C Compactness theorem for generalized second-order language

2018 ◽  
pp. 361-386
Keyword(s):  
Second Order ◽  
Compactness Theorem ◽  
Order Language

scholarly journals A Sequence of Models of Generalized Second-order Dedekind Theory of Real Numbers with Increasing Powers

2020 ◽  
pp. 13-39
Author(s):  
Valeriy K. Zakharov ◽  
Timofey V. Rodionov
Keyword(s):  
Main Idea ◽  
Second Order ◽  
Compactness Theorem ◽  
Real Numbers ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Mathematical Systems

The paper is devoted to construction of some closed inductive sequence of models of the generalized second-order Dedekind theory of real numbers with exponentially increasing powers. These models are not isomorphic whereas all models of the standard second-order Dedekind theory are. The main idea in passing to generalized models is to consider instead of superstructures with the single common set-theoretical equality and the single common set-theoretical belonging superstructures with several generalized equalities and several generalized belongings for rst and second orders. The basic tools for the presented construction are the infraproduct of collection of mathematical systems different from the factorized Los ultraproduct and the corresponding generalized infrafiltration theorem. As its auxiliary corollary we obtain the generalized compactness theorem for the generalized second-order language.

Martin's axiom in the model theory of LA

1980 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 172-176
Author(s):  
W. Richard Stark
Keyword(s):  
Model Theory ◽  
Equivalence Theorem ◽  
Compactness Theorem ◽  
Compactness Result ◽  
First Order ◽  
Martin's Axiom ◽  
New Class ◽  
Martin’S Axiom ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Omitting Types

Working in ZFC + Martin's Axiom we develop a generalization of the Barwise Compactness Theorem which holds in languages of cardinality less than . Next, using this compactness theorem, an omitting types theorem for fewer than types is proved. Finally, in ZFC, we prove that this compactness result implies Martin's Axiom (the Equivalence Theorem). Our compactness theorem applies to a new class of theories—ccΣ-theories—which generalize the countable Σ-theories of Barwise's theorem. The Omitting Types Theorem and the Equivalence Theorem serve as examples illustrating the use of ccΣ-theories.Assume = (A, ε) or = (A, ε R1,…,Rm) where is admissible. L() is the first-order language with constants for elements of A and relation symbols for relations in . LA is A ⋂ L∞ω where the L of L∞ω is any language in A. A theory T in LA is consistent if there is no derivation in A of a contradiction from T. is LA with new constants ca for each a and A. The basic terms of consist of the constants of and the terms f(ca1,…,cam) built directly from constants using functions f of . The symbol t is used for basic terms. A theory T in LA is Σ if it is defined by a formula of L(). The formula φ⌝ is a logical equivalent of ¬φ defined by: (1) φ⌝ = ¬φ if φ is atomic; (2) (¬φ)⌝ = φ (3) (⋁φ∈Φ φ)⌝ = ⋀φ∈Φ φ⌝; (4) (⋀φ∈Φ φ) ⋁φ∈Φ φ⌝; (5) (∃χφ(x))⌝ ∀χφ⌝(x); ∀χφ(x))⌝ = ∃χφ⌝(x).

Theories without countable models

1972 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 562-568
Author(s):  
Andreas Blass
Keyword(s):  
Standard Model ◽  
Countable Model ◽  
Compactness Theorem ◽  
Complete Theory ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Axiom Schema ◽  
First Order ◽  
Order Language ◽  
The Standard Model ◽  
Skolem Theorem

Consider the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem in the form: If a theory in a countable first-order language has a model, then it has a countable model. As is well known, this theorem becomes false if one omits the hypothesis that the language be countable, for one then has the following trivial counterexample.Example 1. Let the language have uncountably many constants, and let the theory say that they are unequal.To motivate some of our future definitions and to introduce some notation, we present another, less trivial, counterexample.Example 2. Let L0 be the language whose n-place predicate (resp. function) symbols are all the n-place predicates (resp. functions) on the set ω of natural numbers. Let be the standard model for L0; we use the usual notation Th() for its complete theory. Add to L0 a new constant e, and add to Th() an axiom schema saying that e is infinite. By the compactness theorem, the resulting theory T has models. However, none of its models are countable. Although this fact is well known, we sketch a proof in order to refer to it later.By [5, p. 81], there is a family {Aα ∣ < α < c} of infinite subsets of ω, the intersection of any two of which is finite.

