## Tuesday, October 04, 2016

### A Second Order Statement true in (R,+) but not (Q,+)

In my last post I asked

Is there a first order statement true in (R,+) but false in (Q,+)

Is there a second order statement true in (R,+) but false in (Q,+)

First order: No.

One reader said it followed from the Lowenheim-Skolem Theorem. I can believe this but don't see how.

One reader said the theory of (Q,+) is complete. True, but would like a reference.

I would prove it by a Duplicator-Spoiler argument.

Second order: Yes

Some readers thought I had < in my language. I do not so I think that examples using < do not work- unless there is someway to express < in my language.

Some readers thought that second order meant you could quantify over functions. My intent was just to be able to quantify over sets.

Some had the right answers. The one I had in mind was

There exists A,B such that A,B are subgroups with at least two elements that only intersect at 0.

Here is a writeup.

#### 10 comments:

1. The first order equivalence of (Q, +) and (R, +) follows from the Lowenheim-Skolem theorem for the following reason: (Q, +) and (R, +) are both torsion-free divisible abelian groups-- i.e. essentially vector spaces over Q. Thus when you use Lowenheim Skolem to blow (Q, +) up to a model of cardinality |R|, it will be a vector space over Q of the same dimension as (R, +).

2. Clever! I didn't think of using subgroups at all...

3. I think you can define < in second-order (R,+). Sort of. The idea is to consider the second order predicate Pos(X) = X is closed under + and 0 \not\in X and forall x \not= 0, exactly one of x and (-x) are in X. Note here that the maximality condition in the definition of Pos implies that it is closed under multiplication with positive rationals.

Clearly this predicate is true of R^+, but it is also true of other subsets of R too. We can understand their structure. Let B be a basis for R over Q. The elements of B come with "natural" positive or negative assignments, but any predicate X satisfying Pos imposes its own assignment of positive or negative to the basis elements, and moreover, any assignment of positive or negative to the basis elements uniquely determines a set X that satisfies Pos(X).

We can now convert any closed formula \phi in second-order (R,+,<) to an equivalent formula in (R,+) via

forall (X : R -> Prop) (< : R -> R -> Prop), Pos(X) and (x < y iff exists z \in Pos, x+z = y), \phi.

Rod Downey and I had a paper on recursive ordered groups that relied being able to play this sort of game with the order relation, although it wasn't at all framed in this language.

Thoughts?

1. A thought: Isn't it the case that a formula F(x_1,..,x_n) is true in (R,+) iff F(-x_1,..,-x_n) is true in (R,+)? And that holds for first and second order. But then there can be no F(x,y) which is true iff x is less than y (iff -x is greater than -y).

4. 5. Regarding the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem solution: by the LS theorem, there exists a structure (M, +) of cardinality continuum that is elementary equivalent to (Q, +). Note that (M, +) and (R, +) are linear spaces. Since |M| = |R|, (M, +) and (R, +) are isomorphic as linear spaces over Q; thus, (M, +) and (R, +) are isomorphic structures. By transitivity, (Q, +) and (R, +) are elementary equivalent.

6. "...Some readers thought that second order meant you could quantify over functions. My intent was just to be able to quantify over sets..." ---> I suspected it, but in this case there is the *widely* used "monadic second order logic" ( only quantification over unary relations :-)

1. ... I mean it's more appropriate to use the term "monadic second order" (instead of "second order") in the note to define your problem

7. In the argument using the Lowenheim-Skolem theorem one probably needs more care to argue that the blown up structure (M,+) is indeed elementary equivalent to (R,+). As vector spaces over Q they are not elementary equivalent as (Q,+) is of dimension 1 and (R,+) of infinite dimension.

8. To the last anonymous: the point is that when you blow up (Q, +) to have cardinality |R| it will still be a vector space over Q (because it will still be a torsion-free divisible abelian group) and so it is *isomorphic* to (R, +) and elementary equivalent to (Q, +) because it was chosen as such (using the Lowenheim-Skolem theorem). Of course, as vector spaces Q and R are not isomorphic, but nobody claimed they were.