In mathematics, model theory is the study of (classes of) mathematical structures (e.g. groups, fields, graphs, universes of set theory) using tools from mathematical logic. It has close ties to abstract algebra, particularly universal algebra.

Objects of study in model theory are models for formal languages which are structures that give meaning to the sentences of these formal languages. If a model for a language moreover satisfies a particular sentence or theory (set of sentences satisfying special conditions), it is called a model of the sentence or theory.

This article focuses on finitary first order model theory of infinite structures. Finite model theory, which concentrates on finite structures, diverges significantly from the study of infinite structures in both the problems studied and the techniques used. Model theory in higher-order logics or infinitary logics is hampered by the fact that completeness does not in general hold for these logics. However, a great deal of study has also been done in such languages.

Introduction[link]

Model theory recognises and is intimately concerned with a duality: It examines semantical elements by means of syntactical elements of a corresponding language. To quote the first page of Chang and Keisler (1990):^[1]

universal algebra + logic = model theory.

Model theory developed rapidly during the 1990s, and a more modern definition is provided by Wilfrid Hodges (1997):

model theory = algebraic geometry − fields.

In a similar way to proof theory, model theory is situated in an area of interdisciplinarity between mathematics, philosophy, and computer science. The most important professional organization in the field of model theory is the Association for Symbolic Logic.

An incomplete and somewhat arbitrary subdivision of model theory is into classical model theory, model theory applied to groups and fields, and geometric model theory. A missing subdivision is computable model theory, but this can arguably be viewed as an independent subfield of logic. Examples of early theorems from classical model theory include Gödel's completeness theorem, the upward and downward Löwenheim–Skolem theorems, Vaught's two-cardinal theorem, Scott's isomorphism theorem, the omitting types theorem, and the Ryll-Nardzewski theorem. Examples of early results from model theory applied to fields are Tarski's elimination of quantifiers for real closed fields, Ax's theorem on pseudo-finite fields, and Robinson's development of non-standard analysis. An important step in the evolution of classical model theory occurred with the birth of stability theory (through Morley's theorem on uncountably categorical theories and Shelah's classification program), which developed a calculus of independence and rank based on syntactical conditions satisfied by theories. During the last several decades applied model theory has repeatedly merged with the more pure stability theory. The result of this synthesis is called geometric model theory in this article (which is taken to include o-minimality, for example, as well as classical geometric stability theory). An example of a theorem from geometric model theory is Hrushovski's proof of the Mordell–Lang conjecture for function fields. The ambition of geometric model theory is to provide a geography of mathematics by embarking on a detailed study of definable sets in various mathematical structures, aided by the substantial tools developed in the study of pure model theory.

Example[link]

To illustrate the basic relationship involving syntax and semantics in the context of a non-trivial model, one can start, on the syntactic side, with suitable axioms for the natural numbers such as Peano axioms, and the associated theory. Going on to the semantic side, one has the usual counting numbers as a model. In the 1930s, Skolem developed alternative models satisfying the axioms. This illustrates what is meant by interpreting a language or theory in a particular model. A more traditional example is interpreting the axioms of a particular algebraic system such as a group, in the context of a model provided by a specific group.

Universal algebra[link]

Fundamental concepts in universal algebra are signatures σ and σ-algebras. Since these concepts are formally defined in the article on structures, the present article can content itself with an informal introduction which consists in examples of how these terms are used.

The standard signature of rings is σ_ring = {×,+,−,0,1}, where × and + are binary, − is unary, and 0 and 1 are nullary.

The standard signature of semirings is σ_smr = {×,+,0,1}, where the arities are as above.

The standard signature of groups (with multiplicative notation) is σ_grp = {×,⁻¹,1}, where × is binary, ⁻¹ is unary and 1 is nullary.

The standard signature of monoids is σ_mnd = {×,1}.

A ring is a σ_ring-structure which satisfies the identities u + (v + w) = (u + v) + w, u + v = v + u, u + 0 = u, u + (−u) = 0, u × (v × w) = (u × v) × w, u × 1 = u, 1 × u = u, u × (v + w) = (u × v) + (u × w) and (v + w) × u = (v × u) + (w × u).

A group is a σ_grp-structure which satisfies the identities u × (v × w) = (u × v) × w, u × 1 = u, 1 × u = u, u × u⁻¹ = 1 and u⁻¹ × u = 1.

A monoid is a σ_mnd-structure which satisfies the identities u × (v × w) = (u × v) × w, u × 1 = u and 1 × u = u.

A semigroup is a {×}-structure which satisfies the identity u × (v × w) = (u × v) × w.

