Products of two-sorted structures

1972 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Olin
Keyword(s):  
Finite Number ◽  
Direct Product ◽  
Direct Products ◽  
Direct Sums ◽  
First Order ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Universal Equivalence ◽  
Relational Systems ◽  
Multiple Operation ◽  
Definition Of

First order properties of direct products and direct sums (weak direct products) of relational systems have been studied extensively. For example, in Feferman and Vaught [3] an effective procedure is given for reducing such properties of the product to properties of the factors, and thus in particular elementary equivalence is preserved. We consider here two-sorted relational systems, with the direct product and sum operations keeping one of the sorts stationary. (See Feferman [4] for a similar definition of extensions.)These considerations are motivated by the example of direct products and sums of modules [8], [9]. In [9] examples are given to show that the direct product of two modules (even having only a finite number of module elements) does not preserve two-sorted (even universal) equivalence for any finite or infinitary language Lκ, λ. So we restrict attention here to direct powers and multiples (many copies of one structure). Also in [9] it is shown (for modules, but the proofs generalize immediately to two-sorted structures with a finite number of relations) that the direct multiple operation preserves first order ∀E-equivalence and the direct power operation preserves first order ∀-equivalence. We show here that these results for general two-sorted structures in a finite first order language are, in a sense, best-possible. Examples are given to show that does not imply , and that does not imply .

Recursive categoricity and persistence

1986 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 430-434 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terrence Millar
Keyword(s):  
First Order ◽  
Existential Sentence ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Recursive Structures ◽  
Definition Of

This paper is concerned with recursive structures and the persistance of an effective notion of categoricity. The terminology and notational conventions are standard. We will devote the rest of this paragraph to a cursory review of some of the assumed conventions. If θ is a formula, then θk denotes θ if k is zero, and ¬θ if k is one. If A is a sequence with domain a subset of ω, then A∣n denotes the sequence obtained by restricting the domain of A to n. For an effective first order language L, let {ci∣i<ω} be distinct new constants, and let {θi∣i<ω} be an effective enumeration of all sentences in the language L ∪ {ci∣j<ω}. An infinite L-structure is recursive iff it has universe ω and the set is recursive, where cn is interpreted by n. In general we say that a set of formulas is recursive if the set of its indices with respect to an enumeration such as above is recursive. The ∃-diagram of a structure is recursive if the structure is recursive and the set and θi is an existential sentence} is also recursive. The definition of “the ∀∃-diagram of is recursive” is similar.

An axiomatic system for the first order language with an equi-cardinality quantifier

1966 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 633-640 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mitsuru Yasuhara
Keyword(s):  
Rational Numbers ◽  
Axiomatic System ◽  
Universal Quantifier ◽  
Real Numbers ◽  
Relational System ◽  
First Order ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Relational Systems ◽  
Finite Domains ◽  
The Universe

The equi-cardinality quantifier1 to be used in this article, written as Qx, is characterised by the following semantical rule: A formula QxA(x) is true in a relational system exactly when the cardinality of the set consisting of these elements which make A(x) true is the same as that of the universe. For instance, QxN(x) is true in 〈Rt, N〉 but false in 〈Rl, N〉 where Rt, Rl, and N are the sets of rational numbers, real numbers, and natural numbers, respectively. We notice that in finite domains the equi-cardinality quantifier is the same as the universal quantifier. For this reason, all relational systems considered in the following are assumed infinite.

scholarly journals Semantics for Hyperclassical Logic and the Problem of Negation in the Formal Language

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 5-15
Author(s):  
V. V. Tselishchev
Keyword(s):  
Theoretical Model ◽  
Formal Language ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Winning Strategies ◽  
Game Theoretic ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Game Theoretic Semantics

The application of game-theoretic semantics for first-order logic is based on a certain kind of semantic assumptions, directly related to the asymmetry of the definition of truth and lies as the winning strategies of the Verifier (Abelard) and the Counterfeiter (Eloise). This asymmetry becomes apparent when applying GTS to IFL. The legitimacy of applying GTS when it is transferred to IFL is based on the adequacy of GTS for FOL. But this circumstance is not a reason to believe that one can hope for the same adequacy in the case of IFL. Then the question arises if GTS is a natural semantics for IFL. Apparently, the intuitive understanding of negation in natural language can be explicated in formal languages in various ways, and the result of an incomplete grasp of the concept in these languages can be considered a certain kind of anomalies, in view of the apparent simplicity of the explicated concept. Comparison of the theoretical-model and game theoretic semantics in application to two kinds of language – the first-order language and friendly-independent logic – allows to discover the causes of the anomaly and outline ways to overcome it.

