ON A QUESTION OF KRAJEWSKI’S

2019 ◽  
Vol 84 (1) ◽  
pp. 343-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
FEDOR PAKHOMOV ◽  
ALBERT VISSER
Keyword(s):  
Predicate Symbol ◽  
Finite Extension ◽  
Conservative Extension ◽  
Unary Predicate ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Conservative Extensions

AbstractIn this paper, we study finitely axiomatizable conservative extensions of a theory U in the case where U is recursively enumerable and not finitely axiomatizable. Stanisław Krajewski posed the question whether there are minimal conservative extensions of this sort. We answer this question negatively.Consider a finite expansion of the signature of U that contains at least one predicate symbol of arity ≥ 2. We show that, for any finite extension α of U in the expanded language that is conservative over U, there is a conservative extension β of U in the expanded language, such that $\alpha \vdash \beta$ and $\beta \not \vdash \alpha$. The result is preserved when we consider either extensions or model-conservative extensions of U instead of conservative extensions. Moreover, the result is preserved when we replace $\dashv$ as ordering on the finitely axiomatized extensions in the expanded language by a relevant kind of interpretability, to wit interpretability that identically translates the symbols of the U-language.We show that the result fails when we consider an expansion with only unary predicate symbols for conservative extensions of U ordered by interpretability that preserves the symbols of U.

Indescribable cardinals and elementary embeddings

1991 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 439-457 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kai Hauser
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Predicate Symbol ◽  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Unary Predicate ◽  
Finite Sequences ◽  
Elementary Embeddings ◽  
Reflection Principles ◽  
The One ◽  
Image Position ◽  
The Universe

Indescribability is closely related to the reflection principles of Zermelo-Fränkel set theory. In this axiomatic setting the universe of all sets stratifies into a natural cumulative hierarchy (Vα: α ϵ On) such that any formula of the language for set theory that holds in the universe already holds in the restricted universe of all sets obtained by some stage.The axioms of ZF prove the existence of many ordinals α such that this reflection scheme holds in the world Vα. Hanf and Scott noticed that one arrives at a large cardinal notion if the reflecting formulas are allowed to contain second order free variables to which one assigns subsets of Vα. For a given collection Ω of formulas in the ϵ language of set theory with higher type variables and a unary predicate symbol they define an ordinal α to be Ω indescribable if for all sentences Φ in Ω and A ⊆ VαSince a sufficient coding apparatus is available, this definition is (for the classes of formulas that we are going to consider) equivalent to the one that one obtains by allowing finite sequences of relations over Vα, some of which are possibly k-ary. We will be interested mainly in certain standardized classes of formulas: Let (, respectively) denote the class of all formulas in the language introduced above whose prenex normal form has n alternating blocks of quantifiers of type m (i.e. (m + 1)th order) starting with ∃ (∀, respectively) and no quantifiers of type greater than m. In Hanf and Scott [1961] it is shown that in ZFC, indescribability is equivalent to inaccessibility and indescribability coincides with weak compactness.

scholarly journals DIOPHANTINE SETS OF POLYNOMIALS OVER ALGEBRAIC EXTENSIONS OF THE RATIONALS

2014 ◽  
Vol 79 (3) ◽  
pp. 733-747
Author(s):  
CLAUDIA DEGROOTE ◽  
JEROEN DEMEYER
Keyword(s):  
Minimal Polynomial ◽  
Finite Extension ◽  
Algebraic Extension ◽  
Recursively Enumerable

AbstractLet L be a recursive algebraic extension of ℚ. Assume that, given α ∈ L, we can compute the roots in L of its minimal polynomial over ℚ and we can determine which roots are Aut(L)-conjugate to α. We prove that there exists a pair of polynomials that characterizes the Aut(L)-conjugates of α, and that these polynomials can be effectively computed. Assume furthermore that L can be embedded in ℝ, or in a finite extension of ℚp (with p an odd prime). Then we show that subsets of L[X]k that are recursively enumerable for every recursive presentation of L[X], are diophantine over L[X].

