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.

Gödel’s Proof Based on ω-Consistency

1992 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raymond M. Smullyan
Keyword(s):  
Predicate Symbol ◽  
Order Theory ◽  
Modus Ponens ◽  
Axiom System ◽  
Peano Arithmetic ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Underlying Assumption ◽  
First Order ◽  
First Order Theory

The proof that we have just given of the incompleteness of Peano Arithmetic was based on the underlying assumption that Peano Arithmetic is correct—i.e., that every sentence provable in P.A. is a true sentence. Gödel’s original incompleteness proof involved a much weaker assumption—that of ω-consistency to which we now turn. We consider an arbitrary axiom system S whose formulas are those of Peano Arithmetic, whose axioms include all those of Groups I and II (or alternatively, any set of axioms for first-order logic with identity such that all logically valid formulas are provable from them), and whose inference rules are modus ponens and generalization. (It is also possible to axiomatize first-order logic in such a way that modus ponens is the only inference rule—cf. Quine [1940].) In place of the axioms of Groups III and IV, however, we can take a completely arbitrary set of axioms. Such a system S is an example of what is termed a first-order theory, and we will consider several such theories other than Peano Arithmetic. (For the more general notion of a first-order theory, the key difference is that we do not necessarily start with + and × as the undefined function symbols, nor do we necessarily take ≤ as the undefined predicate symbol. Arbitrary function symbols and predicate symbols can be taken, however, as the undefined function and predicate symbols—cf. Tarski [1953] for details. However, the only theories (or “systems”, as we will call them) that we will have occasion to consider are those whose formulas are those of P.A.) S is called simply consistent (or just “consistent” for short) if no sentence is both provable and refutable in S.

The Incompleteness of Peano Arithmetic with Exponentiation

1992 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raymond M. Smullyan
Keyword(s):  
Axiom System ◽  
Peano Arithmetic ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Inference Rules ◽  
First Order ◽  
Axiom Scheme

We shall now turn to a formal axiom system which we call Peano Arithmetic with Exponentiation and which we abbreviate “P.E.”. We take certain correct formulas which we call axioms and provide two inference rules that enable us to prove new correct formulas from correct formulas already proved. The axioms will be infinite in number, but each axiom will be of one of nineteen easily recognizable forms; these forms are called axiom schemes. It will be convenient to classify these nineteen axiom schemes into four groups (cf. discussion that follows the display of the schemes). The axioms of Groups I and II are the so-called logical axioms and constitute a neat formalization of first-order logic with identity due to Kalish and Montague [1965], which is based on an earlier system due to Tarski [1965]. The axioms of Groups III and IV are the so-called arithmetic axioms. In displaying these axiom schemes, F, G and H are any formulas, vi and vj are any variables, and t is any term. For example, the first scheme L1 means that for any formulas F and G, the formula (F ⊃ (G ⊃ F)) is to be taken as an axiom; axiom scheme L4 means that for any variable Vi and any formulas F and G, the formula . . . (∀vi (F ⊃ G) ⊃ (∀vi (F ⊃ ∀vi G) . . . is to be taken as an axiom.

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.

scholarly journals Much Ado About the Many

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Mai
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Formal Theory ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Plural Quantification ◽  
First Order ◽  
Order Language ◽  
The Many ◽  
Second Order Logic ◽  
Alternative Theories

English distinguishes between singular quantifiers like "a donkey" and plural quantifiers like "some donkeys". Pluralists hold that plural quantifiers range in an unusual, irreducibly plural, way over common objects, namely individuals from first-order domains and not over set-like objects. The favoured framework of pluralism is plural first-order logic, PFO, an interpreted first-order language that is capable of expressing plural quantification. Pluralists argue for their position by claiming that the standard formal theory based on PFO is both ontologically neutral and really logic. These properties are supposed to yield many important applications concerning second-order logic and set theory that alternative theories supposedly cannot deliver. I will show that there are serious reasons for rejecting at least the claim of ontological innocence. Doubt about innocence arises on account of the fact that, when properly spelled out, the PFO-semantics for plural quantifiers is committed to set-like objects. The correctness of my worries presupposes the principle that for every plurality there is a coextensive set. Pluralists might reply that this principle leads straight to paradox. However, as I will argue, the true culprit of the paradox is the assumption that every definite condition determines a plurality.

scholarly journals Semantics for Hyperclassical Logic and the Problem of Negation in the Formal Language

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 5-15
Author(s):  
V. V. Tselishchev
Keyword(s):  
Theoretical Model ◽  
Formal Language ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Winning Strategies ◽  
Game Theoretic ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Game Theoretic Semantics

The application of game-theoretic semantics for first-order logic is based on a certain kind of semantic assumptions, directly related to the asymmetry of the definition of truth and lies as the winning strategies of the Verifier (Abelard) and the Counterfeiter (Eloise). This asymmetry becomes apparent when applying GTS to IFL. The legitimacy of applying GTS when it is transferred to IFL is based on the adequacy of GTS for FOL. But this circumstance is not a reason to believe that one can hope for the same adequacy in the case of IFL. Then the question arises if GTS is a natural semantics for IFL. Apparently, the intuitive understanding of negation in natural language can be explicated in formal languages in various ways, and the result of an incomplete grasp of the concept in these languages can be considered a certain kind of anomalies, in view of the apparent simplicity of the explicated concept. Comparison of the theoretical-model and game theoretic semantics in application to two kinds of language – the first-order language and friendly-independent logic – allows to discover the causes of the anomaly and outline ways to overcome it.

