Extremely undecidable sentences

1982 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 191-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Boolos

Let ‘ϕ’, ‘χ’, and ‘ψ’ be variables ranging over functions from the sentence letters P0, P1, … Pn, … of (propositional) modal logic to sentences of P(eano) Arithmetic), and for each sentence A of modal logic, inductively define Aϕ by[and similarly for other nonmodal propositional connectives]; andwhere Bew(x) is the standard provability predicate for PA and ⌈F⌉ is the PA numeral for the Gödel number of the formula F of PA. Then for any ϕ, (−□⊥)ϕ = −Bew(⌈⊥⌉), which is the consistency assertion for PA; a sentence S is undecidable in PA iff both and , where ϕ(p0) = S. If ψ(p0) is the undecidable sentence constructed by Gödel, then ⊬PA (−□⊥→ −□p0 & − □ − p0)ψ and ⊢PA(P0 ↔ −□⊥)ψ. However, if ψ(p0) is the undecidable sentence constructed by Rosser, then the situation is the other way around: ⊬PA(P0 ↔ −□⊥)ψ and ⊢PA (−□⊥→ −□−p0 & −□−p0)ψ. We call a sentence S of PA extremely undecidable if for all modal sentences A containing no sentence letter other than p0, if for some ψ, ⊬PAAψ, then ⊬PAAϕ, where ϕ(p0) = S. (So, roughly speaking, a sentence is extremely undecidable if it can be proved to have only those modal-logically characterizable properties that every sentence can be proved to have.) Thus extremely undecidable sentences are undecidable, but neither the Godel nor the Rosser sentence is extremely undecidable. It will follow at once from the main theorem of this paper that there are infinitely many inequivalent extremely undecidable sentences.

1992 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 1230-1238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoping Wang

The canonicity and compactness of the KM system are problems historically important in the development of our understanding of intensional logic (as explained in Goldblatt's paper, The McKinsey axiom is not canonical). The problems, however, were unsolved for years in modal logic. In the beginning of 1990, Goldblatt showed that KM is not canonical in The McKinsey axiom is not canonical. The remaining task is to solve the problem of the compactness of KM. In this paper we present a proof showing that the KM system is not compact.The symbols of the language of propositional modal logic are as follows:1. A denumerably infinite set of sentence letters, for example, {p0, P1, p2, …};2. The Boolean connectives &, ⋁, ¬, →, ↔ and parentheses;3. The modal operators L and M where M is defined as ¬L¬.The formation rules of well-formed propositional modal formulae are the formation rules of formulae in classic propositional logic plus the following rule:If A is a well-formed formula, so is LA.A normal modal system is a set of formulae that contains all tautologies and the formulaand is closed under the following transformation rules:Uniform substitution. If A is a theorem, so is every substitution-instance of A.Modus ponens. If A and A → B are theorems, so is B.Necessitation. If A is a theorem, so is LA.Let L be a normal system. Then a set S of formulae is L-consistent if and only if for any formula B, which is the conjunction of some formulae in S, B is not included in L. A set S of formulae is maximal if and only if for every formula A, S either contains A or contains ¬A. A set S of formulae is maximal L-consistent if and only if it is both maximal and L-consistent.


1974 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 549-551 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. K. Thomason

It will be shown that propositional tense logic (with the Kripke relational semantics) may be regarded as a fragment of propositional modal logic (again with the Kripke semantics). This paper deals only with model theory. The interpretation of formal systems of tense logic as formal systems of modal logic will be discussed in [6].The languages M and T, of modal and tense logic respectively, each have a countable infinity of propositional variables and the Boolean connectives; in addition, M has the unary operator ⋄ and T has the unary operators F and P. A structure is a pair <W, ≺<, where W is a nonempty set and ≺ is a binary relation on W. An assignment V assigns to each propositional variable p a subset V(p) of W. Then V(α)£ W is defined for all formulas α of M or T by induction:We say that α is valid in <W, ≺>, or <W, ≺>, ⊨ α, if ⊩ (α) = W for every assignment V for <W, ≺>. If Γ is a set of formulas of M [T] and α is a formula of M [T], then α is a logical consequence of Γ, or Γ ⊩ α,if α is valid in every model of Γ i.e., in every structure in which all γ ∈ Γ are valid.


1904 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 233-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugh Marshall

When thio-urea is treated with suitable oxidising agents in presence of acids, salts are formed corresponding to the general formula (CSN2H4)2X2:—Of these salts the di-nitrate is very sparingly soluble, and is precipitated on the addition of nitric acid or a nitrate to solutions of the other salts. The salts, as a class, are not very stable, and their solutions decompose, especially on warming, with formation of sulphur, thio-urea, cyanamide, and free acid. A corresponding decomposition results immediately on the addition of alkali, and this constitutes a very characteristic reaction for these salts.


