On amalgamations of languages with Magidor-Malitz quantifiers

1979 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 549-558
Author(s):  
Carl F. Morgenstern
Keyword(s):  
Universal Algebra ◽  
Model Theory ◽  
Natural Extension ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Free Variables ◽  
Countably Compact

In this paper we indicate how compact languages containing the Magidor-Malitz quantifiers Qκn in different cardinalities can be amalgamated to yield more expressive, compact languages.The language Lκ<ω, originally introduced by Magidor and Malitz [9], is a natural extension of the language L(Q) introduced by Mostowski and investigated by Fuhrken [6], [7], Keisler [8] and Vaught [13]. Intuitively, Lκ<ω is first-order logic together with quantifiers Qκn (n ∈ ω) binding n free variables which express “there is a set X of cardinality κ such than any n distinct elements of X satisfy …”, or in other words, iff the relation on determined by φ contains an n-cube of cardinality κ. With these languages one can express a variety of combinatorial statements of the type considered by Erdös and his colleagues, as well as concepts in universal algebra which are beyond the scope of first-order logic. The model theory of Lκ<ω has been further developed by Badger [1], Magidor and Malitz [10] and Shelah [12].We refer to a language as being < κ compact if, given any set of sentences Σ of the language, if Σ is finitely satisfiable and ∣Σ∣ < κ, then Σ has a model. The phrase countably compact is used in place of <ℵ1 compact.

scholarly journals An elementary definability theorem for first order logic

1999 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 1028-1036 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Butz ◽  
I. Moerdijk
Keyword(s):  
Model Theory ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Free Variables ◽  
Definable Subset ◽  
Boolean Valued Model

In this paper, we will present a definability theorem for first order logic. This theorem is very easy to state, and its proof only uses elementary tools. To explain the theorem, let us first observe that if M is a model of a theory T in a language , then, clearly, any definable subset S ⊂ M (i.e., a subset S = {a ∣ M ⊨ φ(a)} defined by some formula φ) is invariant under all automorphisms of M. The same is of course true for subsets of Mn defined by formulas with n free variables.Our theorem states that, if one allows Boolean valued models, the converse holds. More precisely, for any theory T we will construct a Boolean valued model M, in which precisely the T -provable formulas hold, and in which every (Boolean valued) subset which is invariant under all automorphisms of M is definable by a formula .Our presentation is entirely selfcontained, and only requires familiarity with the most elementary properties of model theory. In particular, we have added a first section in which we review the basic definitions concerning Boolean valued models.

Boolean-valued structures

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Button ◽  
Sean Walsh
Keyword(s):  
Model Theory ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Inference Rules ◽  
Mathematical Concepts ◽  
Semantic Framework ◽  
First Order ◽  
Standard Models ◽  
Boolean Valued Model ◽  
Semantic Values

Chapters 6-12 are driven by questions about the ability to pin down mathematical entities and to articulate mathematical concepts. This chapter is driven by similar questions about the ability to pin down the semantic frameworks of language. It transpires that there are not just non-standard models, but non-standard ways of doing model theory itself. In more detail: whilst we normally outline a two-valued semantics which makes sentences True or False in a model, the inference rules for first-order logic are compatible with a four-valued semantics; or a semantics with countably many values; or what-have-you. The appropriate level of generality here is that of a Boolean-valued model, which we introduce. And the plurality of possible semantic values gives rise to perhaps the ‘deepest’ level of indeterminacy questions: How can humans pin down the semantic framework for their languages? We consider three different ways for inferentialists to respond to this question.

On the elementary equivalence of automorphism groups of Boolean algebras; downward Skolem Löwenheim theorems and compactness of related quantifiers

1980 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 265-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matatyahu Rubin ◽  
Saharon Shelah
Keyword(s):  
Boolean Algebra ◽  
Automorphism Groups ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
Boolean Algebras ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Elementary Equivalence ◽  
First Order ◽  
Finite Models ◽  
Countably Compact

AbstractTheorem 1. (◊ℵ1,) If B is an infinite Boolean algebra (BA), then there is B1, such that ∣ Aut (B1) ≤∣B1∣ = ℵ1 and 〈B1, Aut (B1)〉 ≡ 〈B, Aut(B)〉.Theorem 2. (◊ℵ1) There is a countably compact logic stronger than first-order logic even on finite models.This partially answers a question of H. Friedman. These theorems appear in §§1 and 2.Theorem 3. (a) (◊ℵ1) If B is an atomic ℵ-saturated infinite BA, Ψ Є Lω1ω and 〈B, Aut (B)〉 ⊨Ψ then there is B1, Such that ∣Aut(B1)∣ ≤ ∣B1∣ =ℵ1, and 〈B1, Aut(B1)〉⊨Ψ. In particular if B is 1-homogeneous so is B1. (b) (a) holds for B = P(ω) even if we assume only CH.