A magma is just a {×}-structure.

This is a very efficient way to define most classes of algebraic structures, because there is also the concept of σ-homomorphism, which correctly specializes to the usual notions of homomorphism for groups, semigroups, magmas and rings. For this to work, the signature must be chosen well.

Terms such as the σ_ring-term t(u,v,w) given by (u + (v × w)) + (−1) are used to define identities t = t', but also to construct free algebras. An equational class is a class of structures which, like the examples above and many others, is defined as the class of all σ-structures which satisfy a certain set of identities. Birkhoff's theorem states:

A class of σ-structures is an equational class if and only if it is not empty and closed under subalgebras, homomorphic images, and direct products.

An important non-trivial tool in universal algebra are ultraproducts Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \Pi_{i\in I}A_i/U , where I is an infinite set indexing a system of σ-structures A_i, and U is an ultrafilter on I.

While model theory is generally considered a part of mathematical logic, universal algebra, which grew out of Alfred North Whitehead's (1898) work on abstract algebra, is part of algebra. This is reflected by their respective MSC classifications. Nevertheless model theory can be seen as an extension of universal algebra.

Finite model theory[link]

Finite model theory is the area of model theory which has the closest ties to universal algebra. Like some parts of universal algebra, and in contrast with the other areas of model theory, it is mainly concerned with finite algebras, or more generally, with finite σ-structures for signatures σ which may contain relation symbols as in the following example:

The standard signature for graphs is σ_grph={E}, where E is a binary relation symbol.

A graph is a σ_grph-structure satisfying the sentences Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \forall u \forall v(uEv \rightarrow vEu)

and Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \forall u\neg(uEu)

.

A σ-homomorphism is a map that commutes with the operations and preserves the relations in σ. This definition gives rise to the usual notion of graph homomorphism, which has the interesting property that a bijective homomorphism need not be invertible. Structures are also a part of universal algebra; after all, some algebraic structures such as ordered groups have a binary relation <. What distinguishes finite model theory from universal algebra is its use of more general logical sentences (as in the example above) in place of identities. (In a model-theoretic context an identity t=t' is written as a sentence Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \forall u_1u_2\dots u_n(t=t') .)

The logics employed in finite model theory are often substantially more expressive than first-order logic, the standard logic for model theory of infinite structures.

First-order logic[link]

Whereas universal algebra provides the semantics for a signature, logic provides the syntax. With terms, identities and quasi-identities, even universal algebra has some limited syntactic tools; first-order logic is the result of making quantification explicit and adding negation into the picture.

A first-order formula is built out of atomic formulas such as R(f(x,y),z) or y = x + 1 by means of the Boolean connectives Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \neg,\land,\lor,\rightarrow

and prefixing of quantifiers Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \forall v
or Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \exists v

. A sentence is a formula in which each occurrence of a variable is in the scope of a corresponding quantifier. Examples for formulas are φ (or φ(x) to mark the fact that at most x is an unbound variable in φ) and ψ defined as follows:

Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): {\varphi \;=\; \forall u\forall v(\exists w (x\times w=u\times v)\rightarrow(\exists w(x\times w=u)\lor\exists w(x\times w=v)))\land x\ne 0\land x\ne1,}

Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \psi \;=\; \forall u\forall v((u\times v=x)\rightarrow (u=x)\lor(v=x))\land x\ne 0\land x\ne1.

(Note that the equality symbol has a double meaning here.) It is intuitively clear how to translate such formulas into mathematical meaning. In the σ_smr-structure Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \mathcal N

of the natural numbers, for example, an element n satisfies the formula φ if and only if n is a prime number. The formula ψ similarly defines irreducibility. Tarski gave a rigorous definition, sometimes called "Tarski's definition of truth", for the satisfaction relation Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \models

, so that one easily proves:

Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \mathcal N\models\phi(n) \iff n

is a prime number.

Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \mathcal N\models\psi(n) \iff n

is irreducible.

A set T of sentences is called a (first-order) theory. A theory is satisfiable if it has a model Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \mathcal M\models T , i.e. a structure (of the appropriate signature) which satisfies all the sentences in the set T. Consistency of a theory is usually defined in a syntactical way, but in first-order logic by the completeness theorem there is no need to distinguish between satisfiability and consistency. Therefore model theorists often use "consistent" as a synonym for "satisfiable".

