A relative consistency proof

1954 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Shoenfield
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Functional Calculus ◽  
Direct Method ◽  
Axiom System ◽  
Similar Process ◽  
Consistency Proof ◽  
First Order ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
A Direct Method ◽  
Exact Definition

LetCbe an axiom system formalized within the first order functional calculus, and letC′ be related toCas the Bernays-Gödel set theory is related to the Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. (An exact definition ofC′ will be given later.) Ilse Novak [5] and Mostowski [8] have shown that, ifCis consistent, thenC′ is consistent. (The converse is obvious.) Mostowski has also proved the stronger result that any theorem ofC′ which can be formalized inCis a theorem ofC.The proofs of Novak and Mostowski do not provide a direct method for obtaining a contradiction inCfrom a contradiction inC′. We could, of course, obtain such a contradiction by proving the theorems ofCone by one; the above result assures us that we must eventually obtain a contradiction. A similar process is necessary to obtain the proof of a theorem inCfrom its proof inC′. The purpose of this paper is to give a new proof of these theorems which provides a direct method of obtaining the desired contradiction or proof.The advantage of the proof may be stated more specifically by arithmetizing the syntax ofCandC′.

Direct Method for Determining Inorganic Phosphate in Serum with the "CentrifiChem"

1972 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 263-265 ◽  
Author(s):  
John A Daly ◽  
Gerhard Ertingshausen
Keyword(s):  
Inorganic Phosphate ◽  
Direct Method ◽  
Order Reaction ◽  
First Order Reaction ◽  
First Order ◽  
Kinetics Of ◽  
A Direct Method

Abstract A direct method was developed for determining inorganic phosphate in serum, which requires only a single reagent addition. The method quantitates the unreduced phosphomolybdate heteropolyacid at 340 nm and is linear to at least 10 mg of phosphate per 100 ml. Only 10 µl of serum is required. The unique blanking capabilities of centrifugal analyzers permit the "on run" elimination of serum and reagent background absorbances, which are automatically subtracted. Data on precision, correlation, and recovery are presented. Kinetics of the reaction were studied, and theoretical limits of automatic blanking when applied to a first-order reaction are discussed.

A weak absolute consistency proof for some systems of illative combinatory logic

1983 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 771-776 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.W. Bunder
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Combinatory Logic ◽  
Weak Consistency ◽  
Consistency Proof ◽  
First Order ◽  
Formal Systems ◽  
Elementary Methods ◽  
Order Arithmetic ◽  
Strongly Consistent ◽  
Order Predicate Calculus

A large number of formal systems based on combinatory logic or λ-calculus have been extended to include first order predicate calculus. Several of these however have been shown to be inconsistent, all, as far as the author knows, in the strong sense that all well formed formulas (which here include all strings of symbols) are provable. We will call the corresponding consistency notion—an arbitrary wff ⊥ is provable—weak consistency. We will say that a system is strongly consistent if no formula and its negation are provable.Now for some systems, such as that of Kuzichev [11], the strong and weak consistency notions are equivalent, but in the systems of [5] and [6], which we will be considering, they are not. Each of these systems is strong enough to have all of ZF set theory, except Grounding and Choice, interpretable in it, and the system of [5] can also encompass first order arithmetic (see [7]). It therefore seems unlikely that a strong consistency result could be proved for these systems using elementary methods. In this paper however, we prove the weak consistency of both these systems by means that could be formulated, at least within the theory of [5]. The method also applies to the typed systems of Curry, Hindley and Seldin [10] and to Seldin's generalised types [12].

Forcing for the impredicative theory of classes

1972 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rolando Chuaqui
Keyword(s):  
General Theory ◽  
Set Theory ◽  
Continuum Hypothesis ◽  
Reflection Principle ◽  
Inaccessible Cardinal ◽  
Consistency Proof ◽  
Suitable Form ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Class Construction ◽  
The Continuum

The purpose of this work is to formulate a general theory of forcing with classes and to solve some of the consistency and independence problems for the impredicative theory of classes, that is, the set theory that uses the full schema of class construction, including formulas with quantification over proper classes. This theory is in principle due to A. Morse [9]. The version I am using is based on axioms by A. Tarski and is essentially the same as that presented in [6, pp. 250–281] and [10, pp. 2–11]. For a detailed exposition the reader is referred there. This theory will be referred to as .The reflection principle (see [8]), valid for other forms of set theory, is not provable in . Some form of the reflection principle is essential for the proofs in the original version of forcing introduced by Cohen [2] and the version introduced by Mostowski [10]. The same seems to be true for the Boolean valued models methods due to Scott and Solovay [12]. The only suitable form of forcing for found in the literature is the version that appears in Shoenfield [14]. I believe Vopěnka's methods [15] would also be applicable. The definition of forcing given in the present paper is basically derived from Shoenfield's definition. Shoenfield, however, worked in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory.I do not know of any proof of the consistency of the continuum hypothesis with assuming only that is consistent. However, if one assumes the existence of an inaccessible cardinal, it is easy to extend Gödel's consistency proof [4] of the axiom of constructibility to .

