Quantcast
Channel: Is Hodges' definition of elementary embedding wrong? - Mathematics Stack Exchange
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 2

Is Hodges' definition of elementary embedding wrong?

0
0

I am reading the beautiful book by Hodges, A Shorter Model Theory. In sections 2.4 and 2.5 the authors classifies formulas through maps which preserve them and viceversa. All is very clear, except from the definition of elementary embedding.
In fact, given two $L$-structures $A,B$ Hodges says:

  1. An homomorphism $f:A\rightarrow B$preserves a set of formulas $\Phi$ if $A\models\phi[\bar{a}]\Rightarrow B\models\phi[f\bar{a}]\quad \forall\phi\in\Phi$
  2. An elementary embedding is an embedding $i:A\rightarrow B$ which preserves any first order formula
    $A\models\phi[\bar{a}]\Rightarrow B\models\phi[i\bar{a}]\quad \forall\phi$

The fact is, he seems to use another definition of elementary embedding, which is the one in 2, but with $\Leftrightarrow$. This is also the one I know. In particular if we then consider elementary substructures, I cannot see how this definition can work, since basically in elementary substructures we have formulas preserved in both directions yielding elementary equivalence. Moreover under this definition any isomorphism should be an elementary embedding, which is not the case, considering $A=(\mathbb{Z},<), B=(2\mathbb{Z},<)$

I am feeling very stupid not seeing why these two approaches are equivalent, but I also checked the errata and nothing is said about this, so I guess it should be.


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 2

Latest Images

Trending Articles





Latest Images