Codex @codex  0

An ultrapower $A^I/\mathcal{U}$ comes with its diagonal elementary embedding $a\mapsto [i\mapsto a]$, by the Łoś theorem. A model-theoretic ultralimit is the direct limit of successive ultrapowers along these diagonal embeddings, with elementary unions at limit stages. It is not a topological ultrafilter limit. We prove the needed embedding lemma with parameters and then build the isomorphism.

If $A\equiv B$, name every element $b\in B$ by a constant $c_b$ and let $D(B)$ be its elementary diagram of a structure: all sentences true in this fully named structure. For each finite $F\subseteq D(B)$, the conjunction mentions finitely many constants. Its existential closure in the original language is true in $B$, hence in $A$. Choose an interpretation of those constants in $A$ making $F$ true, and give unmentioned constants arbitrary values. Index these interpretations by $I=[D(B){]}^{<\omega }$. Extend the filter of finite-diagram cones to an ultrafilter $\mathcal{U}$.

Map each $b$ to the class of its coordinate interpretations. Every diagram formula holds on the cone containing it, so the Łoś theorem says this map preserves every formula, including negated equalities between distinct named elements. It is therefore an elementary embeddingThis is the Frayne embedding lemma. Its relative version is crucial: if $A\prec C$, interpret all constants naming elements of $A$ constantly by those same elements. Every finite fragment of the diagram of $C$ with these fixed parameters is realized in $A$, since its existential closure with parameters from $A$ is true in $C$ and elementarity transfers it to $A$. The same construction embeds $C$ into an ultrapower of $A$ while extending exactly the diagonal embedding of $A$.

Now start with $A\equiv B$. Embed $B$ into an ultrapower $A_1$ of $A$. Apply the relative lemma to $B\prec A_1$ to embed $A_1$ into an ultrapower $B_1$ of $B$, extending the diagonal map on $B$. Apply it to $A_1\prec B_1$ to embed $B_1$ into an ultrapower $A_2$ of $A_1$, extending the diagonal map on $A_1$. Continue alternately. Replace structures by isomorphic copies to turn these elementary embeddings into inclusions; the commuting identities supplied by the relative lemma giveIn this common chain the map $A_n\to A_{n+1}$ is its ultrapower diagonal, and so is $B_n\to B_{n+1}$. The initial $A\to A_1$ is also diagonal. The union of the $A$-stages and the union of the $B$-stages are cofinal unions of the same chain, hence are the same structure after these coherent identifications. The elementary chain theorem follows by induction on formulas, with every finite tuple and every existential witness lying in some sufficiently late stage. It shows this union is elementary over all its stages. Thus the two constructed ultralimits are isomorphic.

Conversely every successive ultrapower and elementary union preserves the original complete theory. If ultralimits of $A$ and $B$ are isomorphic, they satisfy the same sentences, and their elementary embeddings of the original structures give $A\equiv B$. ThereforeThis proves Frayne theorem by an explicit alternating construction; it does not assume the stronger theorem about isomorphic single ultrapowers or any cardinal-arithmetic hypothesis.

We prove the Ehrenfeucht-Mostowski theorem by ordered products of ultrafilters, without using Ramsey's theorem. Choose a Skolem expansion $M^{\ast }$ of the infinite structure and distinct elements $b_0,b_1,\dots$. Fix a nonprincipal ultrafilter $U$ on $\mathbb{N}$.

For a finite increasing subset $F=\{i_1<\cdots <i_r\}$ of the desired index order $I$, define the ordered Fubini product of ultrafilters $U_F$ on ${\mathbb{N}}^F$ byThe notation $UnP(n)$ means that the set of $n$ satisfying $P$ belongs to $U$; the leftmost quantifier is outermost. Upward closure and intersection follow successively at each coordinate, and applying complement at each step proves the ultrafilter dichotomy. Products are ordered; no false claim of symmetry is needed.

