Model theory is concerned mainly, although not exclusively, with infinite structures. In recent years, finite structures have risen to greater prominence, both within the context of mainstream model theory, e.g., in work of Lachlan, Cherlin, Hrushovski, and others, and with the advent of finite model theory, which incorporates elements of classical model theory, combinatorics, and complexity theory. The purpose of this survey is to provide an overview of what might be called the model theory of finite structures. Some topics in (...) finite model theory have strong connections to theoretical computer science, especially descriptive complexity theory. In fact, it has been suggested that finite model theory really is, or should be, logic for computer science. These connections with computer science will, however, not be treated here.It is well-known that many classical results of ‘infinite model theory’ fail over the class of finite structures, including the compactness and completeness theorems, as well as many preservation and interpolation theorems. The failure of compactness in the finite, in particular, means that the standard proofs of many theorems are no longer valid in this context. At present, there is no known example of a classical theorem that remains true over finite structures, yet must be proved by substantially different methods. It is generally concluded that first-order logic is ‘badly behaved’ over finite structures.From the perspective of expressive power, first-order logic also behaves badly: it is both too weak and too strong. Too weak because many natural properties, such as the size of a structure being even or a graph being connected, cannot be defined by a single sentence. Too strong, because every class of finite structures with a finite signature can be defined by an infinite set of sentences. Even worse, every finite structure is defined up to isomorphism by a single sentence. In fact, it is perhaps because of this last point more than anything else that model theorists have not been very interested in finite structures. Modern model theory is concerned largely with complete first-order theories, which are completely trivial here. (shrink)

Let V be a finite relational vocabulary in which no symbol has arity greater than 2. Let be countable V‐structure which is homogeneous, simple and 1‐based. The first main result says that if is, in addition, primitive, then it is strongly interpretable in a random structure. The second main result, which generalizes the first, implies (without the assumption on primitivity) that if is “coordinatized” by a set with SU‐rank 1 and there is no definable (without parameters) nontrivial equivalence relation on (...) M with only finite classes, then is strongly interpretable in a random structure. (shrink)

We study finite ℓ‐colourable structures with an underlying pregeometry. The probability measure that is used corresponds to a process of generating such structures by which colours are first randomly assigned to all 1‐dimensional subspaces and then relationships are assigned in such a way that the colouring conditions are satisfied but apart from this in a random way. We can then ask what the probability is that the resulting structure, where we now forget the specific colouring of the generating process, has (...) a given property. With this measure we get the following results: (1) A zero‐one law. (2) The set of sentences with asymptotic probability 1 has an explicit axiomatisation which is presented. (3) There is a formula (not directly speaking about colours) such that, with asymptotic probability 1, the relation “there is an ℓ‐colouring which assigns the same colour to x and y” is defined by. (4) With asymptotic probability 1, an ℓ‐colourable structure has a unique ℓ‐colouring (up to permutation of the colours). (shrink)