Let denote the universal consequences of a theory: all universal first-order sentences entailed by . A first-order structure satisfies exactly when it embeds into a model of , by the compactness theorem applied to its diagram of a structure.
The theory has algebraically prime models if, for every , there are and a structure embedding such that every structure embedding , , factors as for some structure embedding . Neither nor is required to be elementary.
For , simple closure means that every existential quantifier-free formula over which has a witness in has one in :
Now take two models with common substructure . Since embeds into , it satisfies . Choose its algebraically prime extension , and embed into both and over .
If holds in , the image of in is a model of . The assumed simple closure of this image transfers a witness from into . Its embedding into then transfers the quantifier-free formula and its witness into . Thus the hypothesis of QET1 is satisfied. The second test follows: has quantifier elimination.
A model companion of a first-order theory , in the same first-order language, is a model-complete theory with the same universal consequences of a theory as :
Equivalently, every model of embeds into a model of , and every model of embeds into a model of . The equivalence follows from the diagram embedding criterion for universal theories, which is an application of the compactness theorem. A model companion need not be a syntactic extension of , and uniqueness is understood up to logical equivalence of theories.
Suppose and are model companions of . Their universal consequences of a theory agree, so the diagram embedding criterion for universal theories permits embeddings in both directions between their model classes.
Starting from any , alternately take such extensions, identifying each model with its image under the embedding:
Since is model-complete, ; since is model-complete, . The two subsequences have the same union . The elementary chain theorem gives
Every axiom of , as a sentence true in , is therefore true in . Thus every model of is a model of . Reversing their roles proves the converse. The model companion is unique up to logical equivalence. If is inconsistent, its only possible companion is likewise inconsistent, so the same uniqueness conclusion holds.