Pseudoprojective strongly minimal sets are locally projective

1991 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
pp. 1184-1194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Buechler
Keyword(s):  
Predicate Symbol ◽  
Infinite Dimension ◽  
Elementary Extension ◽  
Morley Rank ◽  
Minimal Set ◽  
Unary Predicate ◽  
Minimal Sets

AbstractLet D be a strongly minimal set in the language L, and D′ ⊃ D an elementary extension with infinite dimension over D. Add to L a unary predicate symbol D and let T′ be the theory of the structure (D′, D), where D interprets the predicate D. It is known that T′ is ω-stable. We proveTheorem A. If D is not locally modular, then T′ has Morley rank ω.We say that a strongly minimal set D is pseudoprojective if it is nontrivial and there is a k < ω such that, for all a, b ∈ D and closed X ⊂ D, a ∈ cl(Xb) ⇒ there is a Y ⊂ X with a ∈ cl(Yb) and ∣Y∣ ≤ k. Using Theorem A, we proveTheorem B. If a strongly minimal set D is pseudoprojective, then D is locally projective.The following result of Hrushovski's (proved in §4) plays a part in the proof of Theorem B.Theorem C. Suppose that D is strongly minimal, and there is some proper elementary extension D1 of D such that the theory of the pair (D1, D) is ω1-categorical. Then D is locally modular.

Register machine proof of the theorem on exponential diophantine representation of enumerable sets

1984 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 818-829 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. P. Jones ◽  
Y. V. Matijasevič
Keyword(s):  
Natural Number ◽  
Polynomial Time ◽  
Simple Proof ◽  
Diophantine Equations ◽  
Polynomial Equation ◽  
Exponential Diophantine Equations ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Image Position ◽  
The Right ◽  
Exponential Relation

The purpose of the present paper is to give a new, simple proof of the theorem of M. Davis, H. Putnam and J. Robinson [1961], which states that every recursively enumerable relation A(a1, …, an) is exponential diophantine, i.e. can be represented in the formwhere a1 …, an, x1, …, xm range over natural numbers and R and S are functions built up from these variables and natural number constants by the operations of addition, A + B, multiplication, AB, and exponentiation, AB. We refer to the variables a1,…,an as parameters and the variables x1 …, xm as unknowns.Historically, the Davis, Putnam and Robinson theorem was one of the important steps in the eventual solution of Hilbert's tenth problem by the second author [1970], who proved that the exponential relation, a = bc, is diophantine, and hence that the right side of (1) can be replaced by a polynomial equation. But this part will not be reproved here. Readers wishing to read about the proof of that are directed to the papers of Y. Matijasevič [1971a], M. Davis [1973], Y. Matijasevič and J. Robinson [1975] or C. Smoryński [1972]. We concern ourselves here for the most part only with exponential diophantine equations until §5 where we mention a few consequences for the class NP of sets computable in nondeterministic polynomial time.

Reductions of Hilbert's tenth problem

1958 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Davis ◽  
Hilary Putnam
Keyword(s):  
Diophantine Equation ◽  
Hilbert's Tenth Problem ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Hilbert’S Tenth Problem ◽  
Essential Change ◽  
Recursive Predicate ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Positive Integers

Hilbert's tenth problem is to find an algorithm for determining whether or not a diophantine equation possesses solutions. A diophantine predicate (of positive integers) is defined to be one of the formwhere P is a polynomial with integral coefficients (positive, negative, or zero). Previous work has considered the variables as ranging over nonnegative integers; but we shall find it more useful here to restrict the range to positive integers, no essential change being thereby introduced. It is clear that the recursive unsolvability of Hilbert's tenth problem would follow if one could show that some non-recursive predicate were diophantine. In particular, it would suffice to show that every recursively enumerable predicate is diophantine. Actually, it would suffice to prove far less.

