International Journal of Mathematics and Computer Applications Research (IJMCAR) ISSN 2249-6955 Vol.

2, Issue 2 June 2012 85-89 TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.,

CLASSES OF ALGEBRAS DO NOT HAVE THE AMALGAMATION PROPERTY

BASIM SAMIR Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt.

ABSTRACT
We introduce an abstract class of algebras that is a proper reduct of both Pinters substitution algebras and cylindric algebras. We show that the classes of representable substitution cylindric algebras and substitution cylindric algebras of dimension n do not have the amalgamation property when 1 <n<. Mathematics Subject Classication: 03G15, 03C10.

KEYWORDS: algebraic logic, amalgamation, pinters substitution.

Pinters substitution algebras were introduced by Pinter [6], [7]. Such algebras are obtained from cylindric algebras [3], [4] by dropping the diagonal elements and adding unary operations of substitutions. These substitutions, which are term denable in cylindric algebras, reect the metalogical operation of substituting in formulas one variable for another, such that the substitution is free. Pinter proved that locally nite algebras are representable, and it seems that not much has been done for such algebras. We start by dening the concrete versions of Pinters algebras. Let be an ordinal. Let U be

a set. Then we dene for i,j < and X U:

ciX = {s U : t X, t(j)= s(j) for all j i},

j

si X = {s U : s [i|j] X}. Here [i|j] is the replacement on that takes i to j and leaves every other thing xed. The extra non-boolean operations we deal with are as specied above. For set X, let l(X)=(P(X), , , \, ,X) be the full boolean set algebra with universe P(X). We note that
j

RSC = SP{(Bl( U), ci, si )i,j< : U is a set }.

86

Basim Samir

From now on, unless otherwise specied, ordinals considered are innite. It is not hard to show that RSC is a variety. However RSC is not nite schema axiomatizable for > 2 [8]. We shall need the notion of Denition 1. Let W be a class of algebras and L1,L2 W . L2 is said to have the amalgamation property, or AP for short over L1, with respect to W , if for all A0 L1, all A1 and A2 L2, and all monomorphisms i1 and i2 of A0 into A1, A2, respectively, there exists A W , a monomorphism m1 from A1 into A and a monomorphism m2 from A2 into A such that m1 i1 = m2 i2. In this case we say that A is an amalgam of A1 and A2 over A0 via m1 and m2 or even simply an amalgam. Figure (3).

Figure 3. The connection of the amalgamation property to interpolation results is known [5]. Our theorem implies that an innitary variant of rst order logic without equality, L, enjoys a weak form of interpolation. We note that for , RSC does not have SAP , a fortiori SUP AP [5]. This implies that the usual Craig interpolation theorem fails for L. Our proof is syntactical; therefore we introduce an abstract class SC short for substitution cylindric algebras that (only) approximates the class RSC of representable SCs. Denition 2. An algebra in SC is of the form
j

A =(A, +, , , 0, 1, ci, si )i,j<

j

where (A, +, , , 0, 1) is a boolean algebra and ci, si are unary operations on A (i,j <) satisfying the following equations for all i,j,k,l < : 1 cj0=0, x cix, ci(x ciy)= cix ciy, and cicjx = cjcix,
i

2 si x = x,

Classes Of Algebras Do Not Have The Amalgamation Property

i

87

3 sj are boolean endomorphisms,

i

4 sj cix = cix,
i i

5 cis jx = s jx, whenever i j,

i i

6 s jckx = cks jx, whenever k

j i

{i, j},

7 cisi x = cjsj x, 3 8 9 sji slkx = slksji x, whenever |{i, j, k, l}| =4

l j l l j

s is x = s isi x.