Model theory under the axiom of determinateness

1985 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 773-780
Author(s):  
Mitchell Spector
Keyword(s):  
Model Theory ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Technical Innovation ◽  
First Order ◽  
Partition Relations ◽  
Hanf Number ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice

AbstractWe initiate the study of model theory in the absence of the Axiom of Choice, using the Axiom of Determinateness as a powerful substitute. We first show that, in this context, is no more powerful than first-order logic. The emphasis then turns to upward Löwenhein-Skolem theorems; ℵ1 is the Hanf number of first-order logic, of , and of a strong fragment of , The main technical innovation is the development of iterated ultrapowers using infinite supports; this requires an application of infinite-exponent partition relations. All our theorems can be proven from hypotheses weaker than AD.

Some Aspects of Model Theory and Finite Structures

2002 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 380-403 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Rosen
Keyword(s):  
Computer Science ◽  
Complexity Theory ◽  
Model Theory ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Finite Model ◽  
Finite Model Theory ◽  
First Order ◽  
Single Sentence ◽  
Finite Structures

Model theory is concerned mainly, although not exclusively, with infinite structures. In recent years, finite structures have risen to greater prominence, both within the context of mainstream model theory, e.g., in work of Lachlan, Cherlin, Hrushovski, and others, and with the advent of finite model theory, which incorporates elements of classical model theory, combinatorics, and complexity theory. The purpose of this survey is to provide an overview of what might be called the model theory of finite structures. Some topics in finite model theory have strong connections to theoretical computer science, especially descriptive complexity theory (see [26, 46]). In fact, it has been suggested that finite model theory really is, or should be, logic for computer science. These connections with computer science will, however, not be treated here.It is well-known that many classical results of ‘infinite model theory’ fail over the class of finite structures, including the compactness and completeness theorems, as well as many preservation and interpolation theorems (see [35, 26]). The failure of compactness in the finite, in particular, means that the standard proofs of many theorems are no longer valid in this context. At present, there is no known example of a classical theorem that remains true over finite structures, yet must be proved by substantially different methods. It is generally concluded that first-order logic is ‘badly behaved’ over finite structures.From the perspective of expressive power, first-order logic also behaves badly: it is both too weak and too strong. Too weak because many natural properties, such as the size of a structure being even or a graph being connected, cannot be defined by a single sentence. Too strong, because every class of finite structures with a finite signature can be defined by an infinite set of sentences. Even worse, every finite structure is defined up to isomorphism by a single sentence. In fact, it is perhaps because of this last point more than anything else that model theorists have not been very interested in finite structures. Modern model theory is concerned largely with complete first-order theories, which are completely trivial here.

Barwise: Abstract Model Theory and Generalized Quantifiers

2004 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jouko Väänänen
Keyword(s):  
Model Theory ◽  
Interpolation Property ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Generalized Quantifiers ◽  
Abstract Model ◽  
Famous Theorem ◽  
Abstract Model Theory ◽  
First Order ◽  
Skolem Theorem

§1. Introduction. After the pioneering work of Mostowski [29] and Lindström [23] it was Jon Barwise's papers [2] and [3] that brought abstract model theory and generalized quantifiers to the attention of logicians in the early seventies. These papers were greeted with enthusiasm at the prospect that model theory could be developed by introducing a multitude of extensions of first order logic, and by proving abstract results about relationships holding between properties of these logics. Examples of such properties areκ-compactness. Any set of sentences of cardinality ≤ κ, every finite subset of which has a model, has itself a model. Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem down to κ. If a sentence of the logic has a model, it has a model of cardinality at most κ. Interpolation Property. If ϕ and ψ are sentences such that ⊨ ϕ → Ψ, then there is θ such that ⊨ ϕ → θ, ⊨ θ → Ψ and the vocabulary of θ is the intersection of the vocabularies of ϕ and Ψ.Lindstrom's famous theorem characterized first order logic as the maximal ℵ0-compact logic with Downward Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem down to ℵ0. With his new concept of absolute logics Barwise was able to get similar characterizations of infinitary languages Lκω. But hopes were quickly frustrated by difficulties arising left and right, and other areas of model theory came into focus, mainly stability theory. No new characterizations of logics comparable to the early characterization of first order logic given by Lindström and of infinitary logic by Barwise emerged. What was first called soft model theory turned out to be as hard as hard model theory.

