Compactness Theorem - Proofs

Proofs

One can prove the compactness theorem using Gödel's completeness theorem, which establishes that a set of sentences is satisfiable if and only if no contradiction can be proven from it. Since proofs are always finite and therefore involve only finitely many of the given sentences, the compactness theorem follows. In fact, the compactness theorem is equivalent to Gödel's completeness theorem, and both are equivalent to the Boolean prime ideal theorem, a weak form of the axiom of choice.

Gödel originally proved the compactness theorem in just this way, but later some "purely semantic" proofs of the compactness theorem were found, i.e., proofs that refer to truth but not to provability. One of those proofs relies on ultraproducts hinging on the axiom of choice as follows:

Proof: Fix a first-order language L, and let Σ be a collection of L-sentences such that every finite subcollection of L-sentences, i ⊆ Σ of it has a model . Also let be the direct product of the structures and I be the collection of finite subsets of Σ. For each i in I let Ai := { jI : ji}. The family of all these sets Ai generates a filter, so there is an ultrafilter U containing all sets of the form Ai.

Now for any formula φ in Σ we have:

  • the set A{φ} is in U
  • whenever j ∈ A{φ}, then φ ∈ j, hence φ holds in
  • the set of all j with the property that φ holds in is a superset of A{φ}, hence also in U

Using Łoś's theorem we see that φ holds in the ultraproduct . So this ultraproduct satisfies all formulas in Σ.

Read more about this topic:  Compactness Theorem

Famous quotes containing the word proofs:

    Trifles light as air
    Are to the jealous confirmation strong
    As proofs of holy writ.
    William Shakespeare (1564–1616)

    To invent without scruple a new principle to every new phenomenon, instead of adapting it to the old; to overload our hypothesis with a variety of this kind, are certain proofs that none of these principles is the just one, and that we only desire, by a number of falsehoods, to cover our ignorance of the truth.
    David Hume (1711–1776)

    Would you convey my compliments to the purist who reads your proofs and tell him or her that I write in a sort of broken-down patois which is something like the way a Swiss waiter talks, and that when I split an infinitive, God damn it, I split it so it will stay split, and when I interrupt the velvety smoothness of my more or less literate syntax with a few sudden words of bar- room vernacular, that is done with the eyes wide open and the mind relaxed but attentive.
    Raymond Chandler (1888–1959)