Craig interpolation theorem for intuitionistic logic and extensions Part III

1977 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 269-271 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dov M. Gabbay
Keyword(s):  
Possible Worlds ◽  
Predicate Logic ◽  
Interpolation Property ◽  
Interpolation Theorem ◽  
Kripke Structure ◽  
Unary Predicate ◽  
The World ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Constant Domains ◽  
Positive Integers

This is a continuation of two previous papers by the same title [2] and examines mainly the interpolation property for the logic CD with constant domains, i.e., the extension of the intuitionistic predicate logic with the schemaIt is known [3], [4] that this logic is complete for the class of all Kripke structures with constant domains.Theorem 47. The strong Robinson consistency theorem is not true for CD.Proof. Consider the following Kripke structure with constant domains. The set S of possible worlds is ω0, the set of positive integers. R is the natural ordering ≤. Let ω0 0 = , Bn, is a sequence of pairwise disjoint infinite sets. Let L0 be a language with the unary predicates P, P1 and consider the following extensions for P,P1 at the world m.(a) P is true on ⋃i≤2nBi, and P1 is true on ⋃i≤2n+1Bi for m = 2n.(b) P is true on ⋃i≤2nBi, and P1 for ⋃i≤2n+1Bi for m = 2n.Let (Δ,Θ) be the complete theory of this structure. Consider another unary predicate Q. Let L be the language with P, Q and let M be the language with P1, Q.

Solution of a problem of Tarski

1956 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Myhill
Keyword(s):  
Unary Operation ◽  
Negative Answer ◽  
Operation Symbol ◽  
Counter Example ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Consistent Extension ◽  
Axiomatizable Theory ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Image Position ◽  
The Given

We presuppose the terminology of [1], and we give a negative answer to the following problem ([1], p. 19): Does every essentially undecidable axiomatizable theory have an essentially undecidable finitely axiomatizable subtheory?We use the following theorem of Kleene ([2], p. 311). There exist two recursively enumerable sets α and β such that (1) α and β are disjoint (2) there is no recursive set η for which α ⊂ η, β ⊂ η′. By the definition of recursive enumerability, there are recursive predicates Φ and Ψ for whichWe now specify a theory T which will afford a counter-example to the given problem of Tarski. The only non-logical constants of T are two binary predicates P and Q, one unary operation symbol S, and one individual constant 0. As in ([1], p. 52) we defineThe only non-logical axioms of T are the formulae P(Δm, Δn) for all pairs of integers m, n satisfying Δ(m, n); the formulae Q(Δm, Δn) for all pairs of integers m, n satisfying Ψ(m, n); and the formulaT is consistent, since it has a model. It remains to show that (1) every consistent extension of T is undecidable (2) if T1 is a finitely axiomatizable subtheory of T, there exists a consistent and decidable extension of T1 which has the same constants as T1.

A normal form theorem for first order formulas and its application to Gaifman's splitting theorem

1984 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 1262-1267
Author(s):  
Nobuyoshi Motohashi
Keyword(s):  
Normal Form ◽  
Predicate Symbol ◽  
Atomic Formula ◽  
Splitting Theorem ◽  
First Order ◽  
Usual Manner ◽  
Binary Predicate ◽  
Normal Form Theorem ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Order Predicate Calculus

Let L be a first order predicate calculus with equality which has a fixed binary predicate symbol <. In this paper, we shall deal with quantifiers Cx, ∀x ≦ y, ∃x ≦ y defined as follows: CxA(x) is ∀y∃x(y ≦ x ∧ A(x)), ∀x ≦ yA{x) is ∀x(x ≦ y ⊃ A(x)), and ∃x ≦ yA(x) is ∃x(x ≦ y ∧ 4(x)). The expressions x̄, ȳ, … will be used to denote sequences of variables. In particular, x̄ stands for 〈x1, …, xn〉 and ȳ stands for 〈y1,…, ym〉 for some n, m. Also ∃x̄, ∀x̄ ≦ ȳ, … will be used to denote ∃x1 ∃x2 … ∃xn, ∀x1 ≦ y1 ∀x2 ≦ y2 … ∀xn ≦ yn, …, respectively. Let X be a set of formulas in L such that X contains every atomic formula and is closed under substitution of free variables and applications of propositional connectives ¬(not), ∧(and), ∨(or). Then, ∑(X) is the set of formulas of the form ∃x̄B(x̄), where B ∈ X, and Φ(X) is the set of formulas of the form.Since X is closed under ∧, ∨, the two sets Σ(X) and Φ(X) are closed under ∧, ∨ in the following sense: for any formulas A and B in Σ(X) [Φ(X)], there are formulas in Σ(X)[ Φ(X)] which are obtained from A ∧ B and A ∨ B by bringing some quantifiers forward in the usual manner.

Un principe d'ax-kochen-ershov pour des structures intermédiates entre groupes et corps valués

1999 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 991-1027 ◽  
Author(s):  
Françoise Delon ◽  
Patrick Simonetta
Keyword(s):  
Abelian Group ◽  
Cross Section ◽  
Additive Group ◽  
Ordered Group ◽  
Unary Predicate ◽  
Valued Fields ◽  
Valued Field ◽  
Ordered Groups ◽  
Existentially Closed ◽  
Image Position

AbstractAn Ax-Kochen-Ershov principle for intermediate structures between valued groups and valued fields.We will consider structures that we call valued B-groups and which are of the form 〈G, B, *, υ〉 where– G is an abelian group,– B is an ordered group,– υ is a valuation denned on G taking its values in B,– * is an action of B on G satisfying: ∀x ϵ G ∀ b ∈ B υ(x * b) = ν(x) · b.The analysis of Kaplanski for valued fields can be adapted to our context and allows us to formulate an Ax-Kochen-Ershov principle for valued B-groups: we axiomatise those which are in some sense existentially closed and also obtain many of their model-theoretical properties. Let us mention some applications:1. Assume that υ(x) = υ(nx) for every integer n ≠ 0 and x ϵ G, B is solvable and acts on G in such a way that, for the induced action, Z[B] ∖ {0} embeds in the automorphism group of G. Then 〈G, B, *, υ〉 is decidable if and only if B is decidable as an ordered group.2. Given a field k and an ordered group B, we consider the generalised power series field k((B)) endowed with its canonical valuation. We consider also the following structure:where k((B))+ is the additive group of k((B)), S is a unary predicate interpreting {Tb ∣ b ϵB}, and ×↾k((B))×S is the multiplication restricted to k((B)) × S, structure which is a reduct of the valued field k((B)) with its canonical cross section. Then our result implies that if B is solvable and decidable as an ordered group, then M is decidable.3. A valued B–group has a residual group and our Ax-Kochen-Ershov principle remains valid in the context of expansions of residual group and value group. In particular, by adding a residual order we obtain new examples of solvable ordered groups having a decidable theory.

A note on some intermediate propositional calculi

1984 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 329-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Branislav R. Boričić
Keyword(s):  
Positive Solution ◽  
Natural Deduction ◽  
Propositional Calculus ◽  
Conservative Extension ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Classical Propositional Calculus ◽  
Propositional Calculi

This note is written in reply to López-Escobar's paper [L-E] where a “sequence” of intermediate propositional systems NLCn (n ≥ 1) and corresponding implicative propositional systems NLICn (n ≥ 1) is given. We will show that the “sequence” NLCn contains three different systems only. These are the classical propositional calculus NLC1, Dummett's system NLC2 and the system NLC3. Accordingly (see [C], [Hs2], [Hs3], [B 1], [B2], [Hs4], [L-E]), the problem posed in the paper [L-E] can be formulated as follows: is NLC3a conservative extension of NLIC3? Having in mind investigations of intermediate propositional calculi that give more general results of this type (see V. I. Homič [H1], [H2], C. G. McKay [Mc], T. Hosoi [Hs 1]), in this note, using a result of Homič (Theorem 2, [H1]), we will give a positive solution to this problem.NLICnand NLCn. If X and Y are propositional logical systems, by X ⊆ Y we mean that the set of all provable formulas of X is included in that of Y. And X = Y means that X ⊆ Y and Y ⊆ X. A(P1/B1, …, Pn/Bn) is the formula (or the sequent) obtained from the formula (or the sequent) A by substituting simultaneously B1, …, Bn for the distinct propositional variables P1, …, Pn in A.Let Cn(n ≥ 1) be the string of the following sequents:Having in mind that the calculi of sequents can be understood as meta-calculi for the deducibility relation in the corresponding systems of natural deduction (see [P]), the systems of natural deductions NLCn and NLICn (n ≥ 1), introduced in [L-E], can be identified with the calculi of sequents obtained by adding the sequents Cn as axioms to a sequential formulation of the Heyting propositional calculus and to a system of positive implication, respectively (see [C], [Ch], [K], [P]).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document