In mathematical logic, and particularly in its subfield model theory, a saturated model M is one that realizes as many complete types as may be "reasonably expected" given its size. For example, an ultrapower model of the hyperreals is saturated, meaning that every descending nested sequence of internal sets has a nonempty intersection.^{[1]}
YouTube Encyclopedic

1/3Views:8 49714 30740 261

Saturation Growth Model Regression  Transformed Data  Derivation

Lecture 5 Implicit Models  GANs Part I  UC Berkeley, Spring 2020

Mod01 Lec04 Lecture04Mathematical Modeling (Contd...2)
Transcription
. . . In this segment, we're going to talk about how to derive the formula for a saturation growth model. . And we're going to look at, again, the approach we're going to take to find the saturation growth model constants is by using transformed data approach.So we'll talk about that in a little bit, what that means.Let's go ahead and state the problem.So we are given x1, y1, all the way up to xn, yn, and somebody says best fit, again, in the least squares sense, best fit y is equal to a x, divided by b, plus x to the data. Now, this best fit for this saturation growth model, the reason why this is called saturation is because if you take the limit of as x approaches infinity, this is a x, divided by b, plus x will be equal to x, divided by b by a . . . no, divide by x both . . . if I divide by x, both the numerator and the denominator, I get a, divided by b by x, plus 1, limit of x approaching infinity, and I get just a.So what this means is that as x becomes a very large number, it saturates to a, and that's why it's called saturation growth model, but it starts with x equal to . . . y equal to 0 also, so at x equal to 0 . . . at x equal to 0, your y is 0, at x equal to infinity, y is equal to a.So you start from 0, and you go up to a.So if you were going to look at it from a graphical point of view, your data most probably will look like something like this for the saturation growth model.So if this is the data which is given to you, and you are trying to develop a saturation growth model, and it will simply start to become asymptotically equal to a. So this particular value will be a here, so that's there, but it's going to start from . . . it's going to start from 0 itself right here.So let's go ahead and see that how can we find out the constants of the model, which are a and b in this case, so a and b are the two constants which we need to find for the saturation growth model. So we are going to use a transformed data approach, which basically implies that we're going to use our knowledge of linear regression to find out what a and b are.Keep in mind that this is still a nonlinear model, but we are transforming the data only for the sake of convenience. So the way we're going to do it is we're going to say, hey, if y is equal to a x divided by b plus x, then 1 divided by y is b plus x, divided by a x, and that gives me b divided by a, 1 divided by x, plus 1 divided by a, so that's what it turns out to be equal to.The reason why I've made this change is because if I treat this to be z, I treat this to be a1, I treat this to be w, and I treat this to be a0, then what I have is that I have z is equal to a0, plus a1 w. So what you are finding out here is that by making this transformation, I'm able to say that, hey, z versus w is a linear model.Then I can use a linear regression model between z and w, not between y and x.Between y and x, we still have a saturation growth model going on.So this is only for mathematical convenience, we're saying that, hey, if I convert my y values to z values by simply by taking 1 divided by yi values, similarly I'm going to get my w values by taking 1 divided by x values, I can say that, hey, z versus w is linear, and the reason why I want to do that is because there are simple equations written for a0 and a1 for a linear regression model.So once I have found a0 and a1, I can find out then my b and a.So how do I get my z and w values?Because zis will be nothing but 1 divided by yis, so all I have to do is to take my y values and just take the inverse of those numbers and I will find the z values, and in order to find out the w values, all I have to do is to take all my x values, and I will be able to find out all my w values.That will give me a linear regression model between z and . . . z versus w, I'll be able to find a0 and a1, then, but these are not the constants of my original model.The constants of my original model are a and b, but I can find those by this, these two assumptions which I made that b by a is a1 . . . not assumptions, but substitutions I made, b by a is same as a1, and 1 by a is same as a0.So I know that 1 by a is same as a0, that tells me that a is nothing but 1 divided by a0.So once I find out my a0, all I have to take is the inverse of that, and I will be able to find the value of a in there, and b by a is a1, that implies that b is equal to a1 times a, and what is a?a is 1 by a0, so a1 divided by a0. So that'll give me the value of b.So the . . . the procedure here is to invert your y values to get your z values, invert your x values to get your w values, do the linear regression of z versus w, you will be able to find out what a0 and a1 are, and once you have found a0 and a1, you can find your constants of the original model a by inverting a, and then b is simply a1 divided by a0, and that's how you're going to do the saturation growth model. Again, keep in mind is that you are doing the transformation of the data for convenience purposes, not for the purpose of . . . you're not actually finding the least squares between the observed values and the predicted values here, but you're finding the least squares between the observed and predicted values of z . . . between the z values, so that's what you are doing there, so keep in mind that there's a difference between the two.So let me go ahead and explain what that difference is.So if you look at . . . you have z is equal to a0, plus a1 w, what you are basically doing is that you're minimizing the sum of the square of the residuals of this, you are minimizing zi, minus a0, minus a1 wi, squared, i is equal to 1 to n, and that is summation, i is equal to 1 to n, zi is 1 divided by yi, a0 is same as 1 by a, a1 is same as b by a, and wi is nothing but 1 divided by xi, squared, so that's what you are minimizing when you are doing this transformed data business. What you should have been minimizing, if you wanted to do statistically optimal regression, you should have been doing this. You should have been minimizing this, but since this is mathematically convenient, that's why we are taking this approach, as opposed to this approach, which can be also done.And that's the end of this segment. . . . .
