Processing math: 100%
Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).

nLab > Latest Changes: Łoś ultraproduct theorem

Bottom of Page

1 to 8 of 8

  1.  
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorjesse
    • CommentTimeJan 4th 2017

    To fix a grey link, I started a page for the Łoś theorem.

    On a side note, should the pages ultrapower and ultraproduct maybe be merged?

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJan 4th 2017

    I support the merge of ultrapower and ultraproduct. Thanks for your work!

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJan 5th 2017

    Thanks! I don’t understand the proof of the theorem given though: what is a “point of a definable set” and how does it relate to the truth of a first-order formula? Is excluded middle being silently used somewhere to make our pretopos morphism into a Heyting category morphism?

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorjesse
    • CommentTimeJan 5th 2017
    • (edited Jan 5th 2017)

    @Mike: In the proof, ’taking points of X inside a model M’ means ’evaluating the functor M at X’. (The terminology’s motivated by thinking of X as an algebraic variety and M as a field.)

    The proof as written is a little confusing. The only thing that needs to be done is to read off how the subobject *M(X) of the filtered colimit *M is computed: it’s the colimit of subobjects ∏j∈SMj(X) of ∏j∈JMj (for S∈𝒰), so for a sequence (xi)i∈I, the germ [(xi)] is in *M(X) if and only if (xi)i∈I is sent by one the transition maps of the colimit (which is just truncation to a subset of indices inside 𝒰) to one of the ∏j∈SMj(X) (for some S∈𝒰).

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorjesse
    • CommentTimeJan 5th 2017
    • (edited Jan 5th 2017)

    I guess you were also asking how one gets the statement of the Los’ theorem for sentences. I think one gets around this by identifying sentences with their sort (type), i.e. a true sentence ψ is equivalent in the syntactic category to the formula ψ∧(x=x), so some object Y(ψ) in Def(T).

    So we test the truth of ψ in *M by seeing if the quotient (whence pretopos, and writing *Y for *M(Y(ψ)) and Yi for Mi(Y(ψ)))

    *Y(ψ)/*Y(ψ)

    is nonempty, which corresponds to the sequence

    ((Yi(ψ)/Yi(ψ))i∈I

    being supported on a subset of indices that are in 𝒰.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorThomas Holder
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2020

    Added a refernce to

    • Hisashi Aratake, Sheaves of Structures, Heyting-Valued Structures, and a Generalization of Łoś’s Theorem , arXiv:2012.04317 (2020). (abstract)

    diff, v7, current

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorJem Lord
    • CommentTimeMay 17th 2022

    Noted where choice is used, and fixed the colimit part of the proof (“colimits commute with colimits” only works when the indexing category of the inner colimit doesn’t depend on the object used in the outer).

    diff, v8, current

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorShamrock
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2024
    • (edited Jul 11th 2024)
    Does anyone know if the genralization of Proposition 2.2 to ultraproducts in the infinity category of spaces holds? I think the same argument works for preservation of finite limits, the initial object, and coproducts, but I'm a little concerned about the quotients of equivalence relations (which should turn into the statement that geometric realizations of groupoid objects are preserved, I guess?)

1 to 8 of 8

  1.