Logic

Motivation

When are two scientific theories "the same theory in different words"? Philosophers of science have used two formal criteria. Definitional equivalence (Glymour) is strict: it requires a common definitional extension and therefore cannot relate theories with different numbers of sorts. Categorical equivalence (Halvorson, Weatherall) is liberal: it asks only that the categories of models be equivalent. It has been applied to classical mechanics, electromagnetism and Newtonian gravitation (Weatherall 2016; survey in Weatherall 2019).

Barrett and Halvorson (2016) proposed Morita equivalence as a syntactic criterion between these two. It allows definitions of new sorts (products, coproducts, subsorts, quotients) in addition to the usual definitions of new predicates and function symbols. Their main results place the new criterion strictly between the other two:

• Morita equivalence implies categorical equivalence (their Theorem 5.1).
• The converse fails (their Theorem 5.2).

This mission formalizes that comparison: the semantic core of Morita extensions, the implication, the separating example, and the paper's motivating "two kinds of things" example.

Setting

A signature $\Sigma$ (Sig) consists of a type of sorts, function symbols $f : \sigma_1\times\dots\times\sigma_m\to\sigma$ and predicate symbols $p\subseteq\sigma_1\times\dots\times\sigma_m$. Formulas (Formula L Γ) are built in a typed context $\Gamma$ from $\bot$, $=$, predicates, $\to$ and $\forall$. A structure (Str) assigns a nonempty set to each sort and interprets the symbols. A theory $T$ is a set of formulas in context, each read as its universal closure; a model of $T$ is a structure satisfying them all.

The category $\mathrm{Mod}(T)$ (Model T) has the models of $T$ as objects and elementary embeddings as arrows: maps on every sort that preserve and reflect every formula. Theories $T_1,T_2$ are categorically equivalent (CategoricallyEquivalent) if $\mathrm{Mod}(T_1)\simeq\mathrm{Mod}(T_2)$.

A Morita extension of a $\Sigma$-theory $T$ (MoritaData L T) adds to $\Sigma$:

• new sorts, each with its defining symbols:
  • a product $\sigma$ of $\sigma_1,\sigma_2$, with projections $\pi_1,\pi_2$;
  • a coproduct, with injections $\rho_1,\rho_2$;
  • a subsort cut out by a $\Sigma$-formula $\varphi(x)$, with an injection $i$;
  • a quotient by a $\Sigma$-formula $\varphi(x_1,x_2)$, with a projection $\varepsilon$;
• new predicates and function symbols, each explicitly defined by a $\Sigma$-formula.

Each new symbol gets one defining axiom, and the symbols of one new sort share a single axiom. The extension $T^+$ (D.ext) is $T$ together with these axioms. Each definition must satisfy its admissibility condition in every model of $T$:

Definition	Condition
subsort	$\exists x\,\varphi(x)$
quotient	$\varphi$ is an equivalence relation
function symbol	$\forall x\,\exists!y\,\varphi(x,y)$

The reduct gives a functor $\Pi:\mathrm{Mod}(T^+)\to\mathrm{Mod}(T)$ (D.proj).

$T_1$ and $T_2$ are Morita equivalent (MoritaEquivalent) if two finite chains of Morita extensions $T_1\rightsquigarrow T_1'$ and $T_2\rightsquigarrow T_2'$ (MoritaReach) end in logically equivalent theories, that is, theories with the same models, over a common signature.

Formalization targets

Goal: Morita equivalence implies categorical equivalence

$$T_1 \text{ Morita equivalent to } T_2 \;\Longrightarrow\; \mathrm{Mod}(T_1)\simeq\mathrm{Mod}(T_2).$$

Milestones

1. Unique expansion. Every model $M$ of $T$ has an expansion $N\models T^+$ with $\Pi N\cong M$, and any two such expansions are isomorphic.
2. $\Pi$ is faithful.
3. $\Pi$ is full.
4. Conservativity. For every $\Sigma$-formula $\alpha$: $T\models\alpha$ iff $T^+\models\alpha$.
5. Translation. Every $\Sigma^+$-formula whose free variables all have old sorts is $T^+$-equivalent to a $\Sigma$-formula.
6. Two kinds of things. $T_1=\{\exists x\,p(x),\ \exists x\,q(x),\ \forall x\,(p(x)\vee q(x)),\ \forall x\,\neg(p(x)\wedge q(x))\}$ over one sort is Morita equivalent to the empty theory over two sorts.
7. Separating example, first half. $T_1=\{\exists^{=1}x\,(x=x)\}$ and $T_2=T_1\cup\{\forall y\,(p_0(y)\to p_i(y)) : i\in\mathbb N\}$, over one sort and countably many unary predicates, are categorically equivalent.
8. Separating example, second half. These two theories are not Morita equivalent.