First-Order Coordination of the Articulated Arm Subassembly Using Curvature Theory

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Satyajit Ambike ◽  
James P. Schmiedeler
Keyword(s):  
Taylor Series ◽  
Direct Method ◽  
Joint Coordination ◽  
First Order ◽  
Spatial Mechanisms ◽  
Canonical Frame ◽  
Curvature Theory ◽  
Three Degree Of Freedom ◽  
A Direct Method ◽  
Invariants Of Motion

This paper presents an approach to obtain the first-order speed ratios for three-degree-of-freedom spatial mechanisms that allow three degrees of translational freedom. The approach eliminates the need to locate the canonical frame and find the instantaneous invariants of motion and provides a direct method of obtaining the first-order speed ratios. The expressions for the speed ratios of the articulated arm subassembly are analyzed, and the regions of the workspace wherein the joints have dwells in their trajectories are identified. The first-order Taylor series is used for joint coordination, allowing the system to track a predefined spatial path. An example illustrating the application of curvature theory to spatial path tracking with a specific articulated arm subassembly is presented.

Completeness in the theory of types

1950 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 81-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leon Henkin
Keyword(s):  
Functional Calculus ◽  
Formal System ◽  
Axiom System ◽  
Second Order ◽  
True Proposition ◽  
Arbitrary Domain ◽  
Individual Variables ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Positive Integers

The first order functional calculus was proved complete by Gödel in 1930. Roughly speaking, this proof demonstrates that each formula of the calculus is a formal theorem which becomes a true sentence under every one of a certain intended class of interpretations of the formal system.For the functional calculus of second order, in which predicate variables may be bound, a very different kind of result is known: no matter what (recursive) set of axioms are chosen, the system will contain a formula which is valid but not a formal theorem. This follows from results of Gödel concerning systems containing a theory of natural numbers, because a finite categorical set of axioms for the positive integers can be formulated within a second order calculus to which a functional constant has been added.By a valid formula of the second order calculus is meant one which expresses a true proposition whenever the individual variables are interpreted as ranging over an (arbitrary) domain of elements while the functional variables of degree n range over all sets of ordered n-tuples of individuals. Under this definition of validity, we must conclude from Gödel's results that the calculus is essentially incomplete.It happens, however, that there is a wider class of models which furnish an interpretation for the symbolism of the calculus consistent with the usual axioms and formal rules of inference. Roughly, these models consist of an arbitrary domain of individuals, as before, but now an arbitrary class of sets of ordered n-tuples of individuals as the range for functional variables of degree n. If we redefine the notion of valid formula to mean one which expresses a true proposition with respect to every one of these models, we can then prove that the usual axiom system for the second order calculus is complete: a formula is valid if and only if it is a formal theorem.

On the definition of ‘formal deduction’

1956 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Montague ◽  
Leon Henkin
Keyword(s):  
Functional Calculus ◽  
Modus Ponens ◽  
Formal Proof ◽  
Axiom Schema ◽  
First Order ◽  
Individual Variable ◽  
Individual Variables ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Formal Rules

The following remarks apply to many functional calculi, each of which can be variously axiomatized, but for clarity of exposition we shall confine our attention to one particular system Σ. This system is to have the usual primitive symbols and formation rules of the pure first-order functional calculus, and the following formal axiom schemata and formal rules of inference.Axiom schema 1. Any tautologous wff (well-formed formula).Axiom schema 2. (a) A ⊃ B, where A is any wff, a and b are any individual variables, and B arises from A by replacing all free occurrences of a by free occurrences of b.Axiom schema 3. (a)(A ⊃ B)⊃(A⊃ (a)B). where A and B are any wffs, and a is any individual variable not free in A.Rule of Modus Ponens: applies to wffs A and A ⊃ B, and yields B.Rule of Generalization: applies to a wff A and yields (a)A, where a is any individual variable.A formal proof in Σ is a finite column of wffs each of whose lines is a formal axiom or arises from two preceding lines by the Rule of Modus Ponens or arises from a single preceding line by the Rule of Generalization. A formal theorem of Σ is a wff which occurs as the last line of some formal proof.

