A probabilistic interpolation theorem

1985 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 708-713 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas N. Hoover
Keyword(s):  
Interpolation Theorem ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Probability Logic ◽  
Admissible Set ◽  
First Order ◽  
Probability Spaces ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Dedekind Cuts ◽  
Exact Definition

The probability logic is a logic with a natural interpretation on probability spaces (thus, a logic whose model theory is part of probability theory rather than a system for putting probabilities on formulas of first order logic). Its exact definition and basic development are contained in the paper [3] of H. J. Keisler and the papers [1] and [2] of the author. Building on work in [2], we prove in this paper the following probabilistic interpolation theorem for .Let L be a countable relational language, and let A be a countable admissible set with ω ∈ A (in this paper some probabilistic notation will be used, but ω will always mean the least infinite ordinal). is the admissible fragment of corresponding to A. We will assume that L is a countable set in A, as is usual in practice, though all that is in fact needed for our proof is that L be a set in A which is wellordered in A.Theorem. Let ϕ(x) and ψ(x) be formulas of LAP such thatwhere ε ∈ [0, 1) is a real in A (reals may be defined in the usual way as Dedekind cuts in the rationals). Then for any real d > ε¼, there is a formula θ(x) of (L(ϕ) ∩ L(ψ))AP such thatand

Uniqueness, definability and interpolation

1988 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 554-570 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kosta Došen ◽  
Peter Schroeder-Heister
Keyword(s):  
Proof Theory ◽  
Interpolation Theorem ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
General Notion ◽  
Structural Part ◽  
First Order ◽  
First Case ◽  
Additional Constant ◽  
Special Case

This paper is meant to be a comment on Beth's definability theorem. In it we shall make the following points.Implicit definability as mentioned in Beth's theorem for first-order logic is a special case of a more general notion of uniqueness. If α is a nonlogical constant, Tα a set of sentences, α* an additional constant of the same syntactical category as α and Tα, a copy of Tα with α* instead of α, then for implicit definability of α in Tα one has, in the case of predicate constants, to derive α(x1,…,xn) ↔ α*(x1,…,xn) from Tα ∪ Tα*, and similarly for constants of other syntactical categories. For uniqueness one considers sets of schemata Sα and derivability from instances of Sα ∪ Sα* in the language with both α and α*, thus allowing mixing of α and α* not only in logical axioms and rules, but also in nonlogical assumptions. In the first case, but not necessarily in the second one, explicit definability follows. It is crucial for Beth's theorem that mixing of α and α* is allowed only inside logic, not outside. This topic will be treated in §1.Let the structural part of logic be understood roughly in the sense of Gentzen-style proof theory, i.e. as comprising only those rules which do not specifically involve logical constants. If we restrict mixing of α and α* to the structural part of logic which we shall specify precisely, we obtain a different notion of implicit definability for which we can demonstrate a general definability theorem, where a is not confined to the syntactical categories of nonlogical expressions of first-order logic. This definability theorem is a consequence of an equally general interpolation theorem. This topic will be treated in §§2, 3, and 4.

An Interpolation Theorem

2000 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 447-462 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Otto
Keyword(s):  
Interpolation Theorem ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Elementary Model ◽  
Relation Symbol ◽  
First Order ◽  
Theoretic Proof ◽  
Universal Quantification ◽  
The Given ◽  
Interpolation Result

AbstractLyndon's Interpolation Theorem asserts that for any valid implication between two purely relational sentences of first-order logic, there is an interpolant in which each relation symbol appears positively (negatively) only if it appears positively (negatively) in both the antecedent and the succedent of the given implication. We prove a similar, more general interpolation result with the additional requirement that, for some fixed tuple of unary predicates U, all formulae under consideration have all quantifiers explicitly relativised to one of the U. Under this stipulation, existential (universal) quantification over U contributes a positive (negative) occurrence of U.It is shown how this single new interpolation theorem, obtained by a canonical and rather elementary model theoretic proof, unifies a number of related results: the classical characterisation theorems concerning extensions (substructures) with those concerning monotonicity, as well as a many-sorted interpolation theorem focusing on positive vs. negative occurrences of predicates and on existentially vs. universally quantified sorts.

The foundations of Suslin logic

1975 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 567-575 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erik Ellentuck
Keyword(s):  
Finite Sequence ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Infinitary Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Finite Sequences ◽  
Image Position

Let L be a first order logic and the infinitary logic (as described in [K, p. 6] over L. Suslin logic is obtained from by adjoining new propositional operators and . Let f range over elements of ωω and n range over elements of ω. Seq is the set of all finite sequences of elements of ω. If θ: Seq → is a mapping into formulas of then and are formulas of LA. If is a structure in which we can interpret and h is an -assignment then we extend the notion of satisfaction from to by definingwhere f ∣ n is the finite sequence consisting of the first n values of f. We assume that has ω symbols for relations, functions, constants, and ω1 variables. θ is valid if θ ⊧ [h] for every h and is valid if -valid for every . We address ourselves to the problem of finding syntactical rules (or nearly so) which characterize validity .