Put $M_F=(M^{\ast }{)}^{{\mathbb{N}}^F}/U_F$, with $M_{\varnothing }=M^{\ast }$. If $F\subseteq G$, pullback of a function by coordinate projection inducesFor a cylinder condition involving only coordinates in $F$, deleting the unused ultrafilter quantifiers makes its membership in $U_G$ exactly its membership in $U_F$. The Łoś theorem therefore makes ${\sigma }_{FG}$ an elementary embedding, not merely a homomorphism. The projection identities give ${\sigma }_{GH}{\sigma }_{FG}={\sigma }_{FH}$.

Take the directed limit of this system: elements from two stages are identified if their images agree at a common larger finite stage, and formulas are evaluated at such a stage. Elementary coherence makes this well-defined. It also makes each stage elementary in the limit: a formula uses finitely many parameters, and an existential witness at a later stage can be pulled back at the level of existential truth because the transition maps are elementary. Denote the limit by $N^{\ast }$.

For each $i\in I$, let $a_i$ be the limit image of the coordinate function $n_i\mapsto b_{n_i}$. These elements are distinct. For $i<j$, after fixing $n_i$, equality $b_{n_i}=b_{n_j}$ holds for at most one $n_j$, a set not in $U$; hence equality fails in the two-coordinate ultrapower and therefore in the limit.

For any increasing $i_1<\cdots <i_r$, Łoś evaluatesThe right-hand side depends on the formula and the number of increasing coordinates, not their particular indices. Thus $(a_i{)}_{i\in I}$ is order-indiscernible for every formula of the expanded language simultaneously; no preliminary homogeneous thinning is used. If elements of $M$ were named before expanding, the same computation gives indiscernibility over those names and the initial stage embeds the original structure into the limit.

The Skolem hull of these generators is elementary by the witness property. Transporting the generators by any order automorphism of $I$ transports every term, with well-definedness and relation preservation supplied by the formula equivalence just proved. The inverse transport supplies an inverse automorphism. The ordered-ultrapower construction gives the full Ehrenfeucht–Mostowski model and its order automorphisms without Ramsey's theorem.

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.

Let $M^{\ast }$ be a full Skolem expansion of an infinite structure $M$, choose distinct $b_n\in M$ for $n\in \mathbb{N}$, and extend the cofinite filter to a nonprincipal ultrafilter $U$ on $\mathbb{N}$. For a finite subset $F=\{i_1<\cdots <i_r\}$ of the desired index order $I$, define the ordered Fubini product of ultrafilters $U_F$ on ${\mathbb{N}}^F$ bywhere $UnP(n)$ means $\{n:P(n)\}\in U$. These nested tests decide complements and preserve intersections by induction on $r$, so $U_F$ is indeed an ultrafilter. For the empty set use the one-point index set and its principal ultrafilter.

Put $M_F=(M^{\ast }{)}^{{\mathbb{N}}^F}/U_F$. If $F\subseteq G$, projection of coordinates inducesA truth test independent of a coordinate is unchanged by its dummy ultrafilter quantifier. Consequently pullback preserves exactly the $U_F$-large subsets, proving that the map is well defined and injective. The Łoś theorem, applied to every formula rather than just to equality, proves that it is an elementary embedding. Projections compose, so these elementary maps form a coherent directed system.

Take its directed limit of elementary embeddings $N^{\ast }$. Explicitly identify two stage elements when their images agree at a common larger stage, and interpret functions and relations there. For an existential formula true in the limit, its parameters and a witness occur at a common stage; elementarity then pulls truth back to the stage of the original parameters. This verifies that all stage maps into the limit are elementary.

Let $a_i$ be the image in this limit of the coordinate class $[n\mapsto b_n]\in M_{\{i\}}$. These elements are distinct: in $U_{\{i,j\}}$, equality would require $n_i=n_j$, whose inner-coordinate section is a singleton and hence not in the nonprincipal $U$. For $i_1<\cdots <i_r$, the truth of any expanded-language formula on $(a_{i_1},\dots ,a_{i_r})$ is exactlyThis expression depends on the formula and the tuple length, not on the chosen increasing indices. Thus $(a_i{)}_{i\in I}$ is an order-indiscernible sequence. The empty-coordinate stage embeds $M^{\ast }$ elementarily into $N^{\ast }$.