Forcing and reducibilities. III. Forcing in fragments of set theory

1983 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 1013-1034
Author(s):  
Piergiorgio Odifreddi
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Recursion Theory ◽  
Second Order ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy ◽  
Second Order Arithmetic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Order Arithmetic ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Generic Set

We conclude here the treatment of forcing in recursion theory begun in Part I and continued in Part II of [31]. The numbering of sections is the continuation of the numbering of the first two parts. The bibliography is independent.In Part I our language was a first-order language: the only set we considered was the (set constant for the) generic set. In Part II a second-order language was introduced, and we had to interpret the second-order variables in some way. What we did was to consider the ramified analytic hierarchy, defined by induction as:A0 = {X ⊆ ω: X is arithmetic},Aα+1 = {X ⊆ ω: X is definable (in 2nd order arithmetic) over Aα},Aλ = ⋃α<λAα (λ limit),RA = ⋃αAα.We then used (a relativized version of) the fact that (Kleene [27]). The definition of RA is obviously modeled on the definition of the constructible hierarchy introduced by Gödel [14]. For this we no longer work in a language for second-order arithmetic, but in a language for (first-order) set theory with membership as the only nonlogical relation:L0 = ⊘,Lα+1 = {X: X is (first-order) definable over Lα},Lλ = ⋃α<λLα (λ limit),L = ⋃αLα.

On the rules of proof in the pure functional calculus of the first order

1951 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 107-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrzej Mostowski
Keyword(s):  
Functional Calculus ◽  
Free Variable ◽  
Propositional Function ◽  
Cartesian Power ◽  
First Order ◽  
A Value ◽  
Free Variables ◽  
Individual Variables ◽  
Definition Of

We consider here the pure functional calculus of first order as formulated by Church.Church, l.c., p. 79, gives the definition of the validity of a formula in a given set I of individuals and shows that a formula is provable in if and only if it is valid in every non-empty set I. The definition of validity is preceded by the definition of a value of a formula; the notion of a value is the basic “semantical” notion in terms of which all other semantical notions are definable.The notion of a value of a formula retains its meaning also in the case when the set I is empty. We have only to remember that if I is empty, then an m-ary propositional function (i.e. a function from the m-th cartesian power Im to the set {f, t}) is the empty set. It then follows easily that the value of each well-formed formula with free individual variables is the empty set. The values of wffs without free variables are on the contrary either f or t. Indeed, if B has the unique free variable c and ϕ is the value of B, then the value of (c)B according to the definition given by Church is the propositional constant f or t according as ϕ(j) is f for at least one j in I or not. Since, however, there is no j in I, the condition ϕ(j) = t for all j in I is vacuously satisfied and hence the value of (c)B is t.

A system of axiomatic set theory—Part I

1937 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Bernays
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Axiom System ◽  
Von Neumann ◽  
Logical Calculus ◽  
First Order ◽  
Usual Manner ◽  
Considerable Simplification ◽  
Individual Variables ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Axiomatic Set Theory

Introduction. The system of axioms for set theory to be exhibited in this paper is a modification of the axiom system due to von Neumann. In particular it adopts the principal idea of von Neumann, that the elimination of the undefined notion of a property (“definite Eigenschaft”), which occurs in the original axiom system of Zermelo, can be accomplished in such a way as to make the resulting axiom system elementary, in the sense of being formalizable in the logical calculus of first order, which contains no other bound variables than individual variables and no accessory rule of inference (as, for instance, a scheme of complete induction).The purpose of modifying the von Neumann system is to remain nearer to the structure of the original Zermelo system and to utilize at the same time some of the set-theoretic concepts of the Schröder logic and of Principia mathematica which have become familiar to logicians. As will be seen, a considerable simplification results from this arrangement.The theory is not set up as a pure formalism, but rather in the usual manner of elementary axiom theory, where we have to deal with propositions which are understood to have a meaning, and where the reference to the domain of facts to be axiomatized is suggested by the names for the kinds of individuals and for the fundamental predicates.On the other hand, from the formulation of the axioms and the methods used in making inferences from them, it will be obvious that the theory can be formalized by means of the logical calculus of first order (“Prädikatenkalkul” or “engere Funktionenkalkül”) with the addition of the formalism of equality and the ι-symbol for “descriptions” (in the sense of Whitehead and Russell).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document