Classical model theory for the NE-free fragment of QBSML #
[AvO23] Proposition 4.1 composed with the standard
translation (Logic/Modal/FirstOrder/Correspondence.lean): NE-free QBSML
support at a singleton state is mathlib Formula.Realize over the
correspondence structure (support_singleton_iff_st), support forces the
closed translation as a sentence and conversely
(models_toSentence_of_support, exists_support_of_models_toSentence),
and mathlib's first-order compactness transfers to finite team
satisfiability (support_compactness).
Proposition 4.1, composed: QBSML support is first-order realization #
NE-free QBSML support is single-structure first-order satisfaction:
[AvO23] Proposition 4.1 composed with the standard
translation. Support at a singleton state is mathlib Formula.Realize
of the standard translation over M.correspondence — the link along which
classical model theory (compactness, Löwenheim–Skolem) transfers to the
NE-free fragment.
Support at a singleton state forces the closed standard translation,
as a sentence of M.correspondence.
Conversely, the closed standard translation as a sentence of
M.correspondence yields support at some singleton state.
Compactness for the NE-free fragment #
Compactness transfer for NE-free QBSML ([AvO23]
Proposition 4.1, the standard translation, and mathlib's
Theory.isSatisfiable_iff_isFinitelySatisfiable): if every finite
subfamily of a family of NE-free formulas is supported at a singleton
state of some model, the family's closed standard translations are
jointly satisfiable in a single first-order structure.
The converse recovery of a team model from that structure would need
Finset-branching accessibility and a Fintype domain, which an
arbitrary first-order structure does not supply, so the transfer is
stated one-way. For first-order team logics such as independence logic,
[PQ24] prove compactness for sets of formulas twice, by
ultraproducts (§3) and by saturated models through the translation into
existential second-order logic (§4); they note that this satisfiability
compactness differs from compactness of consequence, which fails (§2.5).