scholarly journals Sectional algebras of semigroupoid bundles

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (06) ◽  
pp. 1257-1304
Author(s):  
Luiz Gustavo Cordeiro
Keyword(s):  
Direct Product ◽  
Tensor Products ◽  
Crossed Product ◽  
Direct Products ◽  
Crossed Products ◽  
Graded Algebras ◽  
Semidirect Products ◽  
Skew Products ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Product Bundles

In this paper, we use semigroupoids to describe a notion of algebraic bundles, mostly motivated by Fell ([Formula: see text]-algebraic) bundles, and the sectional algebras associated to them. As the main motivational example, Steinberg algebras may be regarded as the sectional algebras of trivial (direct product) bundles. Several theorems which relate geometric and algebraic constructions — via the construction of a sectional algebra — are widely generalized: Direct products bundles by semigroupoids correspond to tensor products of algebras; semidirect products of bundles correspond to “naïve” crossed products of algebras; skew products of graded bundles correspond to smash products of graded algebras; Quotient bundles correspond to quotient algebras. Moreover, most of the results hold in the non-Hausdorff setting. In the course of this work, we generalize the definition of smash products to groupoid graded algebras. As an application, we prove that whenever [Formula: see text] is a ∧-preaction of a discrete inverse semigroupoid [Formula: see text] on an ample (possibly non-Hausdorff) groupoid [Formula: see text], the Steinberg algebra of the associated groupoid of germs is naturally isomorphic to a crossed product of the Steinberg algebra of [Formula: see text] by [Formula: see text]. This is a far-reaching generalization of analogous results which had been proven in particular cases.

A direct proof of the Feferman-Vaught theorem and other preservation theorems in products

1991 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 632-636 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yiannis Vourtsanis
Keyword(s):  
Direct Proof ◽  
The Other ◽  
Direct Products ◽  
First Order ◽  
New Methods ◽  
Preservation Theorems ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Reduced Products ◽  
The One ◽  
By Products

Here we give short and direct proofs of the Feferman-Vaught theorem and other preservation theorems in products of structures. In 1952, Mostowski [5] first showed the preservation of ≡ωω by direct powers of structures. Subsequently, in 1959, Feferman and Vaught [2] proved the preservation of ≡ωω by arbitrary direct products and also by reduced products with respect to cofinite filters. In 1962, Frayne, Morel and Scott [3] noticed that the results extend to arbitrary reduced products. In 1970, Barwise and Eklof [1] showed the preservation of ≡∞λ by products and in 1971 Malitz [4] showed the preservation of ≡κλ with κ strongly inaccessible (or ∞) by products. Below, we give short proofs of the above results. The ideas used here have initiated, in [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], the introduction of several new methods in the theory of products, which on the one hand give new, direct proofs of the known results in the area, including generalizations or strengthenings of some of those, and, on the other hand, give several new results as well in the theory of products and related areas.Below, L denotes a (first order) language, and by a structure we mean an L-structure. 0 and 1 denote the logically valid and false sentence, respectively. We may write ā ∈ A for ā ∈ An for some n. Also, the values 1 and 2 of a parameter l in the definitions below express a duality corresponding to disjunctive and conjunctive forms.

scholarly journals Subgroups of direct products closely approximated by direct sums

2017 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 1125-1144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Ferrer ◽  
Salvador Hernández ◽  
Dmitri Shakhmatov
Keyword(s):  
Direct Product ◽  
Coding Theory ◽  
List Type ◽  
Direct Products ◽  
Topological Groups ◽  
Product Topology ◽  
Direct Sums ◽  
Cyclic Groups ◽  
Finite Set ◽  
Infinite Set

