Reduct of a first-order structure












3












$begingroup$


I am trying to understand the notion of reduct in model theory. I found the following definition in Hodges's model theory book.



Definition. Let $mathcal{L}$ be a first-order language and $mathcal{L}'subseteq mathcal{L}$. Let $mathcal{M}=(M,dots)$ be an $mathcal{L}$-structure. A structure $mathcal{N}=(M,dots)$ is called a reduct of $mathcal{M}$ if $mathcal{N}=mathcal{M}|_{mathcal{L}'}$.



This definition is clear for me. We just restrict $mathcal{M}$ to $mathcal{L}'$ and we get a reduct. But if you google reduct you will find several papers in which there are some difference between their definition of reduct. For example in one of them I found the following definition.



Definition. Let $mathcal{M}=(M,dots)$ be an $mathcal{L}$-structure where $mathcal{L}$ is a relational language. An $mathcal{L}'$-structure $mathcal{N}=(M,dots)$ is called a reduct of $mathcal{M}$ if every relation in $mathcal{L}'$ is 0-definable in $mathcal{L}$.



Could you explain why these definitions are the same?






logic first-order-logic model-theory







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Why do you believe the definition of "reduct" will be identical in similar (but very slightly different) settings?
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Towers
    Dec 28 '18 at 2:31
















3












$begingroup$


I am trying to understand the notion of reduct in model theory. I found the following definition in Hodges's model theory book.



Definition. Let $mathcal{L}$ be a first-order language and $mathcal{L}'subseteq mathcal{L}$. Let $mathcal{M}=(M,dots)$ be an $mathcal{L}$-structure. A structure $mathcal{N}=(M,dots)$ is called a reduct of $mathcal{M}$ if $mathcal{N}=mathcal{M}|_{mathcal{L}'}$.



This definition is clear for me. We just restrict $mathcal{M}$ to $mathcal{L}'$ and we get a reduct. But if you google reduct you will find several papers in which there are some difference between their definition of reduct. For example in one of them I found the following definition.



Definition. Let $mathcal{M}=(M,dots)$ be an $mathcal{L}$-structure where $mathcal{L}$ is a relational language. An $mathcal{L}'$-structure $mathcal{N}=(M,dots)$ is called a reduct of $mathcal{M}$ if every relation in $mathcal{L}'$ is 0-definable in $mathcal{L}$.



Could you explain why these definitions are the same?






logic first-order-logic model-theory







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Why do you believe the definition of "reduct" will be identical in similar (but very slightly different) settings?
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Towers
    Dec 28 '18 at 2:31














3












3








3





$begingroup$


I am trying to understand the notion of reduct in model theory. I found the following definition in Hodges's model theory book.



Definition. Let $mathcal{L}$ be a first-order language and $mathcal{L}'subseteq mathcal{L}$. Let $mathcal{M}=(M,dots)$ be an $mathcal{L}$-structure. A structure $mathcal{N}=(M,dots)$ is called a reduct of $mathcal{M}$ if $mathcal{N}=mathcal{M}|_{mathcal{L}'}$.



This definition is clear for me. We just restrict $mathcal{M}$ to $mathcal{L}'$ and we get a reduct. But if you google reduct you will find several papers in which there are some difference between their definition of reduct. For example in one of them I found the following definition.



Definition. Let $mathcal{M}=(M,dots)$ be an $mathcal{L}$-structure where $mathcal{L}$ is a relational language. An $mathcal{L}'$-structure $mathcal{N}=(M,dots)$ is called a reduct of $mathcal{M}$ if every relation in $mathcal{L}'$ is 0-definable in $mathcal{L}$.



Could you explain why these definitions are the same?






logic first-order-logic model-theory







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




I am trying to understand the notion of reduct in model theory. I found the following definition in Hodges's model theory book.



Definition. Let $mathcal{L}$ be a first-order language and $mathcal{L}'subseteq mathcal{L}$. Let $mathcal{M}=(M,dots)$ be an $mathcal{L}$-structure. A structure $mathcal{N}=(M,dots)$ is called a reduct of $mathcal{M}$ if $mathcal{N}=mathcal{M}|_{mathcal{L}'}$.



This definition is clear for me. We just restrict $mathcal{M}$ to $mathcal{L}'$ and we get a reduct. But if you google reduct you will find several papers in which there are some difference between their definition of reduct. For example in one of them I found the following definition.



Definition. Let $mathcal{M}=(M,dots)$ be an $mathcal{L}$-structure where $mathcal{L}$ is a relational language. An $mathcal{L}'$-structure $mathcal{N}=(M,dots)$ is called a reduct of $mathcal{M}$ if every relation in $mathcal{L}'$ is 0-definable in $mathcal{L}$.