scholarly journals THE FLUTED FRAGMENT REVISITED

2019 ◽  
Vol 84 (3) ◽  
pp. 1020-1048
Author(s):  
IAN PRATT-HARTMANN ◽  
WIESŁAW SZWAST ◽  
LIDIA TENDERA
Keyword(s):  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Satisfiability Problem ◽  
Complexity Bounds ◽  
First Order ◽  
Complexity Results ◽  
Decidable Fragment ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Exponential Size

AbstractWe study the fluted fragment, a decidable fragment of first-order logic with an unbounded number of variables, motivated by the work of W. V. Quine. We show that the satisfiability problem for this fragment has nonelementary complexity, thus refuting an earlier published claim by W. C. Purdy that it is in NExpTime. More precisely, we consider ${\cal F}{{\cal L}^m}$, the intersection of the fluted fragment and the m-variable fragment of first-order logic, for all $m \ge 1$. We show that, for $m \ge 2$, this subfragment forces $\left\lfloor {m/2} \right\rfloor$-tuply exponentially large models, and that its satisfiability problem is $\left\lfloor {m/2} \right\rfloor$-NExpTime-hard. We further establish that, for $m \ge 3$, any satisfiable ${\cal F}{{\cal L}^m}$-formula has a model of at most ($m - 2$)-tuply exponential size, whence the satisfiability (= finite satisfiability) problem for this fragment is in ($m - 2$)-NExpTime. Together with other, known, complexity results, this provides tight complexity bounds for ${\cal F}{{\cal L}^m}$ for all $m \le 4$.

On the first-order logic of terms

1973 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-188
Author(s):  
Lars Svenonius
Keyword(s):  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Identity Function ◽  
First Order ◽  
Elementary Condition ◽  
Combinatorial Function ◽  
The One ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Image Position

By an elementary condition in the variablesx1, …, xn, we mean a conjunction of the form x1 ≤ i < j ≤ naij where each aij is one of the formulas xi = xj or xi ≠ xj. (We should add that the formula x1 = x1 should be regarded as an elementary condition in the one variable x1.)Clearly, according to this definition, some elementary conditions are inconsistent, some are consistent. For instance (in the variables x1, x2, x3) the conjunction x1 = x2 & x1 = x3 & x2 ≠ x3 is inconsistent.By an elementary combinatorial function (ex. function) we mean any function which can be given a definition of the formwhere E1(x1, …, xn), …, Ek(x1, …, xn) is an enumeration of all consistent elementary conditions in x1, …, xn, and all the numbers d1, …, dk are among 1, …, n.Examples. (1) The identity function is the only 1-ary e.c. function.(2) A useful 3-ary e.c. function will be called J. The definition is

On the semantics of the Henkin quantifier

1979 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 184-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michał Krynicki ◽  
Alistair H. Lachlan
Keyword(s):  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Original Definition ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Image Position

In [5] Henkin defined a quantifier, which we shall denote by QH: linking four variables in one formula. This quantifier is related to the notion of formulas in which the usual universal and existential quantifiers occur but are not linearly ordered. The original definition of QH wasHere (QHx1x2y1y2)φ is true if for every x1 there exists y1 such that for every x2 there exists y2, whose choice depends only on x2 not on x1 and y1 such that φ(x14, x2, y1, y2). Another way of writing this isIn [5] it was observed that the logic L(QH) obtained by adjoining QH defined as in (1) is more powerful than first-order logic. In particular, it turned out that the quantifier “there exist infinitely many” denoted Q0 was definable from QH because

scholarly journals Localizing predicate activity in resolution proofs

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcello Sachs
Keyword(s):  
Structural Properties ◽  
Interpolation Theorem ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Constructive Proof ◽  
Craig Interpolation ◽  
First Order ◽  
Resolution Proofs

A theorem is proven regarding our ability to construct resolution proofs with certain structural properties. This theorem is then used to provide a new constructive proof of the Craig Interpolation Theorem for Classical First Order Logic.

scholarly journals The optimality of induction as an axiomatization of arithmetic

1983 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 182-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Leivant
Keyword(s):  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Primitive Recursive Arithmetic ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Primitive Recursive ◽  
Universal Closure

By induction for a formula φ we mean the schema(where the terms in brackets are implicitly substituted for some fixed variable, with the usual restrictions). Let be the schema IAφ for φ in Πn (i.e. ); similarly for . Each instance of is Δn+2, and each instance of is Σn+1 Thus the universal closure of an instance α is Πn+2 in either case. Charles Parsons [72] proved that and are equivalent over Z0, where Z0 is essentially Primitive Recursive Arithmetic augmented by classical First Order Logic [Parsons 70].Theorem. For each n > 0 there is a Πn formula π for whichis not derivable in Z0from(i) true Πn+1sentences; nor even(ii) Πn+1sentences consistent withZ0.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document