Milestones 1–3 together say that $\Pi$ is an equivalence of categories. Milestones 6–8 are not needed for the goal; they record the paper's examples, which show that Morita equivalence relates theories with different numbers of sorts and is strictly stronger than categorical equivalence.

Significance

The result itself. The goal makes Morita equivalence a syntactic sufficient condition for categorical equivalence: an explicit dictionary of definitions yields an equivalence of model categories. Milestone 8 shows the converse fails, so categorical equivalence is strictly weaker. Milestone 6 shows that Morita equivalence, unlike definitional equivalence, can relate theories with different numbers of sorts. Together these locate the criterion that later philosophy-of-physics work uses to compare formulations with different ontologies, such as different numbers of kinds of objects.

Formalizing it. The results are proved on paper and, as far as is known, have no machine-checked proofs. Mathlib's ModelTheory library is single-sorted, so none of this is available there. The mission produces a reusable many-sorted first-order logic with:

• syntax, semantics and signature maps;
• elementary embeddings and the category of models;
• Morita extensions with their reduct functors.

The paper's arguments for conservativity and translation are informal in places; for example, the translation in the appendix uses coding of new-sorted variables. A formal proof fixes these details.

Difficulty

The obvious route to the goal composes the reduct functors along the chains. The work lies in showing that each reduct is an equivalence when the arrows are elementary embeddings.

• Fullness. An elementary embedding of reducts extends uniquely to the new sorts. Showing that the extension is again elementary requires the translation of Milestone 5: every $\Sigma^+$-formula has to be pulled back to a $\Sigma$-formula, including formulas that quantify over the new sorts.
• Coproduct and quotient sorts. Quantifiers over these sorts must be eliminated in favour of quantifiers over the old sorts.

For Milestone 8 the difficulty is reversed. One must rule out every pair of chains, including chains that introduce arbitrary new sorts. The paper's proof argues with a single common Morita extension. The definition, however, allows chains, and the paper notes that a chain need not collapse to a single extension. The argument must therefore be run through conservativity and translation along each chain.

Formalization scope

• Self-contained logic. Signatures have dependent arities (Fin m → Srt). Terms and formulas use de Bruijn variables in typed contexts Γ : Fin n → Srt; Formula.all binds variable 0.
• Theories. A theory is a Set (Axiom L), each axiom being a formula in context read as its universal closure. Because sorts are nonempty, this agrees with the sentence version.
• Nonempty sorts. Every structure has nonempty carriers. This is the paper's convention, and without it Milestone 6 is false: the empty theory over two sorts would have models with an empty sort.
• Morita extensions are built, not recognized. MoritaData L T lists the new sorts and symbols and their defining $\Sigma$-formulas. The signature $\Sigma^+$ (D.sig) and the axioms are generated from it, and admissibility is stated semantically, over all models of $T$. Any Morita extension in the paper's sense is of this form up to renaming of the new symbols.
• A common signature up to renaming. MoritaEquivalent asks for a bijective signature map F between the two chain ends such that a structure is a model of $T_2'$ iff its F-reduct is a model of $T_1'$.
• Universes. Models live in Type.
• Separating example. The paper writes $T_2$ with fresh symbols $q_i$; here $T_1$ and $T_2$ share the signature with predicates $p_i$, which only renames symbols.
• No trivialization. None of the targets holds vacuously: Morita extensions require genuine admissibility proofs, and the arrows are elementary embeddings, not arbitrary maps. Milestone 6 needs explicit chains and an explicit renaming, with arity casts.

A complete development will need:

• the substitution and weakening lemmas for de Bruijn formulas;
• the realization of signature maps;
• the construction of expansions;
• a translation function from $\Sigma^+$-formulas to $\Sigma$-formulas.

These pieces are reusable for any later work on interpretations or theoretical equivalence. Alternative proofs of Milestone 8, for example by counting finitely axiomatized subtheories, are welcome.

Selected references

• T. W. Barrett, H. Halvorson, Morita Equivalence, Rev. Symb. Logic 9 (2016) 556–582. arXiv:1506.04675. Source of all targets: §3–§5 and the appendix; Example 4 and Theorems 4.1–4.3, 5.1, 5.2.
• J. O. Weatherall, Are Newtonian Gravitation and Geometrized Newtonian Gravitation Theoretically Equivalent?, Erkenntnis 81 (2016) 1073–1091. arXiv:1411.5757.
• J. O. Weatherall, Theoretical Equivalence in Physics, Philos. Compass 14 (2019). arXiv:1810.08192.
• H. Halvorson, The Logic in Philosophy of Science, Cambridge University Press, 2019. doi:10.1017/9781316275603.