AbstractLet I be an infinite set, let {\{G_{i}:i\in I\}} be a family of (topological) groups and let {G=\prod_{i\in I}G_{i}} be its direct product. For {J\subseteq I}, {p_{J}:G\to\prod_{j\in J}G_{j}} denotes the projection. We say that a subgroup H of G is(i)uniformly controllable in G provided that for every finite set {J\subseteq I} there exists a finite set {K\subseteq I} such that {p_{J}(H)=p_{J}(H\cap\bigoplus_{i\in K}G_{i})}, (ii)controllable in G provided that {p_{J}(H)=p_{J}(H\cap\bigoplus_{i\in I}G_{i})} for every finite set {J\subseteq I},(iii)weakly controllable in G if {H\cap\bigoplus_{i\in I}G_{i}} is dense in H, when G is equipped with the Tychonoff product topology.One easily proves that (i) {\Rightarrow} (ii) {\Rightarrow} (iii). We thoroughly investigate the question as to when these two arrows can be reversed. We prove that the first arrow can be reversed when H is compact, but the second arrow cannot be reversed even when H is compact. Both arrows can be reversed if all groups {G_{i}} are finite. When {G_{i}=A} for all {i\in I}, where A is an abelian group, we show that the first arrow can be reversed for all subgroups H of G if and only if A is finitely generated. We also describe compact groups topologically isomorphic to a direct product of countably many cyclic groups. Connections with coding theory are highlighted.

A note on direct products

1958 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Novak Gál
Keyword(s):  
Binary Relation ◽  
Direct Product ◽  
Functional Calculus ◽  
Ordered Set ◽  
Infinite Sequence ◽  
Direct Products ◽  
First Order ◽  
Individual Variables ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Infinite Sequences

By an algebra is meant an ordered set Γ = 〈V,R1, …, Rn, O1, …, Om〉, where V is a class, Ri (1 ≤ i ≤, n) is a relation on nj elements of V (i.e. Ri ⊆ Vni), and Oj (1 ≤ i ≤ n) is an operation on elements of V such that Oj(x1, … xmj) ∈ V) for all x1, …, xmj ∈ V). A sentence S of the first-order functional calculus is valid in Γ, if it contains just individual variables x1, x2, …, relation variables ϱ1, …,ϱn, where ϱi,- is nj-ary (1 ≤ i ≤ n), and operation variables σ1, …, σm, where σj is mj-ary (1 ≤, j ≤ m), and S holds if the individual variables are interpreted as ranging over V, ϱi is interpreted as Ri, and σi as Oj. If {Γi}i≤α is a (finite or infinite) sequence of algebras Γi, where Γi = 〈Vi, Ri〉 and Ri, is a binary relation, then by the direct productΓ = Πi<αΓi is meant the algebra Γ = 〈V, R〉, where V consists of all (finite or infinite) sequences x = 〈x1, x2, …, xi, …〉 with Xi ∈ Vi and where R is a binary relation such that two elements x and y of V are in the relation R if and only if xi and yi- are in the relation Ri for each i < α.

Logic of reduced power structures

1983 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-59
Author(s):  
G.C. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Boolean Algebra ◽  
Complete Theory ◽  
Power Structures ◽  
Index Set ◽  
First Order ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Power Set ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Proper Filter ◽  
Horn Sentence

We start with the framework upon which this paper is based. The most useful reference for these notions is [2]. For any nonempty index set I and any proper filter D on S(I) (the power set of I), we denote by I/D the reduced power of modulo D as defined in [2, pp. 167–169]. The first-order language associated with I/D will always be the same language as associated with . We denote the 2-element Boolean algebra 〈{0, 1}, ⋂, ⋃, c, 0, 1〉 by 2 and 2I/D denotes the reduced power of it modulo D. We point out the intimate connection between the structures I/D and 2I/D given in [2, pp. 341–345]. Moreover, we assume as known the definition of Horn formula and Horn sentence as given in [2, p. 328] along with the fundamental theorem that φ is a reduced product sentence iff φ is provably equivalent to a Horn sentence [2, Theorem 6.2.5/ (iff φ is a 2-direct product sentence and a reduced power sentence [2, Proposition 6.2.6(ii)]). For a theory T(any set of sentences), ⊨ T denotes that is a model of T.In addition to the above we assume as known the elementary characteristics (due to Tarski) associated with a complete theory of a Boolean algebra, and we adopt the notation 〈n, p, q〉 of [3], [10], or [6] to denote such an elementary characteristic or the corresponding complete theory. We frequently will use Ershov's theorem which asserts that for each 〈n, p, q〉 there exist an index set I and filter D such that 2I/D ⊨ 〈n, p, q〉 [3] or [2, Lemma 6.3.21].

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document