Abstract

this paper that the question has a simple negative answer. This raised further natural questions on what can be said about the points of these two topologies; we give some answers. The observation that topological models for first-order theories can expressed in the framework of locales appears, for instance, in Fourman and Grayson [6], where the analogy between points of a locale and models of a theory is emphasised; the identification of formal points with Henkin sets, gives a precise form to this analogy. We replace the use of locales by formal topology, which can be expressed in a predicative framework such as Martin-Lof's type theory. Proof-theoretic issues are also considered by Dragalin [4], who presents a topological completeness proof using only finitary inductive definitions. Palmgren and Moerdijk [10] is also concerned with constructions of models: using sheaf semantics, they obtain a stronger conservativity result than the one in [3]. We will first investigate the difference between the Dedekind-MacNeille cover and the inductive cover. It easy to see that \Delta DM is stronger than \Delta I , that is, OE \Delta I U implies OE \Delta DM U , but the converse does not hold in general. The notion of point is not primitive in formal topology and therefore it is natural to require that a formal topology has some notion of positivity defined on the basic neighbourhoods; that a neighbourhood is positive then corresponds to, in ordinary point based topology, that it is inhabited by some point. We will show several negative results on positivity, both for the inductive topology and the Dedekind-MacNeille topology. The points of an inductive topology correspond to Henkin sets, but the Dedekind-MacNeille topology has, in general, no points. Our reasoning is constructi...

Citations