers


are actually isomorphic. Hyttinen [4] proved this under the assumption that
the lter is, in his terminology, semigood.
Theorem 13 Assume
0
,
1
) ,
+
). Let L be a vocabulary of cardi-
nality and for each i < let M
i
and N
i
be two elementarily equivalent
L-structures. If D is a regular lter on , then Player II has a winning
strategy in the game EFG

+ on

i
M
i
/D and

i
N
i
/D.
Proof. We use Lemma 4. If i < , then, since M
i
and N
i
are elementarily
equivalent, Player II has a winning strategy
i
in the game EFG
n
i
on M
i
and
N
i
. We will use the set u

i
to put these short winning strategies together into
one long winning strategy.
11
7
6
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
1
-
0
5
-
0
8







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
1
-
0
5
-
0
8


A good position is a sequence (f

, g

) : < ), where <


+
, and for
all < we have f

i
M
i
, g

i
N
i
, and if i < , then (f

(i), g

(i)) :
u

i
) is a play according to
i
.
Note that in a good position the equivalence classes of the functions f

and
g

determine a partial isomorphism of the reduced products. The strategy


of player II is to keep the position of the game good, and thereby win the
game. Suppose rounds have been played and II has been able to keep the
position good. Then player I plays f

. We show that player II can play


g

so that (f

, g

) : ) remains good. Let i < . Let us look at


(f

(i), g

(i)) : u

i
). We know that this is a play according to the strategy

i
and [u

i
[ < n
i
. Thus we can play one more move in EF
n
i
on M
i
and
N
i
with player I playing f

(i). Let g

(i) be the answer of II in this game


according to
i
. The values g

(i), i < , constitute the function g

. We have
showed that II can maintain a good position. 2
Corollary 14 Assume GCH and regular (or just
0
,
1
) ,
+
) and
2

=
+
). Let L be a vocabulary of cardinality and for each i < let M
i
and N
i
be two elementarily equivalent L-structures. If D is a regular lter
on , then

i
M
i
/D

=

i
N
i
/D.
References
[1] M. Benda, On reduced products and lters. Ann.Math.Logic 4 (1972),
1-29.
[2] C. C. Chang, , A note on the two cardinal problem, Proc. Amer. Math.
Soc., 16, 1965, 11481155,
[3] C.C. Chang and J.Keisler, Model Theory, North-Holland.
[4] T. Hyttinen, On -complete reduced products, Arch. Math. Logic,
Archive for Mathematical Logic, 31, 1992, 3, 193199
[5] R. Jensen, The ne structure of the constructible hierarchy, With a
section by Jack Silver, Ann. Math. Logic, 4, 1972, 229308
[6] B. J onsson and P. Olin, Almost direct products and saturation, Com-
positio Math., 20, 1968, 125132
12
7
6
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
1
-
0
5
-
0
8







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
1
-
0
5
-
0
8


[7] J. Keisler, Ultraproducts and saturated models. Nederl.Akad.Wetensch.
Proc. Ser. A 67 (=Indag. Math. 26) (1964), 178-186.
[8] J. Kennedy and S. Shelah, On embedding models of arithmetic of car-
dinality
1
into reduced powers, to appear.
[9] W. Mitchell, Aronszajn trees and the independence of the transfer prop-
erty, Ann. Math. Logic, 5, 1972/73, 2146
[10] S. Shelah, For what lters is every reduced product saturated?, Israel J.
Math., 12, 1972, 2331
[11] S. Shelah, Gap 1 two-cardinal principles and the omitting types theo-
rem for L(Q). Israel Journal of Mathematics vol 65 no. 2, 1989, 133152.
[12] S. Shelah, Classication theory and the number of non-isomorphic
models, Second, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1990,
xxxiv+705
13

S-ar putea să vă placă și