Could you explain why these definitions are the same?






logic first-order-logic model-theory




logic first-order-logic model-theory






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Dec 28 '18 at 2:22









Alice.HAlice.H

1067




1067








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Why do you believe the definition of "reduct" will be identical in similar (but very slightly different) settings?
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Towers
    Dec 28 '18 at 2:31














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Why do you believe the definition of "reduct" will be identical in similar (but very slightly different) settings?
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Towers
    Dec 28 '18 at 2:31








1




1




$begingroup$
Why do you believe the definition of "reduct" will be identical in similar (but very slightly different) settings?
$endgroup$
– Eric Towers
Dec 28 '18 at 2:31




$begingroup$
Why do you believe the definition of "reduct" will be identical in similar (but very slightly different) settings?
$endgroup$
– Eric Towers
Dec 28 '18 at 2:31










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















6












$begingroup$

This is a bit of terminology I've always found annoying myself. The two definitions of "reduct" are not the same, although they are closely related. To distinguish them, I'll refer to the first as "reduct$_1$" and the second as "reduct$_2$."



The relation between them is this:




$mathcal{M}$ is a reduct$_2$ of $mathcal{N}$ iff $mathcal{M}$ is a reduct$_1$ of some (parameter-free) definitional expansion of $mathcal{N}$.




That is, to get a reduct$_2$, we take the starting structure, possibly add some additional relations/functions/constants, but only in a $(emptyset-)$definable way, and then remove some of the symbols. Every reduct$_1$ is a reduct$_2$, but the converse fails quite badly: e.g. $(mathbb{N}, <)$ is a reduct$_2$, but not a reduct$_1$, of $(mathbb{N},+)$.



The motivation for the terminology overload is that from a model-theoretic perspective, there is little difference between the "primitive" relations/functions/constants and the definable relations/functions/constants. For example, taking definitional expansions preserves: decidability, saturation, homogeneity, minimality and its various cousins, stability, ... So much of the time in model theory we lose nothing by conflating a given structure with its "full definitional expansion" (add all the $emptyset-$definable relations/functions/constants), and then the two notions of "reduct" essentially coincide.



But that said, it is still an overload of terminology and can definitely lead to confusion if one is not careful. That's unfortunate, but that's the situation.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for your comprehensive answer Noah! So if consider $mathcal{M}^*= (M, f_1, dots, R_1, dots, c_1,dots)$ which is the full expansion of $mathcal{M}$ obtained by adding all $emptyset$-definable functions/relations/constants, then the notion of reduct$_1$ and reduct$_2$ coincide. Right?
    $endgroup$
    – Alice.H
    Dec 28 '18 at 17:03













Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3054523%2freduct-of-a-first-order-structure%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









6












$begingroup$

This is a bit of terminology I've always found annoying myself. The two definitions of "reduct" are not the same, although they are closely related. To distinguish them, I'll refer to the first as "reduct$_1$" and the second as "reduct$_2$."



The relation between them is this:




$mathcal{M}$ is a reduct$_2$ of $mathcal{N}$ iff $mathcal{M}$ is a reduct$_1$ of some (parameter-free) definitional expansion of $mathcal{N}$.




That is, to get a reduct$_2$, we take the starting structure, possibly add some additional relations/functions/constants, but only in a $(emptyset-)$definable way, and then remove some of the symbols. Every reduct$_1$ is a reduct$_2$, but the converse fails quite badly: e.g. $(mathbb{N}, <)$ is a reduct$_2$, but not a reduct$_1$, of $(mathbb{N},+)$.



The motivation for the terminology overload is that from a model-theoretic perspective, there is little difference between the "primitive" relations/functions/constants and the definable relations/functions/constants. For example, taking definitional expansions preserves: decidability, saturation, homogeneity, minimality and its various cousins, stability, ... So much of the time in model theory we lose nothing by conflating a given structure with its "full definitional expansion" (add all the $emptyset-$definable relations/functions/constants), and then the two notions of "reduct" essentially coincide.



But that said, it is still an overload of terminology and can definitely lead to confusion if one is not careful. That's unfortunate, but that's the situation.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for your comprehensive answer Noah! So if consider $mathcal{M}^*= (M, f_1, dots, R_1, dots, c_1,dots)$ which is the full expansion of $mathcal{M}$ obtained by adding all $emptyset$-definable functions/relations/constants, then the notion of reduct$_1$ and reduct$_2$ coincide. Right?
    $endgroup$
    – Alice.H
    Dec 28 '18 at 17:03


















6












$begingroup$

This is a bit of terminology I've always found annoying myself. The two definitions of "reduct" are not the same, although they are closely related. To distinguish them, I'll refer to the first as "reduct$_1$" and the second as "reduct$_2$."



