Talk:Type (model theory)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Example of a type
The example about 
confuses me. I have corrected the obvious problem: If 
(say, in reals) then for y smaller than 
it is not true that 
(there is nothing about considering just positive reals in the article).
The definition of type that I know requests that if φ(x) and ψ(x) belong to the type in a certain model, then also 
holds in the model (that is, 
is consistent with the model). Thus, if the example statements about 
are meant as a type in model of rationals then we would need examples of two conditions that are also met by some rational number. Or maybe what is meant by the example is a type in the theory of arithmetics, because being consistent with a model of a theory and being consistent with a theory are differnt things?
I am not an expert on this, so a second opinion would be helpful.82.208.2.227 15:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Two replies to the above. 1. As regards the example, it now reads 
. 2. In general a (partial) type is not required to be a filter. Any (partial) type has however its set of concequences which is a filter of the set of formulae. I prefer to use (partial) types this way, it is not however totally standard. Something else: The word type is often used to mean complete type, and partial type is used for the general notion. Unfortunately there is not widespread agreement on this, different papers have a different convention. In my experience, the latter view of types being complete is more widespread, as in many areas one need only consider complete types. Comments? Thehalfone 10:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
1. Yes, I have corrected the example and noted it on the discussion page because I felt that a little explanation is in order. Sorry, if it confused anyone. I still think that the definitions could be cleared up a bit (preferably by an expert). 2. The lecture on logic that we have had (at Charles University, Prague) used the opposite convention. 82.208.2.227 20:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
