Syntactical and semantical properties of generalized quantifiers

1997 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 617-632 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mitsuru Yasuhara
Keyword(s):  
General Result ◽  
Generalized Quantifiers ◽  
First Order ◽  
Order Language ◽  
The Relationship

In the first-order language, quantifiers (∀x) and (∃#) are understood “to say” that “for all elements” and “there is at least one element such that …”, respectively. We are interested in changing the interpretation to “for all elements with fewer than κ exceptions” and “there are at least κ elements such that”, respectively, where κ is a cardinal. We call this the κ-interpretation of the quantifiers.1 The first question which presents itself is “What is the relationship between the κ-interpretation and the λ-interpretation?” For instance, is a formula valid under one interpretation also valid in all other interpretations? In the second section, it will be shown that as far as infinite interpretations, i.e. κ-interpretations for infinite cardinals κ, are concerned, the validity of a formula is preserved. Actually, a more general result is obtained there by model theoretic methods.

Note on an induction axiom

1978 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-117
Author(s):  
J. B. Paris
Keyword(s):  
Physical World ◽  
First Order ◽  
Naturally Occurring ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Image Position ◽  
The Relationship

Let θ(ν) be a formula in the first-order language of arithmetic and letIn this note we study the relationship between the schemas I′ and I+.Our interest in I+ lies in the fact that it is ostensibly a more reasonable schema than I′. For, if we believe the hypothesis of I+(θ) then to verify θ(n) only requires at most 2log2(n) steps, whereas assuming the hypothesis of I′(θ) we require n steps to verify θ(n). In the physical world naturally occurring numbers n rarely exceed 10100. For such n applying 2log2(n) steps is quite feasible whereas applying n steps may well not be.Of course this is very much an anthropomorphic argument so we would expect that it would be most likely to be valid when we restrict our attention to relatively simple formulas θ. We shall show that when restricted to open formulas I+ does not imply I′ but that this fails for the classes Σn, Πn, n ≥ 0.We shall work in PA−, where PA− consists of Peano's Axioms less induction together with∀u, w(u + w = w + u ∧ u · w = w · u),∀u, w, t ((u + w) + t = u + (w + t) ∧ (u · w) · t = u · (w · t)),∀u, w, t(u · (w + t) = u · w + u · t),∀u, w(u ≤ w ↔ ∃t(u + t = w)),∀u, w(u ≤ w ∨ w ≤ u),∀u, w, t(u + w = u + t → w = t).The reasons for working with PA− rather than Peano's Axioms less induction is that our additional axioms, whilst intuitively reasonable, will not necessarily follow from some of the weaker forms of I+ which we shall be considering. Of course PA− still contains those Peano Axioms which define + andNotice that, trivially, PA− ⊦ I′(θ) → I+(θ) for any formula θ.

Generalized quantifiers and elementary extensions of countable models

1977 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 341-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Małgorzata Dubiel
Keyword(s):  
Countable Model ◽  
Generalized Quantifiers ◽  
Natural Question ◽  
Elementary Extension ◽  
First Order ◽  
Transitive Model ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Countable Models

Let L be a countable first-order language and L(Q) be obtained by adjoining an additional quantifier Q. Q is a generalization of the quantifier “there exists uncountably many x such that…” which was introduced by Mostowski in [4]. The logic of this latter quantifier was formalized by Keisler in [2]. Krivine and McAloon [3] considered quantifiers satisfying some but not all of Keisler's axioms. They called a formula φ(x) countable-like iffor every ψ. In Keisler's logic, φ(x) being countable-like is the same as ℳ⊨┐Qxφ(x). The main theorem of [3] states that any countable model ℳ of L[Q] has an elementary extension N, which preserves countable-like formulas but no others, such that the only sets definable in both N and M are those defined by formulas countable-like in M. Suppose C(x) in M is linearly ordered and noncountable-like but with countable-like proper segments. Then in N, C will have new elements greater than all “old” elements but no least new element — otherwise it will be definable in both models. The natural question is whether it is possible to use generalized quantifiers to extend models elementarily in such a way that a noncountable-like formula C will have a minimal new element. There are models and formulas for which it is not possible. For example let M be obtained from a minimal transitive model of ZFC by letting Qxφ(x) mean “there are arbitrarily large ordinals satisfying φ”.