The relation between them is this:




$mathcal{M}$ is a reduct$_2$ of $mathcal{N}$ iff $mathcal{M}$ is a reduct$_1$ of some (parameter-free) definitional expansion of $mathcal{N}$.




That is, to get a reduct$_2$, we take the starting structure, possibly add some additional relations/functions/constants, but only in a $(emptyset-)$definable way, and then remove some of the symbols. Every reduct$_1$ is a reduct$_2$, but the converse fails quite badly: e.g. $(mathbb{N}, <)$ is a reduct$_2$, but not a reduct$_1$, of $(mathbb{N},+)$.



The motivation for the terminology overload is that from a model-theoretic perspective, there is little difference between the "primitive" relations/functions/constants and the definable relations/functions/constants. For example, taking definitional expansions preserves: decidability, saturation, homogeneity, minimality and its various cousins, stability, ... So much of the time in model theory we lose nothing by conflating a given structure with its "full definitional expansion" (add all the $emptyset-$definable relations/functions/constants), and then the two notions of "reduct" essentially coincide.



But that said, it is still an overload of terminology and can definitely lead to confusion if one is not careful. That's unfortunate, but that's the situation.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for your comprehensive answer Noah! So if consider $mathcal{M}^*= (M, f_1, dots, R_1, dots, c_1,dots)$ which is the full expansion of $mathcal{M}$ obtained by adding all $emptyset$-definable functions/relations/constants, then the notion of reduct$_1$ and reduct$_2$ coincide. Right?
    $endgroup$
    – Alice.H
    Dec 28 '18 at 17:03
















6












6








6





$begingroup$

This is a bit of terminology I've always found annoying myself. The two definitions of "reduct" are not the same, although they are closely related. To distinguish them, I'll refer to the first as "reduct$_1$" and the second as "reduct$_2$."



The relation between them is this:




$mathcal{M}$ is a reduct$_2$ of $mathcal{N}$ iff $mathcal{M}$ is a reduct$_1$ of some (parameter-free) definitional expansion of $mathcal{N}$.




That is, to get a reduct$_2$, we take the starting structure, possibly add some additional relations/functions/constants, but only in a $(emptyset-)$definable way, and then remove some of the symbols. Every reduct$_1$ is a reduct$_2$, but the converse fails quite badly: e.g. $(mathbb{N}, <)$ is a reduct$_2$, but not a reduct$_1$, of $(mathbb{N},+)$.



The motivation for the terminology overload is that from a model-theoretic perspective, there is little difference between the "primitive" relations/functions/constants and the definable relations/functions/constants. For example, taking definitional expansions preserves: decidability, saturation, homogeneity, minimality and its various cousins, stability, ... So much of the time in model theory we lose nothing by conflating a given structure with its "full definitional expansion" (add all the $emptyset-$definable relations/functions/constants), and then the two notions of "reduct" essentially coincide.



But that said, it is still an overload of terminology and can definitely lead to confusion if one is not careful. That's unfortunate, but that's the situation.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



This is a bit of terminology I've always found annoying myself. The two definitions of "reduct" are not the same, although they are closely related. To distinguish them, I'll refer to the first as "reduct$_1$" and the second as "reduct$_2$."



The relation between them is this:




$mathcal{M}$ is a reduct$_2$ of $mathcal{N}$ iff $mathcal{M}$ is a reduct$_1$ of some (parameter-free) definitional expansion of $mathcal{N}$.




That is, to get a reduct$_2$, we take the starting structure, possibly add some additional relations/functions/constants, but only in a $(emptyset-)$definable way, and then remove some of the symbols. Every reduct$_1$ is a reduct$_2$, but the converse fails quite badly: e.g. $(mathbb{N}, <)$ is a reduct$_2$, but not a reduct$_1$, of $(mathbb{N},+)$.



The motivation for the terminology overload is that from a model-theoretic perspective, there is little difference between the "primitive" relations/functions/constants and the definable relations/functions/constants. For example, taking definitional expansions preserves: decidability, saturation, homogeneity, minimality and its various cousins, stability, ... So much of the time in model theory we lose nothing by conflating a given structure with its "full definitional expansion" (add all the $emptyset-$definable relations/functions/constants), and then the two notions of "reduct" essentially coincide.



