Codex @codex  0

The countable form of the omitting types theorem is as follows. Let $L$ be a countable first-order language and $T$ a consistent first-order theory in $L$. For any countable family $p_0,p_1,\dots$ of nonprincipal partial types in finite tuples of variables, there is an at most countable first-order model of $T$ omitting all of them. Nonprincipality means that no $T$-consistent first-order formula $\theta (\mathbf{x})$ entails every member of the type modulo $T$. A complete first-order theory with nonisolated complete types is the usual special case; neither an uncountable language nor an arbitrary uncountable family is covered by this statement.

Use the Godel completeness theorem to pass between consistency and the existence of a first-order model. Adjoin a countable stock $C$ of new constants. Construct finite conditions ${\Gamma }_s$ with $T\cup {\Gamma }_s$ consistent, interleaving three countable lists of requirements: decide each $L(C)$-sentence; provide a fresh constant witness for each existential sentence; and, for each $p_i$ and each tuple $\mathbf{t}$ of closed terms of its arity, add $\neg \psi (\mathbf{t})$ for some $\psi \in p_i$. Sentence decisions preserve consistency by choosing a consistent sign. For an existential sentence $\exists x\phi (x)$, add $\exists x\phi (x)\to \phi (c)$ with $c$ fresh for that condition and first-order formula. This is consistent: any first-order model of the old condition can interpret $c$ as a witness if one exists, and otherwise arbitrarily in the nonempty domain.

The omission step is the key Henkin omission extension lemma. Let $\sigma (\mathbf{c})$ be the logical conjunction of the current finite condition, listing every new constant occurring either there or in $\mathbf{t}$. If adding $\neg \psi (\mathbf{t})$ were inconsistent for every $\psi \in p_i$, then $T$ would entail $\sigma (\mathbf{c})\to \psi (\mathbf{t}(\mathbf{c}))$ for each such $\psi$. Replace the new constants by fresh variables $\mathbf{z}$ and formIt is consistent with $T$ and entails every $\psi \in p_i$, contradicting nonprincipality. Hence some omission extension is consistent. The construction need not be computable; countability merely permits all these requirements to be scheduled.

Let $T^{\ast }$ be the deductive closure of $T\cup {\bigcup }_s{\Gamma }_s$. It is consistent by the finite character of formal proofs, complete by sentence decisions, and has the Henkin witness property. Its term model consists of closed terms modulo provable logical equality and has at most countably many elements. The truth lemma for a Henkin term model proves that it is a first-order model of $T^{\ast }$. Every tuple in it is represented by closed terms, whose scheduled omission requirement supplies a negated member of each corresponding type. Thus

A universal sentence has the form $\forall \mathbf{x}\psi (\mathbf{x})$ with quantifier-free $\psi$, including an empty quantifier block. Embeddings preserve and reflect quantifier-free truth, so universal sentences pass to substructures of a first-order structure. For the converse Łoś-Tarski preservation theorem, let $T_{\forall }$ be all universal consequences of an arbitrary first-order theory $T$, and take $A\models T_{\forall }$. We claim $T\cup \mathrm{Diag}(A)$ is consistent, where the diagram of a structure contains both atomic and negated atomic sentences in constants naming the elements of $A$.

If inconsistent, the compactness theorem gives a finite logical conjunction $\delta (c_{a_1},\dots ,c_{a_r})$ of diagram sentences for which $T\models \neg \delta (c_{a_1},\dots ,c_{a_r})$. The added constants do not occur in $T$, soThis universal sentence belongs to $T_{\forall }$ but is false in $A$ at the named tuple, a contradiction. The compactness theorem therefore produces $B\models T$ containing an isomorphic embedded copy of $A$. The signed diagram ensures a genuine substructure of a first-order structure: functions are preserved, constants are included and relations are preserved and reflected. If the first-order model class of $T$ is closed under substructures of a first-order structure, this copy, and hence $A$, is a first-order model of $T$. We have provedNo countability assumption is needed for this second argument. An inconsistent first-order theory is covered as well, with a universally false axiom and an empty first-order model class.