On generalized quantifiers in arithmetic

1982 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 187-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl Morgenstern
Keyword(s):  
Axiom System ◽  
Peano Arithmetic ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Generalized Quantifiers ◽  
First Order ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Truth Definition ◽  
Order Arithmetic ◽  
Infinite Set

In this note we investigate an extension of Peano arithmetic which arises from adjoining generalized quantifiers to first-order logic. Markwald [2] first studied the definability properties of L1, the language of first-order arithmetic, L, with the additional quantifer Ux which denotes “there are infinitely many x such that…. Note that Ux is the same thing as the Keisler quantifier Qx in the ℵ0 interpretation.We consider L2, which is L together with the ℵ0 interpretation of the Magidor-Malitz quantifier Q2xy which denotes “there is an infinite set X such that for distinct x, y ∈ X …”. In [1] Magidor and Malitz presented an axiom system for languages which arise from adding Q2 to a first-order language. They proved that the axioms are valid in every regular interpretation, and, assuming ◊ω1, that the axioms are complete in the ℵ1 interpretation.If we let denote Peano arithmetic in L2 with induction for L2 formulas and the Magidor-Malitz axioms as logical axioms, we show that in we can give a truth definition for first-order Peano arithmetic, . Consequently we can prove in that is Πn sound for every n, thus in we can prove the Paris-Harrington combinatorial principle and the higher-order analogues due to Schlipf.

Nonlinear Analysis of Visual Evoked Potentials Elicited by Color Stimulation

1997 ◽  
Vol 36 (04/05) ◽  
pp. 315-318 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Momose ◽  
K. Komiya ◽  
A. Uchiyama
Keyword(s):  
Visual System ◽  
Evoked Potentials ◽  
Visual Evoked Potentials ◽  
Normal Subjects ◽  
Second Order ◽  
First Order ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Perceived Color ◽  
Second Order Nonlinearity ◽  
Visual Evoked

Abstract:The relationship between chromatically modulated stimuli and visual evoked potentials (VEPs) was considered. VEPs of normal subjects elicited by chromatically modulated stimuli were measured under several color adaptations, and their binary kernels were estimated. Up to the second-order, binary kernels obtained from VEPs were so characteristic that the VEP-chromatic modulation system showed second-order nonlinearity. First-order binary kernels depended on the color of the stimulus and adaptation, whereas second-order kernels showed almost no difference. This result indicates that the waveforms of first-order binary kernels reflect perceived color (hue). This supports the suggestion that kernels of VEPs include color responses, and could be used as a probe with which to examine the color visual system.

scholarly journals On the correspondence between nested calculi and semantic systems for intuitionistic logics

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Lyon
Keyword(s):  
Intuitionistic Logic ◽  
Structural Rules ◽  
First Order ◽  
Constant Domains ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Intuitionistic Logics

Abstract This paper studies the relationship between labelled and nested calculi for propositional intuitionistic logic, first-order intuitionistic logic with non-constant domains and first-order intuitionistic logic with constant domains. It is shown that Fitting’s nested calculi naturally arise from their corresponding labelled calculi—for each of the aforementioned logics—via the elimination of structural rules in labelled derivations. The translational correspondence between the two types of systems is leveraged to show that the nested calculi inherit proof-theoretic properties from their associated labelled calculi, such as completeness, invertibility of rules and cut admissibility. Since labelled calculi are easily obtained via a logic’s semantics, the method presented in this paper can be seen as one whereby refined versions of labelled calculi (containing nested calculi as fragments) with favourable properties are derived directly from a logic’s semantics.

