Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T17:11:18.366Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An example concerning Scott heights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

M. Makkai
M. Makkai*
Affiliation:
Mcgill University, Montreal H3A 2K6, Quebec, Canada
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Unless otherwise stated, every structure in this paper is countable in a countable, actually recursive language and every formula is one of .

The definition of the so-called canonical Scott-sentence of a structure M, CSS(M) (compare Nadel [8]), is based on the ordinal invariant called the Scott-height of M, denoted SH(M) (compare Makkai [5]). To describe SH(M), let “b ≡αα”, for finite tuples of equal lengths b and a of elements of M and any ordinal α, stand for “b and a satisfy (in M) the same formulas of quantifier-rank ≤ α” (for the quantifier rank of a formula, see e.g., Barwise [1]); also, let “b ∼ a” mean that there is an automorphism of M mapping b to a. With a fixed M, and a in M, sh(a) (or shM(a)) denotes the least ordinal α such that for all b in M, b ≡αa implies b ∼ a. SH(M) is the least ordinal α such that for all a and b in M, b ≡αa implies b ∼ a; hence SH(M) = sup{sh(a): a in M}.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , June 1981, pp. 301 - 318
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

[1]Barwise, J., Admissible sets and structures, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Gregory, J., Uneountable models and infinitary elementary extensions, this Journal, vol. 38 (1973), pp. 460–470.Google Scholar
[3]Harnik, V. and Makkai, M., A tree argument in infinitary model theory, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 67 (1977), pp. 309–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Keisler, H. J., Model theory for infinitary logic, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1971.Google Scholar
[5]Makkai, M., An “admissible” generalization of a theorem on countable Σ11 sets of reals with applications, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 11 (1977), pp. 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Makkai, M., Admissible sets and infinitary logic, Handbook of mathematical logic (Barwise, J., Editor), Chapter A. 7, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1977.Google Scholar
[7]Morley, M., The number of countable models, this Journal, vol. 35 (1970), pp. 14–18.Google Scholar
[8]Nadel, M., Scott sentences and admissible sets, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 7 (1974), pp. 267–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Ressayre, J. P., Models with compactness properties with respect to logics on admissible sets, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 11 (1977), pp. 31–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Steel, J., On Vaught's conjecture, Cabal Seminar 76–77 (Kechris, A.S. and Moschovakis, Y.N., Editors), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, No. 689, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1978, pp. 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Shelah, S., Refuting Ehrenfeucht's conjecture on rigid models, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 25 (1976), pp. 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar