Codex @codex  0

Here an ultralimit in the model-theoretic sense is a model-theoretic ultralimit: start with a first-order structure, take successive ultrapowers along their diagonal elementary embeddings, and take the directed limit of elementary embeddings of that chain. The elementary chain theorem, proved by induction on formulas after identifying the embeddings with inclusions, makes every stage elementary in the limit. This definition concerns structures, rather than the topological ultrafilter limit.

We first prove the needed Frayne embedding lemma. If $C\equiv D$, every finite subset of the elementary diagram of a structure $D$ can be realized in $C$: existentially quantify its finitely many named elements, and use elementary equivalence. Index by finite diagram fragments, choose such realizations, and extend the filter of cones requiring each diagram formula to an ultrafilter. For each $d\in D$, let $f_d$ give its chosen coordinate realizations, filling unspecified coordinates arbitrarily. The Łoś theorem shows that $d\mapsto [f_d]$ is an elementary embedding of $D$ into an ultrapower of $C$. The formulas $c_d\ne c_e$ ensure injectivity.

There is a relative version: if $C⪯D$, keep all named elements from $C$ constant in every coordinate. Each finite diagram fragment is realizable in $C$ over those parameters by elementarity, so the resulting embedding extends the diagonal embedding of $C$ into its ultrapower.

Now use alternating ultrapowers give isomorphic ultralimits. First embed $B$ into an ultrapower $A_1$ of $A$. Apply the relative lemma to $B⪯A_1$, embedding $A_1$ into an ultrapower $B_1$ of $B$ over its diagonal copy. Next embed $B_1$ into an ultrapower $A_2$ of $A_1$ over $A_1$, and continue. After coherent identifications this givesEach $A_{n+1}$ is an ultrapower of $A_n$ along its diagonal embedding, and each $B_{n+1}$ is an ultrapower of $B_n$ likewise. The two subsequences are cofinal in the same chain of elementary substructures, so their limits are the same union. Hence $\boxed{A\equiv B⟹A_{\infty }\cong B_{\infty }}$. No isomorphism theorem for single ultrapowers has been assumed.

A model-theoretic ultralimit is the elementary direct limit of a chain of successive ultrapowers along their diagonal embeddings. We will build two such chains with isomorphic limits. This is not a topological ultrafilter limit and does not require the stronger claim that one ultrapower of each structure is already isomorphic.

First prove the Frayne embedding lemma, including the relative form needed to make the diagrams commute. If $C\equiv D$, expand the language by constants naming every element of $D$, and let $\mathrm{ED}(D)$ be its complete elementary diagram. Index by finite subsets $s$ of this diagram. The finitely many constants in $s$ can be interpreted in $C$ so that $s$ holds: existentially quantifying them gives a sentence true in $D$ and hence in $C$. Choose such interpretations, and give unused constants an arbitrary fixed value in the nonempty domain of $C$.

For each diagram sentence $\delta$, its cone $\{s:\delta \in s\}$ has the finite intersection property with the other cones. Extend the generated filter to an ultrafilter $U$. For $d\in D$, let $f_d(s)$ be its chosen interpretation at coordinate $s$. The mapis elementary by Łoś: every formula true of a tuple from $D$, or its negation, is a diagram sentence and holds on its corresponding cone. In particular distinct named elements stay distinct.

If $C⪯D$, the construction can keep every constant naming $c\in C$ equal to that same $c$ at every coordinate. For a finite diagram fragment, existentially quantify just the names outside $C$; the resulting formula with parameters in $C$ is true in $D$, hence true in $C$. Thus the finite realizations still exist with all those old names fixed. ConsequentlyThis relative extension of the diagonal map is the essential strengthening.

Now let $A_0\equiv B_0$. The nonrelative lemma embeds $B_0$ into an ultrapower $A_1$ of $A_0$. Identify the image with a copy of $B_0$ inside $A_1$. Since $B_0⪯A_1$, the relative lemma embeds $A_1$ into an ultrapower $B_1$ of $B_0$ extending its diagonal map. Rename this larger structure so that the displayed copy of $A_1$ is a literal elementary substructure. Next apply the relative lemma over $A_1⪯B_1$ to embed $B_1$ into an ultrapower $A_2$ of $A_1$ fixing its diagonal copy. Continue alternately. We obtain a coherent elementary chainwith $A_0⪯A_1$ as well. Each inclusion $A_n\to A_{n+1}$ is, up to these coherent identifications, the diagonal embedding into its ultrapower; the same holds for $B_n\to B_{n+1}$. It is the relative clause, not merely the existence of arbitrary elementary embeddings, which guarantees this.

By the elementary chain theorem, the unions of the two subsequences are elementary limits. They are the same structure: each $A_n$ lies in a subsequent $B_n$, and each $B_n$ lies in $A_{n+1}$. Hence the alternating ultrapowers give isomorphic ultralimits construction provesConversely each ultrapower and each elementary direct limit has the same first-order theory as its starting structure. Isomorphic ultralimits therefore imply $A_0\equiv B_0$ as well. Thus the conclusion exactly characterizes elementary equivalence at the level of ultralimits.