scholarly journals הכל הבל in Ecclesiastes 1:2 and 12:8 – Descriptive metaphysics of properties as comparative-philosophical supplement

2021 ◽  
Vol 77 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaco Gericke
Keyword(s):  
Second Order ◽  
Property Theory ◽  
First Order ◽  
Conceptual Clarification ◽  
Order Language ◽  
The World ◽  
Original Contribution ◽  
The Way

In this article, a supplementary yet original contribution is made to the ongoing attempts at refining ways of comparative-philosophical conceptual clarification of Qohelet’s claim that הבל הכל in 1:2 (and 12:8). Adopting and adapting the latest analytic metaphysical concerns and categories for descriptive purposes only, a distinction is made between הבל as property of הכל and the properties of הבל in relation to הכל. Involving both correlation and contrast, the second-order language framework is hereby extended to a level of advanced nuance and specificity for restating the meaning of the book’s first-order language on its own terms, even if not in them.Contribution: By considering logical, ontological, mereological and typological aspects of property theory in dialogue with appearances of הכל and of הבל in Ecclesiastes 1:2 and 12:8 and in-between, a new way is presented in the quest to explain why things in the world of the text are the way they are, or why they are at all.

A Logical Analysis of the Main Argument in Chapter 2 of the Proslogion by Anselm of Canterbury

2014 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-44
Author(s):  
Peter Hinst
Keyword(s):  
Second Order ◽  
Logical Analysis ◽  
Main Argument ◽  
General Proof ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Anselm Of Canterbury

The primary aim is the reconstruction of the main argument of the second chapter of Anselm’s Proslogion. To be proved is the statement that God, or something than which nothing greater can be thought, exists in reality. I proceed by a piecemeal analysis of every sentence of the Latin original and its subsequent translation into a formal second-order language with choice operator. Reconstructing Anselm’s reasoning demands interpretative input and additions. For example, the formula ‘quod maius est’ has to be suitably interpreted and expanded. Furthermore, I try to explicate Anselm’s maius predicate in terms of a perfection predicate and to develop a general proof for Anselm’s theorem, i.e. the statement that something/that than which something greater cannot be thought has all greater-making attributes.

An interpretation of “finite” modal first-order languages in classical second-order languages

1976 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 337-340
Author(s):  
Scott K. Lehmann
Keyword(s):  
Possible Worlds ◽  
Second Order ◽  
Universal Quantifier ◽  
Possible World ◽  
Simple Interpretation ◽  
First Order ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Finite Set ◽  
Modal Semantics ◽  
Individual Variables

This note describes a simple interpretation * of modal first-order languages K with but finitely many predicates in derived classical second-order languages L(K) such that if Γ is a set of K-formulae, Γ is satisfiable (according to Kripke's 55 semantics) iff Γ* is satisfiable (according to standard (or nonstandard) second-order semantics).The motivation for the interpretation is roughly as follows. Consider the “true” modal semantics, in which the relative possibility relation is universal. Here the necessity operator can be considered a universal quantifier over possible worlds. A possible world itself can be identified with an assignment of extensions to the predicates and of a range to the quantifiers; if the quantifiers are first relativized to an existence predicate, a possible world becomes simply an assignment of extensions to the predicates. Thus the necessity operator can be taken to be a universal quantifier over a class of assignments of extensions to the predicates. So if these predicates are regarded as naming functions from extensions to extensions, the necessity operator can be taken as a string of universal quantifiers over extensions.The alphabet of a “finite” modal first-order language K shall consist of a non-empty countable set Var of individual variables, a nonempty finite set Pred of predicates, the logical symbols ‘¬’ ‘∧’, and ‘∧’, and the operator ‘◊’. The formation rules of K generate the usual Polish notations as K-formulae. ‘ν’, ‘ν1’, … range over Var, ‘P’ over Pred, ‘A’ over K-formulae, and ‘Γ’ over sets of K-formulae.

