In model theory, a branch of mathematical logic, two structures M and N of the same signatureσ are called elementarily equivalent if they satisfy the same first-orderσ-sentences. If N is a substructure of M, one often needs a stronger condition. In this case N is called an elementary substructure of M if every first-order σ-formula φ with parameters a1, …, an from N is true in Nif and only if it is true in M. If N is an elementary substructure of M, then M is called an elementary extension of N. An embeddingh: N → M is called an elementary embedding of N into M if h is an elementary substructure of M. A substructure N of M is elementary if and only if it passes the Tarski–Vaught test: every first-order formula φ with parameters in N that has a solution in M also has a solution in N when evaluated in M. One can prove that two structures are elementarily equivalent with the Ehrenfeucht–Fraïssé games.
Elementarily equivalent structures
Two structures M and N of the same signature σ are elementarily equivalent if every first-order sentence over σ is true in M if and only if it is true in N, i.e. if M and N have the same completefirst-order theory. If M and N are elementarily equivalent, one writes M ≡ N. A first-order theory is complete if and only if any two of its models are elementarily equivalent. For example, consider the language with one binary relation symbol '<'. The modelR of real numbers with its usual order and the model Q of rational numbers with its usual order are elementarily equivalent, since they both interpret '<' as an unbounded dense linear ordering. This is sufficient to ensure elementary equivalence, because the theory of unbounded dense linear orderings is complete, as can be shown by the Łoś–Vaught test. More generally, any first-order theory with an infinite model has non-isomorphic, elementarily equivalent models, which can be obtained via the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem. Thus, for example, there are non-standard models of Peano arithmetic, which contain other objects than just the numbers 0, 1, 2, etc., and yet are elementarily equivalent to the standard model.
Elementary substructures and elementary extensions
N is an elementary substructure of M if N and M are structures of the same signature σ such that for all first-order σ-formulas φ with free variablesx1, …, xn, and all elements a1, …, an of N, φ holds in N if and only if it holds in M: It follows that N is a substructure of M. If N is a substructure of M, then both N and M can be interpreted as structures in the signature σN consisting of σ together with a new constant symbol for every element ofN. Then N is an elementary substructure of M if and only if N is a substructure of M and N and M are elementarily equivalent as σN-structures. If N is an elementary substructure of M, one writes NM and says that M is an elementary extension of N: MN. The downward Löwenheim–Skolem theorem gives a countable elementary substructure for any infinite first-order structure in at most countable signature; the upward Löwenheim–Skolem theorem gives elementary extensions of any infinite first-order structure of arbitrarily large cardinality.
Tarski–Vaught test
The Tarski–Vaught test is a necessary and sufficient condition for a substructure N of a structure M to be an elementary substructure. It can be useful for constructing an elementary substructure of a large structure. Let M be a structure of signature σ and N a substructure of M. Then N is an elementary substructure of M if and only if for every first-order formula φ over σ and all elements b1, …, bn from N, if Mxφ, then there is an element a in N such that Mφ.
Elementary embeddings
An elementary embedding of a structure N into a structure M of the same signature σ is a map h: N → M such that for every first-order σ-formula φ and all elements a1, …, an of N, Every elementary embedding is a strong homomorphism, and its image is an elementary substructure. Elementary embeddings are the most important maps in model theory. In set theory, elementary embeddings whose domain is V play an important role in the theory of large cardinals.
