Rowbottom cardinals and Jonsson cardinals are almost the same

1973 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 423-427 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. M. Kleinberg
Keyword(s):  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
Elementary Substructure ◽  
Similarity Type ◽  
First Order ◽  
Reflection Principles ◽  
Uncountable Cardinals ◽  
The Moment ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Jonsson Cardinals

Each of the various “large cardinal” axioms currently studied in set theory owes its inspiration to concrete phenomena in various fields. For example, the statement of the well-known compactness theorem for first-order logic can be generalized in various ways to infinitary languages to yield definitions of compact cardinals, and the reflection principles provable in ZF, when modified in the appropriate way, yields indescribable cardinals.In this paper we concern ourselves with two kinds of large cardinals which are probably the two best known of those whose origins lie in model theory. They are the Rowbottom cardinals and the Jonsson cardinals.Let us be more specific. A cardinal κ is said to be a Jonsson cardinal if every structure of cardinality κ has a proper elementary substructure of cardinality κ. (It is routine to see that only uncountable cardinals can be Jonsson. Erdös and Hajnal have shown [2] that for n < ω no ℵn is Jonsson. (In fact, they showed that if κ is not Jonsson then neither is the successor cardinal of κ and that, assuming GCH, no successor cardinal can be Jonsson.) Keisler and Rowbottom first showed that the existence of a Jonsson cardinal contradicts V = L.) The definition of a Rowbottom cardinal is only slightly more intricate. We assume for the moment that our similarity type has a designated one-place relation.

scholarly journals Formula size games for modal logic and μ-calculus

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (8) ◽  
pp. 1311-1344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauri T Hella ◽  
Miikka S Vilander
Keyword(s):  
Modal Logic ◽  
Optimal Strategy ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Kripke Models ◽  
First Order ◽  
Modal Operators ◽  
Crucial Difference ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Person Game

Abstract We propose a new version of formula size game for modal logic. The game characterizes the equivalence of pointed Kripke models up to formulas of given numbers of modal operators and binary connectives. Our game is similar to the well-known Adler–Immerman game. However, due to a crucial difference in the definition of positions of the game, its winning condition is simpler, and the second player does not have a trivial optimal strategy. Thus, unlike the Adler–Immerman game, our game is a genuine two-person game. We illustrate the use of the game by proving a non-elementary succinctness gap between bisimulation invariant first-order logic $\textrm{FO}$ and (basic) modal logic $\textrm{ML}$. We also present a version of the game for the modal $\mu $-calculus $\textrm{L}_\mu $ and show that $\textrm{FO}$ is also non-elementarily more succinct than $\textrm{L}_\mu $.

Church’s theorem and the decision problem

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohit Parikh
Keyword(s):  
Decision Problem ◽  
Combinatorial Problem ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Negative Solution ◽  
Great Contribution ◽  
Solvable Problem ◽  
First Order ◽  
Mathematical Definition ◽  
Definition Of

Church’s theorem, published in 1936, states that the set of valid formulas of first-order logic is not effectively decidable: there is no method or algorithm for deciding which formulas of first-order logic are valid. Church’s paper exhibited an undecidable combinatorial problem P and showed that P was representable in first-order logic. If first-order logic were decidable, P would also be decidable. Since P is undecidable, first-order logic must also be undecidable. Church’s theorem is a negative solution to the decision problem (Entscheidungsproblem), the problem of finding a method for deciding whether a given formula of first-order logic is valid, or satisfiable, or neither. The great contribution of Church (and, independently, Turing) was not merely to prove that there is no method but also to propose a mathematical definition of the notion of ‘effectively solvable problem’, that is, a problem solvable by means of a method or algorithm.

scholarly journals Strong Logics of First and Second Order

2010 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Koellner
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Second Order ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Close Correspondence ◽  
First Order ◽  
Second Order Logic

AbstractIn this paper we investigate strong logics of first and second order that have certain absoluteness properties. We begin with an investigation of first order logic and the strong logics ω-logic and β-logic, isolating two facets of absoluteness, namely, generic invariance and faithfulness. It turns out that absoluteness is relative in the sense that stronger background assumptions secure greater degrees of absoluteness. Our aim is to investigate the hierarchies of strong logics of first and second order that are generically invariant and faithful against the backdrop of the strongest large cardinal hypotheses. We show that there is a close correspondence between the two hierarchies and we characterize the strongest logic in each hierarchy. On the first-order side, this leads to a new presentation of Woodin's Ω-logic. On the second-order side, we compare the strongest logic with full second-order logic and argue that the comparison lends support to Quine's claim that second-order logic is really set theory in sheep's clothing.

scholarly journals Undecidable relativizations of algebras of relations

1999 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 747-760 ◽  
Author(s):  
Szabolcs Mikulás ◽  
Maarten Marx
Keyword(s):  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Similarity Type ◽  
First Order ◽  
Equational Theories ◽  
Algebras Of Relations ◽  
Guarded Fragment ◽  
Cylindric Set Algebras

AbstractIn this paper we show that relativized versions of relation set algebras and cylindric set algebras have undecidable equational theories if we include coordinatewise versions of the counting operations into the similarity type. We apply these results to the guarded fragment of first-order logic.