A theory is called categorical if it determines a structure up to isomorphism, but it turns out that this definition is not useful, due to serious restrictions in the expressivity of first-order logic. The Löwenheim–Skolem theorem implies that for every theory T^[2] which has an infinite model and for every infinite cardinal number κ, there is a model Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \mathcal M\models T

such that the number of elements of Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \mathcal M
is exactly κ. Therefore only finite structures can be described by a categorical theory.

Lack of expressivity (when compared to higher logics such as second-order logic) has its advantages, though. For model theorists, the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem is an important practical tool rather than the source of Skolem's paradox. In a certain sense made precise by Lindström's theorem, first-order logic is the most expressive logic for which both the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem and the compactness theorem hold.

Due to Gödel, the compactness theorem says that every unsatisfiable first-order theory has a finite unsatisfiable subset. This theorem is of central importance in infinite model theory, where the words "by compactness" are commonplace. One way to prove it is by means of ultraproducts. An alternative proof uses the completeness theorem, which is otherwise reduced to a marginal role in most of modern model theory.

Axiomatizability, elimination of quantifiers, and model-completeness[link]

The first step, often trivial, for applying the methods of model theory to a class of mathematical objects such as groups, or trees in the sense of graph theory, is to choose a signature σ and represent the objects as σ-structures. The next step is to show that the class is an elementary class, i.e. axiomatizable in first-order logic (i.e. there is a theory T such that a σ-structure is in the class if and only if it satisfies T). E.g. this step fails for the trees, since connectedness cannot be expressed in first-order logic. Axiomatizability ensures that model theory can speak about the right objects. Quantifier elimination can be seen as a condition which ensures that model theory does not say too much about the objects.

A theory T has quantifier elimination if every first-order formula φ(x₁,...,x_n) over its signature is equivalent modulo T to a first-order formula ψ(x₁,...,x_n) without quantifiers, i.e. Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \forall x_1\dots\forall x_n(\phi(x_1,\dots,x_n)\leftrightarrow \psi(x_1,\dots,x_n))

holds in all models of T. For example the theory of algebraically closed fields in the signature σring=(×,+,−,0,1) has quantifier elimination because every formula is equivalent to a Boolean combination of equations between polynomials.

A substructure of a σ-structure is a subset of its domain, closed under all functions in its signature σ, which is regarded as a σ-structure by restricting all functions and relations in σ to the subset. An embedding of a σ-structure Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \mathcal A

into another σ-structure Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \mathcal B
is a map f: A → B between the domains which can be written as an isomorphism of Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \mathcal A
with a substructure of Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \mathcal B

. Every embedding is an injective homomorphism, but the converse holds only if the signature contains no relation symbols.

If a theory does not have quantifier elimination, one can add additional symbols to its signature so that it does. Early model theory spent much effort on proving axiomatizability and quantifier elimination results for specific theories, especially in algebra. But often instead of quantifier elimination a weaker property suffices:

A theory T is called model-complete if every substructure of a model of T which is itself a model of T is an elementary substructure. There is a useful criterion for testing whether a substructure is an elementary substructure, called the Tarski–Vaught test. It follows from this criterion that a theory T is model-complete if and only if every first-order formula φ(x₁,...,x_n) over its signature is equivalent modulo T to an existential first-order formula, i.e. a formula of the following form:

Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \exists v_1\dots\exists v_m\psi(x_1,\dots,x_n,v_1,\dots,v_m)

, where ψ is quantifier free. A theory that is not model-complete may or may not have a model completion, which is a related model-complete theory that is not, in general, an extension of the original theory. A more general notion is that of model companions.

Categoricity[link]

As observed in the section on first-order logic, first-order theories cannot be categorical, i.e. they cannot describe a unique model up to isomorphism, unless that model is finite. But two famous model-theoretic theorems deal with the weaker notion of κ-categoricity for a cardinal κ. A theory T is called κ-categorical if any two models of T that are of cardinality κ are isomorphic. It turns out that the question of κ-categoricity depends critically on whether κ is bigger than the cardinality of the language (i.e. Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \aleph_0  + |σ|, where |σ| is the cardinality of the signature). For finite or countable signatures this means that there is a fundamental difference between Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \aleph_0 -cardinality and κ-cardinality for uncountable κ.

A few characterizations of Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \aleph_0 -categoricity include:

For a complete first-order theory T in a finite or countable signature the following conditions are equivalent:

1. T is Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \aleph_0

-categorical.

1. For every natural number n, the Stone space S_n(T) is finite.
2. For every natural number n, the number of formulas φ(x₁, ..., x_n) in n free variables, up to equivalence modulo T, is finite.

This result, due independently to Engeler, Ryll-Nardzewski and Svenonius, is sometimes referred to as the Ryll-Nardzewski theorem.

