A strong version of Herbrand's theorem for introvert sentences

1998 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 555-569 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tore Langholm
Keyword(s):  
Ground Term ◽  
New Members ◽  
First Order ◽  
Herbrand’S Theorem ◽  
Universal Sentence ◽  
Order Language ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Infinite Set ◽  
Herbrand's Theorem

A version of Herbrand's theorem tells us that a universal sentence of a first-order language with at least one constant is satisfiable if and only if the conjunction of all its ground instances is. In general the set of such instances is infinite, and arbitrarily large finite subsets may have to be inspected in order to detect inconsistency. Essentially, the reason that every member of such an infinite set may potentially matter, can be traced back to sentences like(1) Loosely put, such sentences effectively sabotage any attempt to build a model from below in a finite number of steps, since new members of the Herbrand universe are constantly brought to attention. Since they cause an indefinite expansion of the relevant part of the Herbrand universe, such sentences could quite appropriately be called expanding.When such sentences are banned, stronger versions of Herbrand's theorem can be stated. Define a clause (disjunction of literals) to be non-expanding if every non-ground term occurring in a positive literal also occurs (possibly as an embedded subterm) in a negative literal of the same clause. Written as a disjunction of literals, the matrix of (1) clearly fails this criterion. Moreover, say that a sentence is non-expanding if it is a universal sentence with a quantifier-free matrix that is a conjunction of non-expanding clauses. Such sentences do in a sense never reach out beyond themselves, and the relevant part of the Herbrand universe is therefore drastically reduced.

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.

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.

On spectra, and the negative solution of the decision problem for identities having a finite nontrivial model

1975 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralph Mckenzie
Keyword(s):  
Model Problem ◽  
Recursive Algorithm ◽  
Finite Model ◽  
Positive Direction ◽  
First Order ◽  
Sharp Form ◽  
Universal Sentence ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Finite Set ◽  
The Universe

An algorithm has been described by S. Burris [3] which decides if a finite set of identities, whose function symbols are of rank at most 1, has a finite, nontrivial model. (By “nontrivial” it is meant that the universe of the model has at least two elements.) As a consequence of some results announced in the abstracts [2] and [8], it is clear that if the restriction on the ranks of function symbols is relaxed somewhat, then this finite model problem is no longer solvable by an algorithm, or at least not by a “recursive algorithm” as the term is used today.In this paper we prove a sharp form of this negative result; showing, by the way, that Burris' result is in a sense the best possible result in the positive direction. Our main result is that in a first order language whose only function or relation symbol is a 2-place function symbol (the language of groupoids), the set of identities that have no nontrivial model, is recursively inseparable from the set of identities such that the sentence has a finite model. As a corollary, we have that each of the following problems, restricted to sentences defined in the language of groupoids, is algorithmically unsolvable: (1) to decide if an identity has a finite nontrivial model; (2) to decide if an identity has a nontrivial model; (3) to decide if a universal sentence has a finite model; (4) to decide if a universal sentence has a model. We note that the undecidability of (2) was proved earlier by McNulty [13, Theorem 3.6(i)], improving results obtained by Murskiǐ [14] and by Perkins [17]. The other parts of the corollary seem to be new.

On the ring of differentially-algebraic entire functions

1992 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 449-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee A. Rubel
Keyword(s):  
Differential Equation ◽  
Finite Length ◽  
Complex Variable ◽  
Entire Functions ◽  
Algebraic Differential Equation ◽  
Elementary Equivalence ◽  
First Order ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Image Position

Let be the ring of all entire functions of one complex variable, and let DA be the subring of those entire functions that are differentially algebraic (DA); that is, they satisfy a nontrivial algebraic differential equation.where P is a non-identically-zero polynomial in its n + 2 variables. It seems not to be known whether DA is elementarily equivalent to . This would mean that DA and have exactly the same true statements about them, in the first-order language of rings. (Roughly speaking, a sentence about a ring R is first-order if it has finite length and quantifies only over elements (i.e., not subsets or functions or relations) of R.) It follows from [NAN] that DA and are not isomorphic as rings, but this does not answer the question of elementary equivalence.