Their Skolem hull is elementary by the witness-function argument, and an order automorphism of $I$ extends to it by transporting the generators in every term. Equality and relation preservation follow from the displayed uniform truth test, and the inverse order automorphism gives the inverse map. Therefore this proves the Ehrenfeucht-Mostowski theorem through ultrapowers and their directed limit, with no Ramsey-theoretic step.

A model-theoretic ultralimit is the direct limit of a chain of successive ultrapowers along their diagonal elementary maps. It is not the topological notion of a limit along an ultrafilter. We first prove the precise relative embedding lemma needed to synchronize two such limits.

If $A\prec B$, then $B$ embeds elementarily into an ultrapower of $A$, with the embedding restricting on $A$ to its diagonal map. To prove this Frayne embedding lemma, use the elementary diagram of $B$ with the elements of $A$ treated as named parameters. Every finite fragment $\Delta$ of that diagram has a realization in $A$: replace its finitely many names from $B\setminus A$ by variables and existentially quantify their conjunction. It is true in $B$, and hence true in $A$ by elementarity. Choose these simultaneous realizations for each finite fragment, keeping every parameter from $A$ interpreted as itself; give unmentioned names an arbitrary default in the nonempty $A$.

On the index set of finite fragments, extend the filter of cones $\{\Delta :\Delta \supseteq \Gamma \}$ to an ultrafilter $U$. For each $b\in B$, let $g_b(\Delta )$ be its value in the chosen coordinate realization. Every diagram sentence is satisfied on its cone, so the Łoś theorem makes $b\mapsto [g_b]$ an elementary embedding $B\to A^I/U$. Inequalities in the diagram ensure injectivity. If $b\in A$, all its coordinates equal $b$, giving exactly the diagonal map.

There is also the initial version: if merely $A\equiv B$, then $A$ embeds elementarily into an ultrapower of $B$. A finite fragment of the elementary diagram of $A$, with all its names replaced by variables, yields an existential sentence true in $A$ and hence in $B$. The identical finite-fragment and cone construction therefore proves this version without already assuming an embedding.

Start with $A_0=A$. Use the initial version to place $A_0$ elementarily in an ultrapower $B_0$ of $B$. Relabel embedded copies so we can regard the elementary maps as inclusions. Apply the relative version to $A_0\prec B_0$ to obtain an ultrapower $A_1$ of $A_0$ containing $B_0$, and whose inclusion of $A_0$ is its diagonal map. Next apply it to $B_0\prec A_1$ to obtain an ultrapower $B_1$ of $B_0$ containing $A_1$, again fixing the earlier diagonal inclusion. Continuing gives an elementary chainThe common union $C$ is elementary over every stage by the elementary chain theorem, andThe first presentation is a model-theoretic ultralimit of $A$. The second, preceded by the initial diagonal embedding of $B$ into $B_0$, is a model-theoretic ultralimit of $B$. Each consecutive same-letter inclusion is precisely the corresponding ultrapower diagonal map, not just an unspecified elementary embedding. Thus the two limits are identified with the same structure $C$, proving

The printed inclusion-and-elementarity assertion is false if transitivity is required of the same submodel. Take the theorem of ZFC that combines the axiom of infinity and the Axiom of power set. Whenever $V_{\delta }$ satisfies this sentence, it contains $\omega$, every subset of $\omega$, and their actual power set $\mathcal{P}(\omega )$. A submodel $M\prec V_{\delta }$ contains $\omega$ and $\mathcal{P}(\omega )$, since these are uniquely definable in $V_{\delta }$. If $M$ were transitive, it would contain every element of $\mathcal{P}(\omega )$, contradicting countability by Cantor theorem.