Polynomial rings and weak second-order logic

1985 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 953-972 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Bauval
Keyword(s):  
Zero Divisor ◽  
Order Theory ◽  
Second Order ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
Polynomial Rings ◽  
Commutative Field ◽  
First Order ◽  
First Order Theory ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Second Order Logic

This article is a rewriting of my Ph.D. Thesis, supervised by Professor G. Sabbagh, and incorporates a suggestion from Professor B. Poizat. My main result can be crudely summarized (but see below for detailed statements) by the equality: first-order theory of F[Xi]i∈I = weak second-order theory of F.§I.1. Conventions. The letter F will always denote a commutative field, and I a nonempty set. A field or a ring (A; +, ·) will often be written A for short. We shall use symbols which are definable in all our models, and in the structure of natural numbers (N; +, ·):— the constant 0, defined by the formula Z(x): ∀y (x + y = y);— the constant 1, defined by the formula U(x): ∀y (x · y = y);— the operation ∹ x − y = z ↔ x = y + z;— the relation of division: x ∣ y ↔ ∃ z(x · z = y).A domain is a commutative ring with unity and without any zero divisor.By “… → …” we mean “… is definable in …, uniformly in any model M of L”.All our constructions will be uniform, unless otherwise mentioned.§I.2. Weak second-order models and languages. First of all, we have to define the models Pf(M), Sf(M), Sf′(M) and HF(M) associated to a model M = {A; ℐ) of a first-order language L [CK, pp. 18–20]. Let L1 be the extension of L obtained by adjunction of a second list of variables (denoted by capital letters), and of a membership symbol ∈. Pf(M) is the model (A, Pf(A); ℐ, ∈) of L1, (where Pf(A) is the set of finite subsets of A. Let L2 be the extension of L obtained by adjunction of a second list of variables, a membership symbol ∈, and a concatenation symbol ◠.

Frege's unofficial arithmetic

2002 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 1623-1638 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agustín Rayo
Keyword(s):  
Completeness Theorem ◽  
Second Order ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Intended Interpretation

AbstractI show that any sentence of nth-order (pure or applied) arithmetic can be expressed with no loss of compositionality as a second-order sentence containing no arithmetical vocabulary, and use this result to prove a completeness theorem for applied arithmetic. More specifically. I set forth an enriched second-order language L. a sentence of L (which is true on the intended interpretation of L), and a compositionally recursive transformation Tr defined on formulas of L, and show that they have the following two properties: (a) in a universe with at least ℶn−2 objects, any formula of nth-order (pure or applied) arithmetic can be expressed as a formula of L, and (b) for any sentence of is a second-order sentence containing no arithmetical vocabulary, and

Finite partially-ordered quantification

1970 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 535-555 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wilbur John Walkoe
Keyword(s):  
Partial Order ◽  
Normal Forms ◽  
Second Order ◽  
Infinitary Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Partially Ordered ◽  
Order Language

In [3] Henkin made the observation that certain second-order existential formulas may be thought of as the Skolem normal forms of formulas of a language which is first-order in every respect except its incorporation of a form of partially-ordered quantification. One formulation of this sort of language is the closure of a first-order language under the formation rule that Qφ is a formula whenever φ is a formula and Q, which is to be thought of as a quantifier-prefix, is a system of partial order whose universe is a set of quantifiers. Although he introduced this idea in a discussion of infinitary logic, Henkin went on to discuss its application to finitary languages, and he concluded his discussion with a theorem of Ehrenfeucht that the incorporation of an extremely simple partially-ordered quantifier-prefix (the quantifiers ∀x, ∀y, ∃v, and ∃w, with the ordering {〈∀x, ∃v〉, 〈∀y, ∃w〉}) into any first-order language with identity gives a language capable of expressing the infinitary quantifier ∃zκ0x.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document