Further, Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \aleph_0 -categorical theories and their countable models have strong ties with oligomorphic groups. They are often constructed as Fraïssé limits.

Michael Morley's highly non-trivial result that (for countable languages) there is only one notion of uncountable categoricity was the starting point for modern model theory, and in particular classification theory and stability theory:

Morley's categoricity theorem

If a first-order theory T in a finite or countable signature is κ-categorical for some uncountable cardinal κ, then T is κ-categorical for all uncountable cardinals κ.

Uncountably categorical (i.e. κ-categorical for all uncountable cardinals κ) theories are from many points of view the most well-behaved theories. A theory that is both Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \aleph_0 -categorical and uncountably categorical is called totally categorical.

Model theory and set theory[link]

Set theory (which is expressed in a countable language), if it is consistent, has a countable model; this is known as Skolem's paradox, since there are sentences in set theory which postulate the existence of uncountable sets and yet these sentences are true in our countable model. Particularly the proof of the independence of the continuum hypothesis requires considering sets in models which appear to be uncountable when viewed from within the model, but are countable to someone outside the model.

The model-theoretic viewpoint has been useful in set theory; for example in Kurt Gödel's work on the constructible universe, which, along with the method of forcing developed by Paul Cohen can be shown to prove the (again philosophically interesting) independence of the axiom of choice and the continuum hypothesis from the other axioms of set theory.

Other basic notions of model theory[link]

Reducts and expansions[link]

A field or a vector space can be regarded as a (commutative) group by simply ignoring some of its structure. The corresponding notion in model theory is that of a reduct of a structure to a subset of the original signature. The opposite relation is called an expansion - e.g. the (additive) group of the rational numbers, regarded as a structure in the signature {+,0} can be expanded to a field with the signature {×,+,1,0} or to an ordered group with the signature {+,0,<}.

Similarly, if σ' is a signature that extends another signature σ, then a complete σ'-theory can be restricted to σ by intersecting the set of its sentences with the set of σ-formulas. Conversely, a complete σ-theory can be regarded as a σ'-theory, and one can extend it (in more than one way) to a complete σ'-theory. The terms reduct and expansion are sometimes applied to this relation as well.

Interpretability[link]

Given a mathematical structure, there are very often associated structures which can be constructed as a quotient of part of the original structure via an equivalence relation. An important example is a quotient group of a group.

One might say that to understand the full structure one must understand these quotients. When the equivalence relation is definable, we can give the previous sentence a precise meaning. We say that these structures are interpretable.

A key fact is that one can translate sentences from the language of the interpreted structures to the language of the original structure. Thus one can show that if a structure M interprets another whose theory is undecidable, then M itself is undecidable.

Using the compactness and completeness theorems[link]

Gödel's completeness theorem (not to be confused with his incompleteness theorems) says that a theory has a model if and only if it is consistent, i.e. no contradiction is proved by the theory. This is the heart of model theory as it lets us answer questions about theories by looking at models and vice-versa. One should not confuse the completeness theorem with the notion of a complete theory. A complete theory is a theory that contains every sentence or its negation. Importantly, one can find a complete consistent theory extending any consistent theory. However, as shown by Gödel's incompleteness theorems only in relatively simple cases will it be possible to have a complete consistent theory that is also recursive, i.e. that can be described by a recursively enumerable set of axioms. In particular, the theory of natural numbers has no recursive complete and consistent theory. Non-recursive theories are of little practical use, since it is undecidable if a proposed axiom is indeed an axiom, making proof-checking a supertask.

The compactness theorem states that a set of sentences S is satisfiable if every finite subset of S is satisfiable. In the context of proof theory the analogous statement is trivial, since every proof can have only a finite number of antecedents used in the proof. In the context of model theory, however, this proof is somewhat more difficult. There are two well known proofs, one by Gödel (which goes via proofs) and one by Malcev (which is more direct and allows us to restrict the cardinality of the resulting model).

Model theory is usually concerned with first-order logic, and many important results (such as the completeness and compactness theorems) fail in second-order logic or other alternatives. In first-order logic all infinite cardinals look the same to a language which is countable. This is expressed in the Löwenheim–Skolem theorems, which state that any countable theory with an infinite model Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \mathfrak{A}

has models of all infinite cardinalities (at least that of the language) which agree with Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \mathfrak{A}
on all sentences, i.e. they are 'elementarily equivalent'.