The corrected conclusion uses an elementary embedding rather than elementary inclusion. By Lévy reflection theorem, choose $\delta >\omega +2$ with $V_{\delta }\models \phi$ and with Extensionality true there. The Downward Lowenheim-Skolem theorem says that an infinite structure in a countable language has a countable elementary substructure. Apply it to obtain a countable $N\prec (V_{\delta },\in )$. The membership relation on $N$ is externally well-founded, and elementarity makes it extensional. The Mostowski collapse theorem gives an isomorphism $\pi :N\to M$ onto a countable transitive set. HenceIndeed $M\subseteq V_{\delta }$: rank induction gives $\mathrm{rank}(\pi (x))\le \mathrm{rank}(x)$ for every $x\in N$. The crucial correction is that $j$, rather than the inclusion of $M$, is elementary. For a formula with free variables, apply this argument to its universal closure.

A first-order theory $T$ is model-complete if every structure embedding between models of $T$ is an elementary embedding. Equivalently, whenever $\mathcal{M}\subseteq \mathcal{N}$ and both satisfy $T$, one has $\mathcal{M}\preccurlyeq \mathcal{N}$:for every first-order formula $\phi$ and every finite tuple $\bar{a}\in M$. This is preservation of all formulas with parameters, rather than merely all first-order sentences.

Use the countable-language hypothesis of the omitting types theorem, which is the usual convention for this prime-model result. Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a prime model of $T$ and $a\in M$.

First, $T$ is complete up to logical consequence: every model $\mathcal{N}\models T$ receives an elementary embedding of $\mathcal{M}$, so it satisfies exactly the same sentences as $\mathcal{M}$. We may therefore replace $T$ by $\mathrm{Th}(\mathcal{M})$ without changing its model class or the prime model property.

Suppose $p={\mathrm{tp}}^{\mathcal{M}}(a/\varnothing )$ were not isolated. The omitting types theorem, applied to this single complete type, would produce $\mathcal{N}\models T$ omitting $p$. By primality choose an elementary embedding $j:\mathcal{M}\to \mathcal{N}$. For every $\phi (x)\in p$,Then $j(a)$ realizes $p$, contradicting omission. ConsequentlyThe same proof applies to every finite tuple, giving an atomic model. Countability of the language is a hypothesis of this argument, not a restriction on parameter sets in the separate parts (a) and (d). The PDF does not state that standing hypothesis explicitly; it must be included when invoking this version of the theorem.

One form of the Ehrenfeucht-Mostowski theorem says that, for every infinite first-order structure $M$ and every total order $I$, an elementary extension contains distinct elements $(a_i{)}_{i\in I}$ forming an order-indiscernible sequence. After a suitable Skolem expansion, their Skolem hull is a first-order model of $\mathrm{Th}(M)$, and every order automorphism of $I$ extends to a structure automorphism of that hull. If $M$ has a definable infinite linearly ordered subset $P$, the generators may lie in $P$ and their order may agree with that definable order. Uniqueness of the extended structure automorphism is asserted in the chosen Skolem expansion, rather than for every structure automorphism of its reduct.

Here is an ultraproduct proof of the Ehrenfeucht-Mostowski theorem. First expand $M$ to $M^{+}$ with Skolem functions for all existential first-order formulas, iterating through the enlarged languages if necessary. This is done in the ordinary classical metatheory; the choice restriction in question 1 is not a restriction on this question. Fix a nonprincipal ultrafilter $\mathcal{U}$ on $\mathbb{N}$.

We can obtain an infinite sequence of distinct elements $b_0,b_1,\dots$ in an elementary extension $M_0$ of $M^{+}$ by one preliminary ultrapower. For each $n\ge 1$ choose a finite list of $n$ distinct elements of $M^{+}$. Represent $b_j$ by the function taking the $j$th entry when $n>j$, with an arbitrary default otherwise. Distinctness holds on a cofinite set, so follows from Łoś theorem. In the definably ordered variant, first name any parameters defining $P$, and choose each finite list increasingly inside $P$ instead; then $M_0\models P(b_j)$ and $b_j<b_k$ for $j<k$. Infinitude of an ordered set supplies every finite increasing chain. This preparatory step uses no Ramsey theorem.

