Intereting Posts

Trace of a bilinear form?
A diffeomorphism which maps geodesics to geodesics preserves the connection?
Probability of two people meeting in a given square grid.
Is every function with the intermediate value property a derivative?
The coupon collectors problem
Verification of convolution between gaussian and uniform distributions
complex zeros of the polynomials $\sum_{k=0}^{n} z^k/k!$ inside balls
Integral with logarithm – residue
Conformal mapping of a doubly connected domain onto an annulus
Relationship between the cardinality of a group and the cardinality of the collection of subgroups
Cancellative Abelian Monoids
Monotonic Function Optimization on Convex Constraint Region
Convergence/Divergence of $\int_{0}^{1/e} \frac{\log \left(\frac{1}{x}\right)}{(\log^2 (x)-1)^{3/2}} \mathrm{dx}$
How to prove: $\sum_{k=m+1}^{n} (-1)^{k} \binom{n}{k}\binom{k-1}{m}= (-1)^{m+1}$
Lipschitz $\implies |f'(x)|\le d$

Asaf’s answer here reminded me of something that should have been bothering me ever since I learned about it, but which I had more or less forgotten about. In first-order logic, there is a convention to only work with non-empty models of a theory $T$. The reason usually given is that the sentences $(\forall x)(x = x)$ and $(\forall x)(x \neq x)$ both hold in the “empty model” of $T$, so if we want the set of sentences satisfied by a model to be consistent, we need to disallow the empty model.

This smells fishy to me. I can’t imagine that a sufficiently categorical setup of first-order logic (in terms of functors $C_T \to \text{Set}$ preserving some structure, where $C_T$ is the “free model of $T$” in an appropriate sense) would have this defect, or if it did it would have it for a reason. So something is incomplete about the standard setup of first-order logic, but I don’t know what it could be.

The above looks like an example of too simple to be simple, except that I can’t explain it to myself in the same way that I can explain other examples.

- The smallest subobject $\sum{A_i}$ containing a family of subobjects {$A_i$}
- Does this “extension property” for polynomial rings satisfy a universal property?
- A categorical first isomorphism theorem
- Which directed graphs correspond to “algebraic” diagrams?
- Cogroup structures on the profinite completion of the integers
- Is there a computer program that does diagram chases?

- Bases of complex vector spaces and the axiom of choice
- Examples of a monad in a monoid (i.e. category with one object)?
- Does Chaitin's constant have infinitely many prime prefixes?
- What are the prerequisites for studying mathematical logic?
- Are proofs by induction inferior to other proofs?
- Ideas about Proofs
- Motivation for different mathematics foundations
- Adjoint functors as “conceptual inverses”
- Proof by contradiction vs Prove the contrapositive
- Why Peirce's law implies law of excluded middle?

Both $(\forall x)(x = x)$ and $(\forall x)(x \not = x)$ do hold in the empty model, and it’s perfectly consistent. What we lose when we move to empty models, as Qiaochu Yuan points out, are certain inference rules that we’re used to.

For first-order languages that include equality, the set $S$ of statements that are true all models (empty or not) is a proper subset of the set $S_N$ of statements that are true in all nonempty models. Because the vast majority of models we are interested in are nonempty, in logic we typically look at sets of inference rules that generate $S_N$ rather than rules that generate $S$.

One particular example where this is useful is the algorithm to put a formula into prenex normal form, which is only correct when we limit to nonempty models. For example, the formula $(\forall x)(x \not = x) \land \bot$ is false in every model, but its prenex normal form $(\forall x)(x \not = x \land \bot)$ is true in the empty model. The marginal benefit of considering the empty model doesn’t outweigh the loss of the beautiful algorithm for prenex normal form that works for every other model. In the rare cases when we do need to consider empty models, we realize we have to work with alternative inference rules; it just isn’t usually worth the trouble.

From a different point of view, only considering nonempty models is analogous to only considering Hausdorff manifolds. But with the empty model there is only one object being ignored, which we can always treat as a special case if we need to think about it.