The degree of the set of sentences of predicate provability logic that are true under every interpretation

1987 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 165-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Boolos ◽  
Vann McGee
Keyword(s):  
Predicate Symbol ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Provability Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Free Variables ◽  
Unary Operator

The formalism of P(redicate) P(rovability) L(ogic) is the result of adjoining the unary operator □ to first-order logic without identity, constants, or function symbols. The term “provability” indicates that □ is to be “read” as “it is provable in P(eano) A(rithmetic) that…” and that the formulae of predicate provability logic are to be interpreted via formulae of PA as follows.Pr(x), alias Bew(x), is the standard provability predicate of PA. For any formula F of PA, Pr[F] is the formula of PA that expresses the PA-provability of F “of” the values of the variables free in F, i.e., it is the formula of PA with the same free variables as F that expresses the PA-provability of the result of substituting for each variable free in F the numeral for the value of that variable. For the details of the construction of Pr[F], the reader may consult [B2, p. 42]. If F is a sentence of PA, then Pr[F] = Pr(‘F’), the sentence that expresses the PA-provability of F.Let υ1, υ2,… be an enumeration of the variables of PA. An interpretation * of a formula ϕ of PPL is a function which assigns to each predicate symbol P of ϕ a formula P* of the language of arithmetic whose free variables are the first n variables of PA, where n is the degree of P.

On the number of generators of cylindric algebras

1985 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 865-873
Author(s):  
H. Andréka ◽  
I. Németi
Keyword(s):  
Model Theory ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Single Element ◽  
Abstract Model ◽  
Finitely Generated ◽  
Cylindric Algebras ◽  
Abstract Model Theory ◽  
First Order ◽  
Cylindric Set Algebras

The theory of cylindric algebras (CA's) is the algebraic theory of first order logics. Several ideas about logic are easier to formulate in the frame of CA-theory. Such are e.g. some concepts of abstract model theory (cf. [1] and [10]–[12]) as well as ideas about relationships between several axiomatic theories of different similarity types (cf. [4] and [10]). In contrast with the relationship between Boolean algebras and classical propositional logic, CA's correspond not only to classical first order logic but also to several other ones. Hence CA-theoretic results contain more information than their counterparts in first order logic. For more about this see [1], [3], [5], [9], [10] and [12].Here we shall use the notation and concepts of the monographs Henkin-Monk-Tarski [7] and [8]. ω denotes the set of natural numbers. CAα denotes the class of all cylindric algebras of dimension α; by “a CAα” we shall understand an element of the class CAα. The class Dcα ⊆ CAα was defined in [7]. Note that Dcα = 0 for α ∈ ω. The classes Wsα, and Csα were defined in 1.1.1 of [8], p. 4. They are called the classes of all weak cylindric set algebras, regular cylindric set algebras and cylindric set algebras respectively. It is proved in [8] (I.7.13, I.1.9) that ⊆ CAα. (These inclusions are proper by 7.3.7, 1.4.3 and 1.5.3 of [8].)It was proved in 2.3.22 and 2.3.23 of [7] that every simple, finitely generated Dcα is generated by a single element. This is the algebraic counterpart of a property of first order logics (cf. 2.3.23 of [7]). The question arose: for which simple CAα's does “finitely generated” imply “generated by a single element” (see p. 291 and Problem 2.3 in [7]). In terms of abstract model theory this amounts to asking the question: For which logics does the property described in 2.3.23 of [7] hold? This property is roughly the following. In any maximal theory any finite set of concepts is definable in terms of a single concept. The connection with CA-theory is that maximal theories correspond to simple CA's (the elements of which are the concepts of the original logic) and definability corresponds to generation.

scholarly journals The Triguarded Fragment with Transitivity

10.29007/z359 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emanuel Kieronski ◽  
Adam Malinowski
Keyword(s):  
Decision Procedure ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Satisfiability Problem ◽  
First Order ◽  
Free Variables ◽  
Guarded Fragment

The triguarded fragment of first-order logic is an extension of the guarded fragment in which quantification for subformulas with at most two free variables need not be guarded. Thus, it unifies two prominent decidable logics: the guarded fragment and the two-variable fragment. Its satisfiability problem is known to be undecidable in the presence of equality, but becomes decidable when equality is forbidden. We consider an extension of the tri- guarded fragment without equality by transitive relations, allowing them to be used only as guards. We show that the satisfiability problem for the obtained formalism is decidable and 2-ExpTime-complete, that is, it is of the same complexity as for the analogous exten- sion of the classical guarded fragment. In fact, in our satisfiability test we use a decision procedure for the latter as a subroutine. We also show how our approach, consisting in exploiting some existing results on guarded logics, can be used to reprove some known facts, as well as to derive some other new results on triguarded logics.

Abstraction Logic

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Obua
Keyword(s):  
Binding Constants ◽  
Second Order ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Algebraic Semantics ◽  
Variable Binding ◽  
First Order ◽  
Free Variables ◽  
Direct Support ◽  
Second Order Logic

Abstraction Logic is introduced as a foundation for Practical Types and Practal. It combines the simplicity of first-order logic with direct support for variable binding constants called abstractions. It also allows free variables to depend on parameters, which means that first-order axiom schemata can be encoded as simple axioms. Conceptually abstraction logic is situated between first-order logic and second-order logic. It is sound with respect to an intuitive and simple algebraic semantics. Completeness holds for both intuitionistic and classical abstraction logic, and all abstraction logics in between and beyond.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document