The hierarchy theorem for generalized quantifiers

1996 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 802-817 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauri Hella ◽  
Kerkko Luosto ◽  
Jouko Väänänen
Keyword(s):  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Generalized Quantifiers ◽  
Similarity Type ◽  
First Order ◽  
Generalized Quantifier ◽  
Finite Structures

AbstractThe concept of a generalized quantifier of a given similarity type was defined in [12]. Our main result says that on finite structures different similarity types give rise to different classes of generalized quantifiers. More exactly, for every similarity type t there is a generalized quantifier of type t which is not definable in the extension of first order logic by all generalized quantifiers of type smaller than t. This was proved for unary similarity types by Per Lindström [17] with a counting argument. We extend his method to arbitrary similarity types.

scholarly journals HYPER-REF: A General Model of Reference for First-Order Logic and First-Order Arithmetic

2022 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pablo Rivas-Robledo
Keyword(s):  
General Model ◽  
Heuristic Method ◽  
Order Theory ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
First Order Theory ◽  
Order Arithmetic ◽  
Self Reference ◽  
Do So

Abstract In this article I present HYPER-REF, a model to determine the referent of any given expression in First-Order Logic (FOL). I also explain how this model can be used to determine the referent of a first-order theory such as First-Order Arithmetic (FOA). By reference or referent I mean the non-empty set of objects that the syntactical terms of a well-formed formula (wff) pick out given a particular interpretation of the language. To do so, I will first draw on previous work to make explicit the notion of reference and its hyperintensional features. Then I present HYPER-REF and offer a heuristic method for determining the reference of any formula. Then I discuss some of the benefits and most salient features of HYPER-REF, including some remarks on the nature of self-reference in formal languages.

Relativized logspace and generalized quantifiers over finite ordered structures

1997 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 545-574 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georg Gottlob
Keyword(s):  
Sufficient Conditions ◽  
Expressive Power ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
General Point ◽  
Complexity Classes ◽  
Generalized Quantifiers ◽  
Ordered Structures ◽  
First Order ◽  
Henkin Quantifiers

AbstractWe here examine the expressive power of first order logic with generalized quantifiers over finite ordered structures. In particular, we address the following problem: Given a family Q of generalized quantifiers expressing a complexity class C, what is the expressive power of first order logic FO(Q) extended by the quantifiers in Q? From previously studied examples, one would expect that FO(Q) captures LC, i.e., logarithmic space relativized to an oracle in C. We show that this is not always true. However, after studying the problem from a general point of view, we derive sufficient conditions on C such that FO(Q) captures LC. These conditions are fulfilled by a large number of relevant complexity classes, in particular, for example, by NP. As an application of this result, it follows that first order logic extended by Henkin quantifiers captures LNP. This answers a question raised by Blass and Gurevich [Ann. Pure Appl. Logic, vol. 32, 1986]. Furthermore we show that for many families Q of generalized quantifiers (including the family of Henkin quantifiers), each FO(Q)-formula can be replaced by an equivalent FO(Q)-formula with only two occurrences of generalized quantifiers. This generalizes and extends an earlier normal-form result by I. A. Stewart [Fundamenta Inform, vol. 18, 1993].

EXISTENTIAL-IMPORT MATHEMATICS

2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOHN CORCORAN ◽  
HASSAN MASOUD
Keyword(s):  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Existential Import ◽  
Definable Subset ◽  
Order Language

AbstractFirst-order logic has limited existential import: the universalized conditional ∀x [S(x) → P(x)] implies its corresponding existentialized conjunction ∃x [S(x) & P(x)] in some but not all cases. We prove the Existential-Import Equivalence:∀x [S(x) → P(x)] implies ∃x [S(x) & P(x)] iff ∃x S(x) is logically true.The antecedent S(x) of the universalized conditional alone determines whether the universalized conditional has existential import: implies its corresponding existentialized conjunction.A predicate is a formula having only x free. An existential-import predicate Q(x) is one whose existentialization, ∃x Q(x), is logically true; otherwise, Q(x) is existential-import-free or simply import-free. Existential-import predicates are also said to be import-carrying.How widespread is existential import? How widespread are import-carrying predicates in themselves or in comparison to import-free predicates? To answer, let L be any first-order language with any interpretation INT in any [sc. nonempty] universe U. A subset S of U is definable in L under INT iff for some predicate Q(x) in L, S is the truth-set of Q(x) under INT. S is import-carrying definable iff S is the truth-set of an import-carrying predicate. S is import-free definable iff S is the truth-set of an import-free predicate.Existential-Importance Theorem: Let L, INT, and U be arbitrary. Every nonempty definable subset of U is both import-carrying definable and import-free definable.Import-carrying predicates are quite abundant, and no less so than import-free predicates. Existential-import implications hold as widely as they fail.A particular conclusion cannot be validly drawn from a universal premise, or from any number of universal premises.—Lewis-Langford, 1932, p. 62.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document