Relational Chase Procedures Interpreted as Resolution with Paramodulation1

1991 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-138
Author(s):  
Joachim Biskup ◽  
Bernhard Convent
Keyword(s):  
Alternative Interpretation ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Inference Problem ◽  
First Order ◽  
Inference Problems ◽  
The One ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Theoretical Foundations ◽  
Insight Into

In this paper the relationship between dependency theory and first-order logic is explored in order to show how relational chase procedures (i.e., algorithms to decide inference problems for dependencies) can be interpreted as clever implementations of well known refutation procedures of first-order logic with resolution and paramodulation. On the one hand this alternative interpretation provides a deeper insight into the theoretical foundations of chase procedures, whereas on the other hand it makes available an already well established theory with a great amount of known results and techniques to be used for further investigations of the inference problem for dependencies. Our presentation is a detailed and careful elaboration of an idea formerly outlined by Grant and Jacobs which up to now seems to be disregarded by the database community although it definitely deserves more attention.

Weakly atomic-compact relational structures

1971 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Fuhrken ◽  
W. Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Abelian Group ◽  
Model Theory ◽  
Compact Abelian Group ◽  
Finite Subset ◽  
Relational Structure ◽  
Similarity Type ◽  
First Order ◽  
Relational Structures ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Weakly Atomic

A relational structure is called weakly atomic-compact if and only if every set Σ of atomic formulas (taken from the first-order language of the similarity type of augmented by a possibly uncountable set of additional variables as “unknowns”) is satisfiable in whenever every finite subset of Σ is so satisfiable. This notion (as well as some related ones which will be mentioned in §4) was introduced by J. Mycielski as a generalization to model theory of I. Kaplansky's notion of an algebraically compact Abelian group (cf. [5], [7], [1], [8]).

scholarly journals A question of van den Dries and a theorem of Lipshitz and Robinson; Not everything is standard

2007 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ehud Hrushovski ◽  
Ya'acov Peterzil
Keyword(s):  
Real Numbers ◽  
The Real ◽  
First Order ◽  
Real Closed Fields ◽  
Minimal Structure ◽  
Closed Fields ◽  
New Construction ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractWe use a new construction of an o-minimal structure, due to Lipshitz and Robinson, to answer a question of van den Dries regarding the relationship between arbitrary o-minimal expansions of real closed fields and structures over the real numbers. We write a first order sentence which is true in the Lipshitz-Robinson structure but fails in any possible interpretation over the field of real numbers.

scholarly journals ON PRODUCTS OF ELEMENTARILY INDIVISIBLE STRUCTURES

2016 ◽  
Vol 81 (3) ◽  
pp. 951-971
Author(s):  
NADAV MEIR
Keyword(s):  
New Products ◽  
Elementary Substructure ◽  
First Order ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Image Position

AbstractWe say a structure ${\cal M}$ in a first-order language ${\cal L}$ is indivisible if for every coloring of its universe in two colors, there is a monochromatic substructure ${\cal M}\prime \subseteq {\cal M}$ such that ${\cal M}\prime \cong {\cal M}$. Additionally, we say that ${\cal M}$ is symmetrically indivisible if ${\cal M}\prime$ can be chosen to be symmetrically embedded in ${\cal M}$ (that is, every automorphism of ${\cal M}\prime$ can be extended to an automorphism of ${\cal M}$). Similarly, we say that ${\cal M}$ is elementarily indivisible if ${\cal M}\prime$ can be chosen to be an elementary substructure. We define new products of structures in a relational language. We use these products to give recipes for construction of elementarily indivisible structures which are not transitive and elementarily indivisible structures which are not symmetrically indivisible, answering two questions presented by A. Hasson, M. Kojman, and A. Onshuus.

scholarly journals Word order in Latin locative constructions: a corpus study in Caesar’s De bello gallico

2011 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stavros Skopeteas
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Information Structure ◽  
Motion Verbs ◽  
Structural Domains ◽  
Corpus Study ◽  
First Order ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Free Word

AbstractClassical Latin is a free word order language, i.e., the order of the constituents is determined by information structure rather than by syntactic rules. This article presents a corpus study on the word order of locative constructions and shows that the choice between a Theme-first and a Locative-first order is influenced by the discourse status of the referents. Furthermore, the corpus findings reveal a striking impact of the syntactic construction: complements of motion verbs do not have the same ordering preferences with complements of static verbs and adjuncts. This finding supports the view that the influence of discourse status on word order is indirect, i.e., it is mediated by information structural domains.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document