Models of Arithmetic and recursive functions

1975 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Hirschfeld
Keyword(s):  
Recursive Functions ◽  
Models Of Arithmetic

Some theorems on R-maximal sets and major subsets of recursively enumerable sets

1971 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel Lerman
Keyword(s):  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Elementary Equivalence ◽  
Recursive Functions ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Nonstandard Models ◽  
Relational Systems ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Models Of Arithmetic

In [5], we studied the relational systems /Ā obtained from the recursive functions of one variable by identifying two such functions if they are equal for all but finitely many х ∈ Ā, where Ā is an r-cohesive set. The relational systems /Ā with addition and multiplication defined pointwise on them, were once thought to be potential candidates for nonstandard models of arithmetic. This, however, turned out not to be the case, as was shown by Feferman, Scott, and Tennenbaum [1]. We showed, letting A and B be r-maximal sets, and letting denote the complement of X, that /Ā and are elementarily equivalent (/Ā ≡ ) if there are r-maximal supersets C and D of A and B respectively such that C and D have the same many-one degree (C =mD). In fact, if A and B are maximal sets, /Ā ≡ if, and only if, A =mB. We wish to study the relationship between the elementary equivalence of /Ā and , and the Turing degrees of A and B.

On models of arithmetic—Answers to two problems raised by H. Gaifman

1975 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Wilkie
Keyword(s):  
Diophantine Equation ◽  
Initial Segment ◽  
Original Model ◽  
New Model ◽  
Recursive Functions ◽  
Nonstandard Model ◽  
Definable Functions ◽  
Models Of Arithmetic

In a recent paper [3] H. Gaifman investigated some model theoretic consequences of Matijasevič's theorem [5], and posed some further problems which naturally arise. We provide here partial answers to two of these problems, the results having been previously announced in the postscript of [3].Firstly, it is shown in [3] that if M1 and M2 are models of the Peano axioms P and M1 ⊆ M2, then M1 is closed under the recursive functions of M2. The converse of this statement is false. Moreover, Gaifman asks: Is every initial segment of a model M of P which is closed under the recursive functions of M (or the ∑n-definable functions) also a model of P? We show that this is false and our method gives, en route, another proof of a theorem of Rabin [7] stating the P is not implied by any consistent set of ∑n sentences for any n.Secondly, we partially answer a question posed on p. 129 of [3] by proving (some-what more than) every countable nonstandard model of P has an end extension in which a diophantine equation, not solvable in the original model, has a solution. We can, in fact, take the new model to be isomorphic to the original one. This generalises (apart from the countability restriction) a theorem of Rabin [6].

Preliminaries

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
David J. Lobina
Keyword(s):  
Data Structures ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Specific Data ◽  
Recursive Functions ◽  
Recursive Solution ◽  
Partial Recursive Functions ◽  
Recursive Structures ◽  
Recursive Data Structures ◽  
Recursive Data ◽  
The Relationship

Recursion, or the capacity of ‘self-reference’, has played a central role within mathematical approaches to understanding the nature of computation, from the general recursive functions of Alonzo Church to the partial recursive functions of Stephen C. Kleene and the production systems of Emil Post. Recursion has also played a significant role in the analysis and running of certain computational processes within computer science (viz., those with self-calls and deferred operations). Yet the relationship between the mathematical and computer versions of recursion is subtle and intricate. A recursively specified algorithm, for example, may well proceed iteratively if time and space constraints permit; but the nature of specific data structures—viz., recursive data structures—will also return a recursive solution as the most optimal process. In other words, the correspondence between recursive structures and recursive processes is not automatic; it needs to be demonstrated on a case-by-case basis.

Algorithmic Logic with Recursive Functions

1981 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 975-995
Author(s):  
Andrzej Szałas
Keyword(s):  
Completeness Theorem ◽  
Inference Rules ◽  
Partial Correctness ◽  
Recursive Functions ◽  
Algorithmic Logic ◽  
Block Structured

A language is considered in which the reader can express such properties of block-structured programs with recursive functions as correctness and partial correctness. The semantics of this language is fully described by a set of schemes of axioms and inference rules. The completeness theorem and the soundness theorem for this axiomatization are proved.

Transcendence of cardinals

1965 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gaisi Takeuti
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Recursive Functions ◽  
Power Set ◽  
Recursive Predicate

In this paper, by a function of ordinals we understand a function which is defined for all ordinals and each of whose value is an ordinal. In [7] (also cf. [8] or [9]) we defined recursive functions and predicates of ordinals, following Kleene's definition on natural numbers. A predicate will be called arithmetical, if it is obtained from a recursive predicate by prefixing a sequence of alternating quantifiers. A function will be called arithmetical, if its representing predicate is arithmetical.The cardinals are identified with those ordinals a which have larger power than all smaller ordinals than a. For any given ordinal a, we denote by the cardinal of a and by 2a the cardinal which is of the same power as the power set of a. Let χ be the function such that χ(a) is the least cardinal which is greater than a.Now there are functions of ordinals such that they are easily defined in set theory, but it seems impossible to define them as arithmetical ones; χ is such a function. If we define χ in making use of only the language on ordinals, it seems necessary to use the notion of all the functions from ordinals, e.g., as in [6].

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document