But that said, it is still an overload of terminology and can definitely lead to confusion if one is not careful. That's unfortunate, but that's the situation.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Dec 28 '18 at 3:38









Noah SchweberNoah Schweber

125k10150288




125k10150288












  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for your comprehensive answer Noah! So if consider $mathcal{M}^*= (M, f_1, dots, R_1, dots, c_1,dots)$ which is the full expansion of $mathcal{M}$ obtained by adding all $emptyset$-definable functions/relations/constants, then the notion of reduct$_1$ and reduct$_2$ coincide. Right?
    $endgroup$
    – Alice.H
    Dec 28 '18 at 17:03




















  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for your comprehensive answer Noah! So if consider $mathcal{M}^*= (M, f_1, dots, R_1, dots, c_1,dots)$ which is the full expansion of $mathcal{M}$ obtained by adding all $emptyset$-definable functions/relations/constants, then the notion of reduct$_1$ and reduct$_2$ coincide. Right?
    $endgroup$
    – Alice.H
    Dec 28 '18 at 17:03


















$begingroup$
Thank you for your comprehensive answer Noah! So if consider $mathcal{M}^*= (M, f_1, dots, R_1, dots, c_1,dots)$ which is the full expansion of $mathcal{M}$ obtained by adding all $emptyset$-definable functions/relations/constants, then the notion of reduct$_1$ and reduct$_2$ coincide. Right?
$endgroup$
– Alice.H
Dec 28 '18 at 17:03






$begingroup$
Thank you for your comprehensive answer Noah! So if consider $mathcal{M}^*= (M, f_1, dots, R_1, dots, c_1,dots)$ which is the full expansion of $mathcal{M}$ obtained by adding all $emptyset$-definable functions/relations/constants, then the notion of reduct$_1$ and reduct$_2$ coincide. Right?
$endgroup$
– Alice.H
Dec 28 '18 at 17:03




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3054523%2freduct-of-a-first-order-structure%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

Ellipse (mathématiques)

Image
Pour les articles homonymes, voir Ellipse. L'ellipse est le lieu des points dont la somme des distances à deux points fixes, dits foyers, est constante. Section du cône ou projection du cercle. En géométrie, une ellipse est une courbe plane fermée obtenue par l’intersection d’un cône de révolution avec un plan, à condition que celui-ci coupe l'axe de rotation du cône ou du cylindre : c'est une conique d'excentricité strictement comprise entre 0 et 1. On peut également la définir comme le lieu des points dont la somme des distances à deux points fixes, dits foyers, est constante (sa construction par la méthode du jardinier est très simple). Dans la vie courante, l’ellipse est la forme qu'on perçoit en regardant un cercle en perspective, ou la figure formée par l’ombre d'un disque sur une surface plane. On retrouve aussi, en première approximation [ 1 ] , des ellipses dans les trajectoires des corps célestes (planètes, comètes ou satellites arti...
Read more

Quarter-circle Tiles

Image
up vote 0 down vote favorite I have $99$ identical square tiles, each with a quarter-circle drawn on it like this: [asy] size(1.5cm); draw(Arc((2,0),1,90,180),red+1); draw((0,0)--(2,0)--(2,2)--(0,2)--(0,0)); [/asy] When I arrange the tiles in a $9times 11$ rectangular grid, each with a random orientation, what is the expected value of the number of full circles I form? I think this problem has to do with finding the chance any given 2x2 square has a circle, but I can't find it. expected-value share | cite | improve this question asked Nov 20 at 15:03 6minecraftninja 1 2 ...
Read more

Mont Emei

Image
Mont Emei.mw-parser-output .entete.map{background-image:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Picto_infobox_map.png")} Vue du sommet Wanfo du mont Emei Géographie Altitude 3 099  m , Wanfo Coordonnées 29° 31′ 11″ nord, 103° 19′ 57″ est Administration Pays   Chine Province Sichuan Ville-préfecture Leshan Géolocalisation sur la carte : Sichuan Mont Emei Géolocalisation sur la carte : Chine Mont Emei modifier   Paysage panoramique du mont Emei, incluant le paysage panoramique du grand Bouddha de Leshan *   Patrimoine mondial de l'UNESCO Passerelle en bois sur le versant ouest Pays   Chine Subdivision Sichuan Type Mixte Critères (iv) (vi) (x) Superficie 15 400 ha Numéro d’identification 779 Zone géographique Asie et Pacifique  ** Année d’inscription 1996 (20 e session) * Descriptif officiel UNESCO ** Classification géog...
Read more