Isn’t this a non-issue?

Many of the most common set-ups for the logical axioms were developed long ago, in a time when mathematicians (not just logicians) thought that they wanted to care only about non-empty structures, and so they made sure that $\exists x\, x=x$ was derivable in their logical system. They had to do this in order to have the completeness theorem, that every statement true in every intended model was derivable. And so those systems continue to have that property today.

Meanwhile, many mathematicians developed a fancy to consider the empty structure seriously. So logicians developed logical systems that handle this, in which $\exists x\, x=x$ is not derivable. For example, this is always how I teach first order logic, and it is no problem at all. But as you point out in your answer, one does need to use a different logical set-up.

So if you care about it, then be sure to use the right logical axioms, since definitely you will not want to give up on the completeness theorem.

(This is just a minor addition to the other excellent answers.)

There are categorical foundations for model theory: Makkai and Reyes, *First order categorical logic* (LNM 611). Here is a quote from page 72:

An important point is that we allow the (partial) domains $M(s)$ of $M$ to be empty. In model theory, usually the domains are stipulated to be non-empty. This difference slightly effects what sequents are considered logically valid; c.f. below.

Okay, if this is the answer, it is quite silly. The axioms of first-order logic in my notes include

$$(\forall x) p \Rightarrow p[t/x]$$

which is manifestly false for the empty model and $p = \perp$ so should just be thrown out and replaced by the *correct* axiom

$$(\forall x) p \wedge (\exists x) \Rightarrow p[t/x].$$

Nothing changes except for the empty set, where the statement $(\forall x) \perp$ is true but $\perp$ is not, so there is no contradiction.

Much ado about nothing!

Suppose that we admit empty structures. There is no real technical hurdle, we are endlessly ingenious.

However, instead of starting with “Let $\mathbb{A}$ be an $L$-structure,” many theorems would have to start with “Let $\mathbb{A}$ be a **non-empty** $L$-structure.”

Think of the cumulative waste of resources, whole forests destroyed to produce the additional paper needed. And in this electronic age, are bits a renewable resource?

But one must admit there would also be benefits. There could be a new mathematical specialty, nit-picker, whose task would be to point out with glee the various places where a famous mathematician had blundered by forgetting to deal with empty structures. At a time of economic difficulty, this would boost employment, and contribute to the gross national product.

Since nobody else has mentioned the phrase, I think what you are looking for is called free logic by those who adopt the convention about what “first-order logic” means that would imply all models are nonempty.

We can construct a $C_T$ that is defective in the same way; we include a bunch of arrows $1 \to T$ to represent indeterminate elements of $T$. Then any lex functor $C_T \to \mathbf{Set}$ must send $T$ to a non-empty set.

Of course, the usual categorical approach of interpreting free variables as generalized elements doesn’t have this defect.

- How to compute $\sum^n_{k=0}(-1)^k\binom{n}{k}k^n$
- Itzykson-Zuber integral over orthogonal groups
- A map without fixed points – two wrong approaches
- Proof of “the continuous image of a connected set is connected”
- Closed-from for the series: $\sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{(k!)!}$
- How can the observed strategies* in this actual auction be explained?
- Proof: For all integers $x$ and $y$, if $x^3+x = y^3+y$ then $x = y$
- isomorphisms induced on $H_*$
- Recalling result of tensor product of polynomial rings
- An element of $f$ of a function field such that $P$ is the only pole of $f$.
- Prove that $\prod_{n=2}^∞ \left( 1 – \frac{1}{n^4} \right) = \frac{e^π – e^{-π}}{8π}$
- Books for starting with analysis
- Prove that $C = f^{-1}(f(C)) \iff f$ is injective and $f(f^{-1}(D)) = D \iff f$ is surjective
- Is the number of prime ideals of a zero-dimensional ring stable under base change?
- A very general method for solving inequalities repaired