Definition
Let κ be a finite or infinite cardinal number and M a model in some firstorder language. Then M is called κsaturated if for all subsets A ⊆ M of cardinality less than κ, the model M realizes all complete types over A. The model M is called saturated if it is Msaturated where M denotes the cardinality of M. That is, it realizes all complete types over sets of parameters of size less than M. According to some authors, a model M is called countably saturated if it is saturated; that is, it realizes all complete types over countable sets of parameters.^{[2]} According to others, it is countably saturated if it is countable and saturated.^{[3]}
Motivation
The seemingly more intuitive notion—that all complete types of the language are realized—turns out to be too weak (and is appropriately named weak saturation, which is the same as 1saturation). The difference lies in the fact that many structures contain elements that are not definable (for example, any transcendental element of R is, by definition of the word, not definable in the language of fields). However, they still form a part of the structure, so we need types to describe relationships with them. Thus we allow sets of parameters from the structure in our definition of types. This argument allows us to discuss specific features of the model that we may otherwise miss—for example, a bound on a specific increasing sequence c_{n} can be expressed as realizing the type {x ≥ c_{n} : n ∈ ω}, which uses countably many parameters. If the sequence is not definable, this fact about the structure cannot be described using the base language, so a weakly saturated structure may not bound the sequence, while an ℵ_{1}saturated structure will.
The reason we only require parameter sets that are strictly smaller than the model is trivial: without this restriction, no infinite model is saturated. Consider a model M, and the type {x ≠ m : m ∈ M}. Each finite subset of this type is realized in the (infinite) model M, so by compactness it is consistent with M, but is trivially not realized. Any definition that is universally unsatisfied is useless; hence the restriction.
Examples
Saturated models exist for certain theories and cardinalities:
 (Q, <)—the set of rational numbers with their usual ordering—is saturated. Intuitively, this is because any type consistent with the theory is implied by the order type; that is, the order the variables come in tells you everything there is to know about their role in the structure.
 (R, <)—the set of real numbers with their usual ordering—is not saturated. For example, take the type (in one variable x) that contains the formula for every natural number n, as well as the formula . This type uses ω different parameters from R. Every finite subset of the type is realized on R by some real x, so by compactness the type is consistent with the structure, but it is not realized, as that would imply an upper bound to the sequence −1/n that is less than 0 (its least upper bound). Thus (R,<) is not ω_{1}saturated, and not saturated. However, it is ωsaturated, for essentially the same reason as Q—every finite type is given by the order type, which if consistent, is always realized, because of the density of the order.
 A dense totally ordered set without endpoints is a η_{α} set if and only if it is ℵ_{α}saturated.
 The countable random graph, with the only nonlogical symbol being the edge existence relation, is also saturated, because any complete type is isolated (implied) by the finite subgraph consisting of the variables and parameters used to define the type.
Both the theory of Q and the theory of the countable random graph can be shown to be ωcategorical through the backandforth method. This can be generalized as follows: the unique model of cardinality κ of a countable κcategorical theory is saturated.
However, the statement that every model has a saturated elementary extension is not provable in ZFC. In fact, this statement is equivalent to ^{[citation needed]} the existence of a proper class of cardinals κ such that κ^{<κ} = κ. The latter identity is equivalent to κ = λ^{+} = 2^{λ} for some λ, or κ is strongly inaccessible.
Relationship to prime models
The notion of saturated model is dual to the notion of prime model in the following way: let T be a countable theory in a firstorder language (that is, a set of mutually consistent sentences in that language) and let P be a prime model of T. Then P admits an elementary embedding into any other model of T. The equivalent notion for saturated models is that any "reasonably small" model of T is elementarily embedded in a saturated model, where "reasonably small" means cardinality no larger than that of the model in which it is to be embedded. Any saturated model is also homogeneous. However, while for countable theories there is a unique prime model, saturated models are necessarily specific to a particular cardinality. Given certain settheoretic assumptions, saturated models (albeit of very large cardinality) exist for arbitrary theories. For λstable theories, saturated models of cardinality λ exist.
Notes
 ^ Goldblatt 1998
 ^ Morley, Michael (1963). "On theories categorical in uncountable powers". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 49 (2): 213–216. Bibcode:1963PNAS...49..213M. doi:10.1073/pnas.49.2.213. PMC 299780. PMID 16591050.
 ^ Chang and Keisler 1990
References
 Chang, C. C.; Keisler, H. J. Model theory. Third edition. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, 73. NorthHolland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1990. xvi+650 pp. ISBN 0444880542
 R. Goldblatt (1998). Lectures on the hyperreals. An introduction to nonstandard analysis. Springer.
 Marker, David (2002). Model Theory: An Introduction. New York: SpringerVerlag. ISBN 0387987606
 Poizat, Bruno; (translation: Klein, Moses) (2000), A Course in Model Theory, New York: SpringerVerlag. ISBN 0387986553
 Sacks, Gerald E. (1972), Saturated model theory, W. A. Benjamin, Inc., Reading, Mass., MR 0398817