For a finite subset $F=\{i_1<\cdots <i_r\}$ of $I$, define the ultrafilter ${\mathcal{U}}_F$ on ${\mathbb{N}}^F$ by nested membership, in this order:where $(\mathcal{U}n)Q(n)$ means $\{n:Q(n)\}\in \mathcal{U}$. This is the ordered Fubini product of ultrafilters. Closure under intersections and the decision between a set and its complement hold at each nested level, proving it is an ultrafilter. For $F=\varnothing$ take the principal ultrafilter on the one-point product. PutIf $F\subseteq G$, pull a function back along the projection ${\mathbb{N}}^G\to {\mathbb{N}}^F$. A test independent of an omitted coordinate is unchanged by its ultrafilter quantifier, so projection pushes ${\mathcal{U}}_G$ to ${\mathcal{U}}_F$. The induced map $N_F\to N_G$ is therefore an elementary embedding by Łoś theorem. These maps are coherent, giving a directed system indexed by finite subsets of $I$.

Take its directed limit of elementary embeddings $N$. One can verify elementarity directly: representatives of a finite tuple occur at a common stage; functions and atomic relations are interpreted there. In the existential step, a witness in the limit occurs with the parameters at some later common stage, and elementarity pulls the existence statement back. Thus every $N_F$ embeds elementarily into $N$, which contains an elementary copy of $M^{+}$.

For $i\in F$, let $a_i$ be the class of the coordinate function $\mathbf{n}\mapsto b_{n_i}$. Projection coherence makes this independent of $F$. If $i<j$, then for each fixed $n_i$ the set $\{n_j:n_j\ne n_i\}$ is cofinite. The nested test therefore gives $a_i\ne a_j$. In the ordered variant, the same argument with $n_j>n_i$ gives $P(a_i)$ and $a_i<a_j$.

For every first-order formula $\phi$ of the expanded language and every increasing tuple $i_1<\cdots <i_r$, Łoś theorem givesThe right-hand side depends on the first-order formula and tuple length, not on the indices. This proves order indiscernibility in the expanded language. Let $H$ be the Skolem hull of the generators in $N$. The Tarski-Vaught test gives $H\prec N$, and its reduct is a first-order model of $\mathrm{Th}(M)$.

An order automorphism $\pi$ of $I$ acts byIndiscernibility makes this well defined: combine the finite supports of two term expressions into one increasing tuple, and apply indiscernibility to their logical equality. Applying it to relation first-order formulas proves preservation of all relations; the inverse is induced by ${\pi }^{-1}$. Every element of the hull is such a term, so the extension is unique among structure automorphisms preserving the Skolem expansion. MoreoverThis proves the theorem, including its ordered version and structure automorphism conclusion, using ultrapowers and a directed limit throughout.

A prime model of a complete theory $T$ is a model $M\models T$ for which there is an elementary embedding $M\to N$ into every model $N\models T$.

An uncountable cardinal $\kappa$ is measurable when it carries a nonprincipal ultrafilter $U$ that is $\kappa$-complete. For an inaccessible $\lambda >\kappa$, the cardinal $\kappa$ is 1-strong when there is an elementary embeddinginto a transitive model, with critical point $\kappa$ and $V_{\kappa +1}\subseteq M$.

The fundamental theorem on measurable cardinals constructs from $U$ the well-founded ultrapower and its ultrapower embedding $j:V_{\lambda }\to M$, whose critical point is $\kappa$. The embedding fixes $V_{\kappa }$. If $A\in V_{\kappa +1}$, then $A\subseteq V_{\kappa }$, and elementarity givesBoth $j(A)$ and $V_{\kappa }$ belong to the transitive target, so $A\in M$. Thus $V_{\kappa +1}\subseteq M$, proving that every measurable cardinal is 1-strong.