Types[link]

Fix an Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): L -structure Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): M , and a natural number Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): n . The set of definable subsets of Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): M^n

over some parameters Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): A
is a Boolean algebra. By Stone's representation theorem for Boolean algebras there is a natural dual notion to this. One can consider this to be the topological space consisting of maximal consistent sets of formulae over Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): A

. We call this the space of (complete) Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): n -types over Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): A , and write Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): S_n(A) .

Now consider an element Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): m \in M^n . Then the set of all formulae Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \phi

with parameters in Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): A
in free variables Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): x_1,\ldots,x_n
so that Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): M \models \phi(m)
is consistent and maximal such. It is called the type of Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): m
over Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): A

.

One can show that for any Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): n -type Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): p , there exists some elementary extension Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): N

of Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): M
and some Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): a \in N^n
so that Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): p
is the type of Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): a
over Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): A

.

Many important properties in model theory can be expressed with types. Further many proofs go via constructing models with elements that contain elements with certain types and then using these elements.

Illustrative Example: Suppose Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): M

is an algebraically closed field. The theory has quantifier elimination . This allows us to show that a type is determined exactly by the polynomial equations it contains. Thus the space of Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): n

-types over a subfield Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): A

is bijective with the set of prime ideals of the polynomial ring Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): A[x_1,\ldots,x_n]

. This is the same set as the spectrum of Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): A[x_1,\ldots,x_n] . Note however that the topology considered on the type space is the constructible topology: a set of types is basic open iff it is of the form Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \{p: f(x)=0 \in p\}

or of the form Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \{p: f(x) \neq 0 \in p\}

. This is finer than the Zariski topology.

Early history[link]

Model theory as a subject has existed since approximately the middle of the 20th century. However some earlier research, especially in mathematical logic, is often regarded as being of a model-theoretical nature in retrospect. The first significant result in what is now model theory was a special case of the downward Löwenheim–Skolem theorem, published by Leopold Löwenheim in 1915. The compactness theorem was implicit in work by Thoralf Skolem,^[3] but it was first published in 1930, as a lemma in Kurt Gödel's proof of his completeness theorem. The Löwenheim–Skolem theorem and the compactness theorem received their respective general forms in 1936 and 1941 from Anatoly Maltsev.

See also[link]

Notes[link]

References[link]

Canonical textbooks[link]

• Chang, Chen Chung; Keisler, H. Jerome (1990) [1973]. Model Theory. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics (3rd ed.). Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-444-88054-3 
• Hodges, Wilfrid (1997). A shorter model theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-58713-6 
• Marker, David (2002). Model Theory: An Introduction. Graduate Texts in Mathematics 217. Springer. ISBN 0-387-98760-6. 

Other textbooks[link]

• Bell, John L.; Slomson, Alan B. (2006) [1969]. Models and Ultraproducts: An Introduction (reprint of 1974 ed.). Dover Publications. ISBN 0-486-44979-3. 
• Ebbinghaus, Heinz-Dieter; Flum, Jörg; Thomas, Wolfgang (1994). Mathematical Logic. Springer. ISBN 0-387-94258-0. 
• Hinman, Peter G. (2005). Fundamentals of Mathematical Logic. A K Peters. ISBN 1-56881-262-0. 
• Manzano, Maria (1989). Teoria de modelos. Alianza editorial. ISBN 84-206-8126-1. 
• Hodges, Wilfrid (1993). Model theory. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-30442-3. 
• Manzano, Maria (1999). Model theory. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-853851-0. 
• Poizat, Bruno (2000). A Course in Model Theory. Springer. ISBN 0-387-98655-3. 
• Rautenberg, Wolfgang (2010). A Concise Introduction to Mathematical Logic (3rd ed.). New York: Springer Science+Business Media. DOI:10.1007/978-1-4419-1221-3. ISBN 978-1-4419-1220-6. http://www.springerlink.com/content/978-1-4419-1220-6/. 
• Rothmaler, Philipp (2000). Introduction to Model Theory (new ed.). Taylor & Francis. ISBN 90-5699-313-5. 

Free online texts[link]

• Chatzidakis, Zoe (2001). Introduction to Model Theory. pp. 26 pages in DVI format. http://www.logique.jussieu.fr/~zoe/papiers/MTluminy.dvi. 
• Pillay, Anand (2002). Lecture Notes – Model Theory. pp. 61 pages. http://www.math.uiuc.edu/People/pillay/lecturenotes_modeltheory.pdf. 
• Hodges, Wilfrid, First-order Model theory. The Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy, E. Zalta (ed.).
• Simmons, Harold (2004), An introduction to Good old fashioned model theory. Notes of an introductory course for postgraduates (with exercises).
• J. Barwise and S. Feferman (editors), Model-Theoretic Logics, Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Volume 8, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1985.