Intereting Posts

Doubt about eqivalence .
If $f$ has a essential singularity at $P$, then for $(z-P)^m f(z)$ has also an essential singularity.
Difference between the algebraic and topological dual of a topological vector space?
How many distinct subgroups does the symmetric group $S_3$ have?
Division of Complex Numbers
Well-Ordering and Mathematical Induction
Solving a set of linked recurrent relations
Integral of a positive function is positive?
Suppose $A$, $B$, and $C$ are sets. Prove that $A △ B ⊆ C \iff A ∪ C = B ∪ C$.
Sum of Positive Divisors: $\sum_{d|n} \mu(n/d)\nu(d)=1$ and $\sum_{d|n} \mu(n/d)\sigma(d)=n$
Proof of Sobolev Inequality Theroem
Example of topological spaces where sequential continuity does not imply continuity
One-to-one correspondence of ideals in the quotient also extends to prime ideals?
Is the closedness of the image of a Fredholm operator implied by the finiteness of the codimension of its image?
dual space of a locally convex space

I wanted to prove the compactness theorem, p 79 Just/Weese:

The (i) <= (ii) direction is not obvious to me. I thought I could prove it by showing not (i) implies not (ii) as follows:

- How do we prove the existence of uncountably many transcendental numbers?
- How to divide aleph numbers
- limsup and liminf of a sequence of points in a set
- Proving Two Sets are Equal - Infinite Sets - Example
- The cardinality of the set of countably infinite subsets of an infinite set
- Proving $\bigcup A - \bigcup B \subset \bigcup(A-B)$

Assume $T$ does not have a model. Then for every $\varphi \in T$, $T \models \varphi$ and by completeness, $T \vdash \varphi$. That is, there is a finite sequence of $\varphi_i$, $i = 1, \dots n$, with $\varphi = \varphi_n$. (Unfortunately, these $\varphi_i$ are not necessarily all in $T$.) Since $T$ doesn’t have a model, we also have $T \models \lnot \varphi$ and hence there are $\bar{\varphi}_i$, $i= 1, \dots m$ with $\bar{\varphi}_m = \lnot \varphi$, again, unfortunately these don’t have to be in $T$. My proof then ended as follows: Then $\{\varphi, \lnot \varphi\}$ is a finite subset of $T$ that doesn’t have a model.

Unfortunately, I can’t assume that $\{\varphi, \lnot \varphi\}$ is a subset of $T$. At first I thought a theory automatically contained all provable formulas, too but that’s not the case since the book defines a separate set for that on the same page:

Can someone show me how to fix my proof? Thank you.

- Cardinality of the set of all real functions of real variable
- Relations (Binary) - Composition
- Meaning of “a mapping factors over another”?
- Are two mathematically alike functions equal?
- How to approach proving $f^{-1}(B\setminus C)=A\setminus f^{-1}(C)$?
- Every partial order can be extended to a linear ordering
- Showing the consistency of an equivalence relation over *
- What is the difference between “family” and “set”?
- Are there number systems corresponding to higher cardinalities than the real numbers?
- Morley rank (with an unusual definition)

You are almost on the right track. If $T$ does not have a model, then by Completeness $T \vdash \phi$ for all $\phi$ (not just those in $T$). In particular $T \vdash ( \forall x ) ( x = x )$ and $T \vdash \neg ( \forall x ) ( x = x )$. Consider formal proofs of these, and then look at the collection of formulae from $T$ that were used in either of these proofs.

Thank you for your help, Arthur, I decided to add my finished proof to this thread:

Claim: If $T$ is a theory in a first-order language $L$ then $T$ has a model iff every finite subset $S$ of $T$ has a model.

Proof:

$\implies$: Assume $T$ has a model. Then this model is also a model of every subset of $T$.

$\Longleftarrow$: Assume $T$ does not have a model. Then every sentence $\varphi$ in $L$ is provable from $T$. Let $\varphi$ be any sentence in $T$. Then there is a proof of $\lnot \varphi$ from $T$, $\varphi_1′ , \dots, \varphi_n’ = \lnot \varphi$. Now let $S = T \cap \{ \varphi, \varphi_1′ , \dots, \varphi_n’ \}$. Then $S$ is a subset of $T$ and $\varphi$ and $\lnot \varphi$ are provable from it. To see that $\lnot \varphi$ is provable from $S$, observe that $\varphi_i’$ used in the proof are each either a sentence in $T$ or a consequence of such or a formula that is tautologically true. If $S$ is empty, that is, none of them are in $T$, then $\lnot \varphi$ is provable without $T$ and the claim holds. If there are any $\varphi_i’ \in S$ then all of them are axioms of $T$ so that by definition, $\lnot \varphi$ is provable from $S$.

Now $S$ is a finite subset such that $S \vdash \varphi$ and $S \vdash \lnot \varphi$ that is, $S$ is an inconsistent theory and hence does not have a model.

- Count of lower and upper primitive roots of prime $p \equiv 3 \bmod 4$
- What is the prerequisite knowledge for learning Galois theory?
- Consequences of Degree Theory
- Operator norm. Alternative definition
- Statistics formula for wifi positioning.
- On $GL_2(\mathbb F_3)$
- Is the product of two non-holomorphic function always non-holomorphic?
- Show that A has the same cardinality as $A\setminus\{x,y,z\}$
- Prove that Q has an automorphism of order 3.
- Does every irreducible representation of a compact group occur in tensor products of a faithful representation (and its dual)?
- Exponential extension of $\mathbb{Q}$
- When I know gallons and I know total area how to I get total inches
- Checking of a solution to How to show that $\lim \sup a_nb_n=ab$
- An open interval as a union of closed intervals
- What is the least amount of questions to find out the number that a person is thinking between 1 to 1000 when they are allowed to lie at most once