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.

Stability theory for topological logic, with applications to topological modules

1986 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 755-769 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. G. Kucera
Keyword(s):  
Stability Theory ◽  
Quantifier Elimination ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Elementary Substructure ◽  
First Order ◽  
Topological Modules ◽  
Individual Variables ◽  
The Stability ◽  
First Main Theorem

In this paper I show how to develop stability theory within the context of the topological logic first introduced by McKee [Mc 76], Garavaglia [G 78] and Ziegler [Z 76]. I then study some specific applications to topological modules; in particular I prove two quantifier élimination theorems, one a generalization of a result of Garavaglia.In the first section I present a summary of basic results on topological model theory, mostly taken from the book of Flum and Ziegler [FZ 80]. This is done primarily to fix notation, but I also introduce the notion of an Lt-elementary substructure. The important point with this concept, as with many others, appears to be to allow only individuals to appear as parameters, not open sets.In the second section I begin the study of stability theory for Lt. I first develop a translation of the topological language Lt into an ordinary first-order language L*. The first main theorem is (2.3), which shows that the translation is faithful to the model-theoretic content of Lt, and provides the necessary tools for studying Lt theories in the context of ordinary first-order logic. The translation allows me to consider individual stability theory for Lt: the stability-theoretic study of those types of Lt in which only individual variables occur freely and in which only individuals occur as parameters. I originally developed this stability theory entirely within Lt; the fact that the theorems and their proofs were virtually identical to those in ordinary first order logic suggested the reduction from Lt to L*.

Beth’s theorem and Craig’s theorem

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zeno Swijtink
Keyword(s):  
Sufficient Conditions ◽  
Predicate Symbol ◽  
Expressive Power ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Infinite Length ◽  
First Order ◽  
Explicit Definition ◽  
Central Result ◽  
Definition Of

Beth’s theorem is a central result about definability of non-logical symbols in classical first-order theories. It states that a symbol P is implicitly defined by a theory T if and only if an explicit definition of P in terms of some other expressions of the theory T can be deduced from the theory T. Intuitively, the symbol P is implicitly defined by T if, given the extension of these other symbols, T fixes the extension of the symbol P uniquely. In a precise statement of Beth’s theorem this will be replaced by a condition on the models of T. An explicit definition of a predicate symbol states necessary and sufficient conditions: for example, if P is a one-place predicate symbol, an explicit definition is a sentence of the form (x) (Px ≡φ(x)), where φ(x) is a formula with free variable x in which P does not occur. Thus, Beth’s theorem says something about the expressive power of first-order logic: there is a balance between the syntax (the deducibility of an explicit definition) and the semantics (across models of T the extension of P is uniquely determined by the extension of other symbols). Beth’s definability theorem follows immediately from Craig’s interpolation theorem. For first-order logic with identity, Craig’s theorem says that if φ is deducible from ψ, there is an interpolant θ, a sentence whose non-logical symbols are common to φ and ψ, such that θ is deducible from ψ, while φ is deducible from θ. Craig’s theorem and Beth’s theorem also hold for a number of non-classical logics, such as intuitionistic first-order logic and classical second-order logic, but fail for other logics, such as logics with expressions of infinite length.

scholarly journals A FORMALIZATION OF KANT’S TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC

2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 254-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. ACHOURIOTI ◽  
M. VAN LAMBALGEN
Keyword(s):  
Formal Proof ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Pure Reason ◽  
Critique Of Pure Reason ◽  
Technical Application ◽  
First Order ◽  
Transcendental Logic ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Argumentative Structure

Although Kant (1998) envisaged a prominent role for logic in the argumentative structure of his Critique of Pure Reason, logicians and philosophers have generally judged Kant’s logic negatively. What Kant called ‘general’ or ‘formal’ logic has been dismissed as a fairly arbitrary subsystem of first-order logic, and what he called ‘transcendental logic’ is considered to be not a logic at all: no syntax, no semantics, no definition of validity. Against this, we argue that Kant’s ‘transcendental logic’ is a logic in the strict formal sense, albeit with a semantics and a definition of validity that are vastly more complex than that of first-order logic. The main technical application of the formalism developed here is a formal proof that Kant’s Table of Judgements in Section 9 of the Critique of Pure Reason, is indeed, as Kant claimed, complete for the kind of semantics he had in mind. This result implies that Kant’s ‘general’ logic is after all a distinguished subsystem of first-order logic, namely what is known as geometric logic.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document