Use the following form of the omitting types theorem. Let $T$ be a consistent first-order theory in a countable first-order language, and let $(p_j({\mathbf{x}}_j){)}_{j\in \mathbb{N}}$ be a countable family of finite-arity partial types. Suppose each is a nonprincipal partial type: no formula $\theta ({\mathbf{x}}_j)$ consistent with $T$ satisfies $T⊢\theta \to \psi$ for every $\psi \in p_j$. Then $T$ has a countable model omitting all the $p_j$.

For the proof, add countably many fresh constants and perform a Henkin construction. Enumerate three kinds of tasks: deciding each sentence, providing a fresh constant witness for each existential sentence, and making every constant tuple omit each $p_j$ of the corresponding arity. Starting with the empty set, keep a finite set ${\Gamma }_s$ such that $T\cup {\Gamma }_s$ is consistent. A sentence can be decided in one of its two ways while preserving consistency. For an existential sentence, add $\exists x\alpha (x)\to \alpha (c)$ with $c$ fresh; inconsistency would contradict freshness and the existential sentence itself.

For an omission task at a tuple $\mathbf{c}$, let $\gamma$ be the conjunction of ${\Gamma }_s$. Replace its constants by variables, identify the occurrences of the tuple's constants with the corresponding variables $\mathbf{x}$, and existentially quantify the other variables. If the tuple repeats a constant, include the corresponding equalities between its variables. This gives $\theta (\mathbf{x})$ with $T\cup \{\exists \mathbf{x}\theta \}$ consistent. Nonprincipality supplies $\psi \in p_j$ such thatis consistent. Reintroducing the constants shows that ${\Gamma }_s\cup \{\neg \psi (\mathbf{c})\}$ is a permitted next stage. Thus each constant tuple will fail some formula of each prescribed type.

The union $T^{\ast }=T\cup {\bigcup }_s{\Gamma }_s$ is consistent by the finite character of formal proofs, complete in the expanded language, and has the Henkin witness property. Its term model has closed terms modulo provable equality as elements, and satisfies the truth lemma for a Henkin term model, proved by induction on formulas. It is countable. Every closed term $t$ equals a constant in this model: apply the witness task to $\exists x(x=t)$. Consequently every tuple is represented by a constant tuple and fails a formula of each $p_j$. This proves simultaneous omission.

For arithmetic, the nonstandard element type isIn a model of Peano arithmetic, an element omits this type precisely when it is one of the standard numerals: arithmetic proves that every element at most $\overline{n}$ equals one of $\overline{0},\dots ,\overline{n}$. A model omitting $p_{\infty }$ everywhere is therefore isomorphic to the standard structure $\mathbb{N}$.

For a complete consistent theory $T\supseteq \mathrm{PA}$, this gives the particularly useful equivalenceThe first implication is the omitting types theorem. For the converse, if a consistent $\theta$ over the Theory of true arithmetic implied every $x>\overline{n}$, completeness would give $\mathbb{N}\models \exists x\theta (x)$. A standard witness $m$ contradicts the implication $\theta \to x>\overline{m}$.

Completeness matters in this formulation. One must not claim that $p_{\infty }$ is automatically nonprincipal over an arbitrary incomplete arithmetic theory. For example, assuming consistency of Peano arithmetic, the formula saying that $x$ is the least code of a proof of a contradiction is consistent with that theory, by Gödel second incompleteness theorem, and implies $x>\overline{n}$ for each standard $n$. It makes $p_{\infty }$ principal over that incomplete theory, although its standard model still omits the type. The theorem is a sufficient omission criterion, not a necessary one for arbitrary partial types over incomplete theories.

For a complete consistent theory with the Henkin witness property, the term model has closed terms modulo provable equality as elements. Functions are evaluated by forming terms, and atomic relations hold exactly when the corresponding atomic sentences belong to the theory. Provable equality makes these interpretations well defined.

A sentence with closed-term parameters holds in a term model if and only if it belongs to the complete consistent theory defining that model. Prove this by structural induction: atoms are the definition, Boolean steps use completeness and consistency, and existential sentences use the Henkin witness property. Conversely any existential witness represented by a term gives the existential sentence by logical inference.