In the following theorem, we use the techniques of Comer in [2]. The SC case is not covered in op.cit. Theorem 3. Let 1 <n<. Then RSCn and SCn does not have AP . Proof. Let U0, U1 are non-empty sets such that n |U0| < |U1| and |U0| <. Let Ai = A(n, Ui)
n

be the full cylindric set algebra with unit Ui. Let Di be the principal diagonal in Ai. That is Di =
k,l<n

dkl. Let M be the minimal subalgebra of A0. Then M is embeddable in A0 and A1 via g0 and g1

such that g1 g0-1 is an isomorphism from g0M onto g1M and g1g0-1 D0 = D1. Here we are using that the minimal subalgebras of A0 and A1 are isomorphic. This follows from the fact that they are both simple and have characteristic zero. Now we claim that there is no amalgam even in SCn. Assume for contradiction that B SCn, f0 : A0 B and f1 : A1 B are monomorphisms such that f1 g1 = f0 g0. Here we are considering SC reducts. Then f0D0 = f1D1 = d say. We can assume that B is simple, since each of Ai is simple. Let k = |U0|. Then there exists k atoms ai A0, i<k such that ai D0 and D0 =
i<k

ai. For

each x U0, {<x, . . . x>} is such an atom. Now the atoms in A0 are singletons. So any atom of A0
n n

is of the form

c(n{i})a(i) for some k, aj = c(n{i})aj for j<k and if j0,j1 <n, k with i<n i<n

(j0) (j1), then c(n{i})a(i) D0 i<n Since f0 is a monomorphism, there exist k atoms, say ai, for i<k in f0(A0) such that ai d and
n

i<k

ai = d. Any atom of f0(A0) is of the form

i<n

c(n{i})a(i) for some k, aj =

i<n

c(n{i})aj for

88
n

Basim Samir

j<k and if j0,j1 <n, k with (j0) (j1), then

c(n{i})a(i) d.
i<n Same for l = |U1| and A1. Similarly there exist l atoms, say bi, for i<l in f1(A1) such that bi d and
n

i<k

bi = d. Any atom of f1(A1) is of the form

n

i<n

c(n{i})b(i) for some l, aj =

i<n

c(n{i})bj for

j<l and if j0,j1 <n, l with (j0) (j1), then

c(n{i})b(i) d.
i<n We have k<l, so we can choose j<k, m,n<l m n such that aj.bm 0 and aj.bn 0. We now show aj. d 0. Let x = c(n{m})(aj.bm). Suppose that x = 0. Then 0 = c(n{m})x = c(n{m})(aj.bm).c(n{m})[
i<n,im

(1)

(2)

c(n{i})(aj.bn). It is clear that x aj.d.

c(n{i})(aj.bn)]
i<n,im

= c(n{m})(aj.bm).

c(n)(aj.bn)
i<n,im

Since B is simple and aj.bn 0, so by (1), cn(aj.bn) = 1. Hence c(n{m})(aj.bm)=0 contradicting (1). Then x 0 and (2) holds. But this contradicts aj d.

REFERENCES
[1] H. Andreka, J. D. Monk, and I. Nemeti, (eds.), Algebraic logic. Colloq. Math. Soc. J. Bolyai. 54, North-Holland, Amsterdam, (1991), p.vi + 746 [2] S. D. Comer, Classes without the amalgamation property. Pacic journal of Mathematics. 28, (2)(1969), 309-318. [3] L. Henkin, J. D. Monk and A. Tarski, Cylindric Algebras Part I. North Holland, (1971.)

Classes Of Algebras Do Not Have The Amalgamation Property

89

[4] L. Henkin, J. D. Monk and A. Tarski, Cylindric Algebras Part II. North Holland, (1985.) [5] J. Madarasz, and T. Sayed Ahmed, Amalgamation, interpolation and epimorphisms in

algebraic logic. Algebra univers. 56 (2) (2007), 179 - 210. [6] C. Pinter, A simple algebra of rst order logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic. 1 (1973), 361-366. [7] C. Pinter, Cylindric algebras and algebras of substitutions Transaction of The Americal Mathematical Society. 175, 167-179. [8] I. Sain, R. Thompson, Strictly nite schema axiomatization of quasipolyadic algebras. In [1] 539-571.