Axiom systems for first order logic with finitely many variables

1973 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 576-578 ◽  
Author(s):  
James S. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Finite Size ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Finite Sets ◽  
First Order ◽  
Finite Set ◽  
Axiom Systems

AbstractJ. D. Monk has shown that for first order languages with finitely many variables there is no finite set of schema which axiomatizes the universally valid formulas. There are such finite sets of schema which axiomatize the formulas valid in all structures of some fixed finite size.

The relative expressive power of some logics extending first-order logic

1979 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Cowles
Keyword(s):  
Model Theory ◽  
Expressive Power ◽  
Second Order ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
The Other ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Finite Sets ◽  
Limited Ability ◽  
First Order ◽  
Second Order Logic

In recent years there has been a proliferation of logics which extend first-order logic, e.g., logics with infinite sentences, logics with cardinal quantifiers such as “there exist infinitely many…” and “there exist uncountably many…”, and a weak second-order logic with variables and quantifiers for finite sets of individuals. It is well known that first-order logic has a limited ability to express many of the concepts studied by mathematicians, e.g., the concept of a wellordering. However, first-order logic, being among the simplest logics with applications to mathematics, does have an extensively developed and well understood model theory. On the other hand, full second-order logic has all the expressive power needed to do mathematics, but has an unworkable model theory. Indeed, the search for a logic with a semantics complex enough to say something, yet at the same time simple enough to say something about, accounts for the proliferation of logics mentioned above. In this paper, a number of proposed strengthenings of first-order logic are examined with respect to their relative expressive power, i.e., given two logics, what concepts can be expressed in one but not the other?For the most part, the notation is standard. Most of the notation is either explained in the text or can be found in the book [2] of Chang and Keisler. Some notational conventions used throughout the text are listed below: the empty set is denoted by ∅.

Zermelo and the Skolem Paradox

2000 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dirk Van Dalen ◽  
Heinz-Dieter Ebbinghaus
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
Countable Model ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Axiom Systems

On October 4, 1937, Zermelo composed a small note entitled “Der Relativismus in der Mengenlehre und der sogenannte Skolemsche Satz”(“Relativism in Set Theory and the So-Called Theorem of Skolem”) in which he gives a refutation of “Skolem's paradox”, i.e., the fact that Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory—guaranteeing the existence of uncountably many sets—has a countable model. Compared with what he wished to disprove, the argument fails. However, at a second glance, it strongly documents his view of mathematics as based on a world of objects that could only be grasped adequately by infinitary means. So the refutation might serve as a final clue to his epistemological credo.Whereas the Skolem paradox was to raise a lot of concern in the twenties and the early thirties, it seemed to have been settled by the time Zermelo wrote his paper, namely in favour of Skolem's approach, thus also accepting the noncategoricity and incompleteness of the first-order axiom systems. So the paper might be considered a late-comer in a community of logicians and set theorists who mainly followed finitary conceptions, in particular emphasizing the role of first-order logic (cf. [8]). However, Zermelo never shared this viewpoint: In his first letter to Gödel of September 21, 1931, (cf. [1]) he had written that the Skolem paradox rested on the erroneous assumption that every mathematically definable notion should be expressible by a finite combination of signs, whereas a reasonable metamathematics would only be possible after this “finitistic prejudice” would have been overcome, “a task I have made my particular duty”.

Nonfinite axiomatizability results for cylindric and relation algebras

1989 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 951-974 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger D. Maddux
Keyword(s):  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Algebraic Semantics ◽  
Relation Algebras ◽  
Cylindric Algebras ◽  
First Order ◽  
Finite Set ◽  
Representable Relation

AbstractThe set of equations which use only one variable and hold in all representable relation algebras cannot be derived from any finite set of equations true in all representable relation algebras. Similar results hold for cylindric algebras and for logic with finitely many variables. The main tools are a construction of nonrepresentable one-generated relation algebras, a method for obtaining cylindric algebras from relation algebras, and the use of relation algebras in defining algebraic semantics for first-order logic.

First-Order Logic Reasoning Support for the Semantic Web

2009 ◽  
Vol 19 (12) ◽  
pp. 3091-3099 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gui-Hong XU ◽  
Jian ZHANG
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Web ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Logic Reasoning

Boolean-valued structures

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Button ◽  
Sean Walsh
Keyword(s):  
Model Theory ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Inference Rules ◽  
Mathematical Concepts ◽  
Semantic Framework ◽  
First Order ◽  
Standard Models ◽  
Boolean Valued Model ◽  
Semantic Values

Chapters 6-12 are driven by questions about the ability to pin down mathematical entities and to articulate mathematical concepts. This chapter is driven by similar questions about the ability to pin down the semantic frameworks of language. It transpires that there are not just non-standard models, but non-standard ways of doing model theory itself. In more detail: whilst we normally outline a two-valued semantics which makes sentences True or False in a model, the inference rules for first-order logic are compatible with a four-valued semantics; or a semantics with countably many values; or what-have-you. The appropriate level of generality here is that of a Boolean-valued model, which we introduce. And the plurality of possible semantic values gives rise to perhaps the ‘deepest’ level of indeterminacy questions: How can humans pin down the semantic framework for their languages? We consider three different ways for inferentialists to respond to this question.

scholarly journals Extensions in graph normal form

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michał Walicki
Keyword(s):  
Normal Form ◽  
Fixed Points ◽  
Propositional Logic ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Special Cases

Abstract Graph normal form, introduced earlier for propositional logic, is shown to be a normal form also for first-order logic. It allows to view syntax of theories as digraphs, while their semantics as kernels of these digraphs. Graphs are particularly well suited for studying circularity, and we provide some general means for verifying that circular or apparently circular extensions are conservative. Traditional syntactic means of ensuring conservativity, like definitional extensions or positive occurrences guaranteeing exsitence of fixed points, emerge as special cases.

Relational Chase Procedures Interpreted as Resolution with Paramodulation1

1991 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-138
Author(s):  
Joachim Biskup ◽  
Bernhard Convent
Keyword(s):  
Alternative Interpretation ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Inference Problem ◽  
First Order ◽  
Inference Problems ◽  
The One ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Theoretical Foundations ◽  
Insight Into

In this paper the relationship between dependency theory and first-order logic is explored in order to show how relational chase procedures (i.e., algorithms to decide inference problems for dependencies) can be interpreted as clever implementations of well known refutation procedures of first-order logic with resolution and paramodulation. On the one hand this alternative interpretation provides a deeper insight into the theoretical foundations of chase procedures, whereas on the other hand it makes available an already well established theory with a great amount of known results and techniques to be used for further investigations of the inference problem for dependencies. Our presentation is a detailed and careful elaboration of an idea formerly outlined by Grant and Jacobs which up to now seems to be disregarded by the database community although it definitely deserves more attention.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document