Fix $i\in \{0,1\}$ and write $\kappa ={\kappa }_i$, $j=j_i$, and $M=M_i$. Every ordinal below $j(\kappa )$ is represented in the ultrapower by a function $\kappa \to \kappa$. Consequently, in $V_{\lambda }$,where the last equality uses the Generalized continuum hypothesis.

By elementarity, $M$ regards $j(\kappa )$ as measurable and hence as a strong limit cardinal. Moreover $V_{\kappa +1}\subseteq M$, so $M$ and $V_{\lambda }$ have the same subsets of $\kappa$ and the same ${\kappa }^{+}$. It follows inside $M$ thatThus, in the ambient $V_{\lambda }$, the ordinal $j(\kappa )$ is strictly larger than ${\kappa }^{+}$ but has cardinality at most ${\kappa }^{+}$. It cannot be a cardinal number. Applying this argument to both $i=0$ and $i=1$ proves that neither $j_0({\kappa }_0)$ nor $j_1({\kappa }_1)$ is a cardinal in $V_{\lambda }$, exactly as in moved critical point is not an ambient cardinal under GCH.

Write $[f]$ for the equivalence class of $f:\kappa \to V_{\lambda }$ in the ultrapowerand define its membership relation byThe kappa-complete filter property makes $E$ well-founded: an infinite descending $E$-chain would give countably many members of $U$ whose intersection belongs to $U$, and every index in that intersection would yield an infinite descending membership chain, contradicting the Axiom of foundation. The relation is extensional by Łoś's theorem.

The Mostowski collapse theorem therefore gives a unique isomorphism $\pi :(N,E)\to (M,\in )$ onto a transitive set $M$. Recursively, the notation missing from the printed formula may be defined byThe value is independent of the representative because it is defined on the ultrapower class $[f]$. Moreover $M\subseteq V_{\lambda }$: every $f:\kappa \to V_{\lambda }$ has its range contained in some $V_{\alpha }$ with $\alpha <\lambda$, since $\kappa <\lambda$ and the strongly inaccessible cardinal $\lambda$ is regular; induction on the resulting rank bound keeps $\pi ([f])$ inside $V_{\lambda }$.

Define the ultrapower embeddingThe constant-function map into $N$ is elementary by Łoś's theorem, and $\pi$ is an isomorphism, so their composite $j$ is elementary.

A property $P$ of $\kappa$ reflects below $\kappa$ whenis unbounded in $\kappa$. The standard elementary-embedding reflection argument starts with any $\gamma <\kappa$. Since $j(\gamma )=\gamma$ and $j(\kappa )>\kappa$, the target model can use $\kappa$ itself as a witness toElementarity then gives a witness $\mu$ with $\gamma <\mu <\kappa$ in the domain.

For a concrete example, the property of being a strongly inaccessible cardinal reflects below $\kappa$. A measurable cardinal is strongly inaccessible, and the assumed inclusion $V_{\kappa +1}\subseteq M$ makes this assertion about $\kappa$ absolute between $V_{\lambda }$ and $M$: both models have all subsets of every ordinal below $\kappa$. Thus $M$ sees that $\kappa$ is strongly inaccessible. Given $\gamma <\kappa$, it therefore satisfiesElementarity supplies a strongly inaccessible $\mu$ between $\gamma$ and $\kappa$ in $V_{\lambda }$. As $\gamma$ was arbitrary, the strongly inaccessible cardinals below $\kappa$ are unbounded.

Expand the language by constants for every element of $M$ and a new tuple $c$. Let $\mathrm{ElDiag}(M)$ be the elementary diagram of a structure associated with $M$. Every finite subset ofis realized in the expansion of $M$, because the finitely many formulas from $p$ are simultaneously satisfiable in $M$. The compactness theorem gives a model $N^{\prime }$ of the whole set. The interpretations of the named constants give an elementary embedding $M\to N^{\prime }$, and the interpretation of $c$ realizes $p$. Identifying $M$ with its image produces an elementary extension $M⪯N$ realizing $p$. This is the finitely satisfiable type is realized in an elementary extension argument.