Quasiunitriangular groups

1993 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 205-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
O. V. Belegradek
Keyword(s):  
Direct Summand ◽  
Algebraic Characterization ◽  
First Order ◽  
Expanded Group ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Image Position

For a ring with unit R, which need not be associative, denote the group of upper unitriangular 3 × 3 matrices over R by UT3(R). Let e1 = (1,0,0), e2 = (0,1,0), where (α, β, γ) denotes the matrixDenote the expanded group (UT3(R), e1, e2) by (R). A. 1. Mal′cev [M] gave an algebraic characterization of the expanded groups of the form (R) as follows. Let h1, h2 be elements of a group H; then (H, h1, h2) is isomorphic to (R), for some R, if and only if(i) H is 2-step nilpotent;(ii) CH(hi) are abelian, i = 1,2;(iii) CH(h1) ∩ CH(h2) = Z(H);(iv) [CH(h1),h2] = [h1, CH(h2)] = Z(H);(v) Z(H) is a direct summand in both CH(hi).(In [M] condition (v) is a bit stronger; the version above is presented in [B2].)A pair (h1, h2) of elements of a group H is said to be a base if (H, h1, h2) satisfies the conditions (i)–(iv). A. I. Mal′cev [M] found a uniform way of first order interpreting a ring Ring(H, h1, h2) in any group with a base (H, h1, h2); in particular, Ring((R)) ≃ R.

COMPONENTS AND MINIMAL NORMAL SUBGROUPS OF FINITE AND PSEUDOFINITE GROUPS

2019 ◽  
Vol 84 (1) ◽  
pp. 290-300
Author(s):  
JOHN S. WILSON
Keyword(s):  
Finite Group ◽  
Group Theory ◽  
Normal Subgroup ◽  
Finite Groups ◽  
Minimal Normal Subgroup ◽  
Normal Subgroups ◽  
First Order ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Image Position ◽  
A Finite Group

AbstractIt is proved that there is a formula$\pi \left( {h,x} \right)$in the first-order language of group theory such that each component and each non-abelian minimal normal subgroup of a finite groupGis definable by$\pi \left( {h,x} \right)$for a suitable elementhofG; in other words, each such subgroup has the form$\left\{ {x|x\pi \left( {h,x} \right)} \right\}$for someh. A number of consequences for infinite models of the theory of finite groups are described.

scholarly journals NIP FOR THE ASYMPTOTIC COUPLE OF THE FIELD OF LOGARITHMIC TRANSSERIES

2017 ◽  
Vol 82 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
ALLEN GEHRET
Keyword(s):  
Order Theory ◽  
Exchange Property ◽  
Independence Property ◽  
First Order ◽  
Valued Field ◽  
First Order Theory ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Complete Survey ◽  
Image Position

AbstractThe derivation on the differential-valued field Tlog of logarithmic transseries induces on its value group ${{\rm{\Gamma }}_{{\rm{log}}}}$ a certain map ψ. The structure ${\rm{\Gamma }} = \left( {{{\rm{\Gamma }}_{{\rm{log}}}},\psi } \right)$ is a divisible asymptotic couple. In [7] we began a study of the first-order theory of $\left( {{{\rm{\Gamma }}_{{\rm{log}}}},\psi } \right)$ where, among other things, we proved that the theory $T_{{\rm{log}}} = Th\left( {{\rm{\Gamma }}_{{\rm{log}}} ,\psi } \right)$ has a universal axiomatization, is model complete and admits elimination of quantifiers (QE) in a natural first-order language. In that paper we posed the question whether Tlog has NIP (i.e., the Non-Independence Property). In this paper, we answer that question in the affirmative: Tlog does have NIP. Our method of proof relies on a complete survey of the 1-types of Tlog, which, in the presence of QE, is equivalent to a characterization of all simple extensions ${\rm{\Gamma }}\left\langle \alpha \right\rangle$ of ${\rm{\Gamma }}$. We also show that Tlog does not have the Steinitz exchange property and we weigh in on the relationship between models of Tlog and the so-called precontraction groups of [9].

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document