[FOM] countable saturation
John Goodrick
goodrick at Math.Berkeley.EDU
Sat Jan 14 17:19:55 EST 2006
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, Ben Crowell wrote:
> What's throwing me for a loop is that K&S say in the main theorem on the
> first page of the paper, "There exists a definable, countably saturated
> extension *R of the reals R..." But C&K's definition of countably
> saturated says the model has to be countable, whereas the hyperreals
> K&S are constructing would be an uncountable set. Am I completely on
> the wrong track here? Does "countable model" not mean what I think it
> means?
I think there's a very simple answer for this: by "countably saturated"
I'm pretty certain that Shelah means what Chang and Keisler would call
"omega-saturated." I think that C&K's usage of "countably satured" here
is either idiosyncratic or out of date; in the couple dozen or so recent
papers in model theory I've looked at I can't remember anyone ever using
that phrase to mean a model that must be countable (model theorists
tend to say "a countable omega-saturated model" these days if that's what
they mean.)
-John
More information about the FOM
mailing list