2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 419-468
Author(s):  
Henning Basold ◽  
Helle Hvid Hansen

Abstract We define notions of well-definedness and observational equivalence for programs of mixed inductive and coinductive types. These notions are defined by means of tests formulas which combine structural congruence for inductive types and modal logic for coinductive types. Tests also correspond to certain evaluation contexts. We define a program to be well-defined if it is strongly normalizing under all tests, and two programs are observationally equivalent if they satisfy the same tests. We show that observational equivalence is sufficiently coarse to ensure that least and greatest fixed point types are initial algebras and final coalgebras, respectively. This yields inductive and coinductive proof principles for reasoning about program behaviour. On the other hand, we argue that observational equivalence does not identify too many terms, by showing that tests induce a topology that, on streams, coincides with usual topology induced by the prefix metric. As one would expect, observational equivalence is, in general, undecidable, but in order to develop some practically useful heuristics we provide coinductive techniques for establishing observational normalization and observational equivalence, along with up-to techniques for enhancing these methods.


Author(s):  
B. Choudhary

Integral transformations analogous to the Nörlund means have been introduced and investigated by Kuttner, Knopp and Vanderburg(6), (5), (4). It is known that with any regular Nörlund mean (N, p) there is associated a functionregular for |z| < 1, and if we have two Nörlund means (N, p) and (N, r), where (N, pr is regular, while the function is regular for |z| ≤ 1 and different) from zero at z = 1, then q(z) = r(z)p(z) belongs to a regular Nörlund mean (N, q). Concerning Nörlund means Peyerimhoff(7) and Miesner (3) have recently obtained the relation between the convergence fields of the Nörlund means (N, p) and (N, r) on the one hand and the convergence field of the Nörlund mean (N, q) on the other hand.


1972 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 711-715 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krister Segerberg

Let ⊥, →, and □ be primitive, and let us have a countable supply of propositional letters. By a (modal) logic we understand a proper subset of the set of all formulas containing every tautology and being closed under modus ponens and substitution. A logic is regular if it contains every instance of □A ∧ □B ↔ □(A ∧ B) and is closed under the ruleA regular logic is normal if it contains □⊤. The smallest regular logic we denote by C (the same as Lemmon's C2), the smallest normal one by K. If L and L' are logics and L ⊆ L′, then L is a sublogic of L', and L' is an extension of L; properly so if L ≠ L'. A logic is quasi-regular (respectively, quasi-normal) if it is an extension of C (respectively, K).A logic is Post complete if it has no proper extension. The Post number, denoted by p(L), is the number of Post complete extensions of L. Thanks to Lindenbaum, we know thatThere is an obvious upper bound, too:Furthermore,.


1973 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. K. Sheng

It is well known that no rational number is approximable to order higher than 1. Roth [3] showed that an algebraic number is not approximable to order greater than 2. On the other hand it is easy to construct numbers, the Liouville numbers, which are approximable to any order (see [2], p. 162). We are led to the question, “Let Nn(α, β) denote the number of distinct rational points with denominators ≦ n contained in an interval (α, β). What is the behaviour of Nn(α, + 1/n) as α varies on the real line?” We shall prove that and that there are “compressions” and “rarefactions” of rational points on the real line.


2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 439-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
PHILIP KREMER

AbstractIn the topological semantics for propositional modal logic, S4 is known to be complete for the class of all topological spaces, for the rational line, for Cantor space, and for the real line. In the topological semantics for quantified modal logic, QS4 is known to be complete for the class of all topological spaces, and for the family of subspaces of the irrational line. The main result of the current paper is that QS4 is complete, indeed strongly complete, for the rational line.


1878 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 332-333
Author(s):  
Messrs Macfarlane ◽  
Paton

The general result of these strictly preliminary experiments appears to show that for sparks not exceeding a decimetre in length (L), taken in air at different pressures (P), between two metal balls of 7mm·5 radius, the requisite potential (V), is expressed by the formulaThe Holtz machine employed is a double one, made by Ruhmkorff, and it was used with its small Leyden jars attached. The measurements had to be made with a divided-ring electrometer, so that two insulated balls, at a considerable distance from one another, were connected, one with the machine, the other with the electrometer.


1906 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 806-812
Author(s):  
J.R. Milne

The refraction equation sin i == μ sin r, though simple in itself, is apt to give rise, in problems connected with refraction, to formulæ too involved for arithmetical computation. In such cases it may be necessary to trace the course through the optical system in question of a certain number of arbitrarily chosen rays, and thence to find the course of the other rays by interpolation. Thelinkage about to be described affords a rapid and accurate means of determining the paths of the rays through any optical system.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document