Truth Definitions, Skolem Functions and Axiomatic Set Theory

1998 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 303-337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaakko Hintikka
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Model Theory ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
Skolem Functions ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Axiomatic Set Theory

§1. The mission of axiomatic set theory. What is set theory needed for in the foundations of mathematics? Why cannot we transact whatever foundational business we have to transact in terms of our ordinary logic without resorting to set theory? There are many possible answers, but most of them are likely to be variations of the same theme. The core area of ordinary logic is by a fairly common consent the received first-order logic. Why cannot it take care of itself? What is it that it cannot do? A large part of every answer is probably that first-order logic cannot handle its own model theory and other metatheory. For instance, a first-order language does not allow the codification of the most important semantical concept, viz. the notion of truth, for that language in that language itself, as shown already in Tarski (1935). In view of such negative results it is generally thought that one of the most important missions of set theory is to provide the wherewithal for a model theory of logic. For instance Gregory H. Moore (1994, p. 635) asserts in his encyclopedia article “Logic and set theory” thatSet theory influenced logic, both through its semantics, by expanding the possible models of various theories and by the formal definition of a model; and through its syntax, by allowing for logical languages in which formulas can be infinite in length or in which the number of symbols is uncountable.

Resolution in type theory

1971 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 414-432 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter B. Andrews
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Type Theory ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Higher Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Axiomatic Set Theory ◽  
Order Predicate Calculus

In [8] J. A. Robinson introduced a complete refutation procedure called resolution for first order predicate calculus. Resolution is based on ideas in Herbrand's Theorem, and provides a very convenient framework in which to search for a proof of a wff believed to be a theorem. Moreover, it has proved possible to formulate many refinements of resolution which are still complete but are more efficient, at least in many contexts. However, when efficiency is a prime consideration, the restriction to first order logic is unfortunate, since many statements of mathematics (and other disciplines) can be expressed more simply and naturally in higher order logic than in first order logic. Also, the fact that in higher order logic (as in many-sorted first order logic) there is an explicit syntactic distinction between expressions which denote different types of intuitive objects is of great value where matching is involved, since one is automatically prevented from trying to make certain inappropriate matches. (One may contrast this with the situation in which mathematical statements are expressed in the symbolism of axiomatic set 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.

An introduction to recursively saturated and resplendent models

1976 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 531-536 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon Barwise ◽  
John Schlipf
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Model Theory ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Saturated Model ◽  
Order Model ◽  
Special Model ◽  
First Order ◽  
Admissible Sets ◽  
Recursively Saturated

The notions of recursively saturated and resplendent models grew out of the study of admissible sets with urelements and admissible fragments of Lω1ω, but, when applied to ordinary first order model theory, give us new tools for research and exposition. We will discuss their history in §3.The notion of saturated model has proven to be important in model theory. Its most important property for applications is that if , are saturated and of the same cardinality then = iff ≅ . See, e.g., Chang-Keisler [3]. The main drawback is that saturated models exist only under unusual assumptions of set theory. For example, if 2κ = κ+ then every theory T of L has a saturated model of power κ+. (Similarly, if κ is strongly inaccessible, then every T has a saturated model of power κ.) On the other hand, a theory T like Peano arithmetic, with types, cannot have a saturated model in any power κ with ω ≤ κ ≤ .One method for circumventing these problems of existence (or rather non-existence) is the use of “special” models (cf. [3]). If κ = Σλ<κ2λ, κ < ω, then every theory T of L has a special model of power κ. Such cardinals are large and, themselves, rather special. There are definite aesthetic objections to the use of these large, singular models to prove results about first order logic.

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.

scholarly journals Formula size games for modal logic and μ-calculus

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (8) ◽  
pp. 1311-1344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauri T Hella ◽  
Miikka S Vilander
Keyword(s):  
Modal Logic ◽  
Optimal Strategy ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Kripke Models ◽  
First Order ◽  
Modal Operators ◽  
Crucial Difference ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Person Game

Abstract We propose a new version of formula size game for modal logic. The game characterizes the equivalence of pointed Kripke models up to formulas of given numbers of modal operators and binary connectives. Our game is similar to the well-known Adler–Immerman game. However, due to a crucial difference in the definition of positions of the game, its winning condition is simpler, and the second player does not have a trivial optimal strategy. Thus, unlike the Adler–Immerman game, our game is a genuine two-person game. We illustrate the use of the game by proving a non-elementary succinctness gap between bisimulation invariant first-order logic $\textrm{FO}$ and (basic) modal logic $\textrm{ML}$. We also present a version of the game for the modal $\mu $-calculus $\textrm{L}_\mu $ and show that $\textrm{FO}$ is also non-elementarily more succinct than $\textrm{L}_\mu $.

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.

Church’s theorem and the decision problem

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohit Parikh
Keyword(s):  
Decision Problem ◽  
Combinatorial Problem ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Negative Solution ◽  
Great Contribution ◽  
Solvable Problem ◽  
First Order ◽  
Mathematical Definition ◽  
Definition Of

Church’s theorem, published in 1936, states that the set of valid formulas of first-order logic is not effectively decidable: there is no method or algorithm for deciding which formulas of first-order logic are valid. Church’s paper exhibited an undecidable combinatorial problem P and showed that P was representable in first-order logic. If first-order logic were decidable, P would also be decidable. Since P is undecidable, first-order logic must also be undecidable. Church’s theorem is a negative solution to the decision problem (Entscheidungsproblem), the problem of finding a method for deciding whether a given formula of first-order logic is valid, or satisfiable, or neither. The great contribution of Church (and, independently, Turing) was not merely to prove that there is no method but also to propose a mathematical definition of the notion of ‘effectively solvable problem’, that is, a problem solvable by means of a method or algorithm.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document