Step by step – Building representations in algebraic logic

We consider the problem of finding and classifying representations in algebraic logic. This is approached by letting two players build a representation using a game. Homogeneous and universal representations are characterized according to the outcome of certain games. The Lyndon conditions defining representable relation algebras (for the finite case) and a similar schema for cylindric algebras are derived. Finte relation algebras with homogeneous representations are characterized by first order formulas. Equivalence games are defined, and are used to establish whether an algebra is ω-categorical. We have a simple proof that the perfect extension of a representable relation algebra is completely representable.An important open problem from algebraic logic is addressed by devising another two-player game, and using it to derive equational axiomatisations for the classes of all representable relation algebras and representable cylindric algebras.Other instances of this approach are looked at, and include the step by step method.

Non-finite-axiomatizability results in algebraic logic

This paper deals with relation, cylindric and polyadic equality algebras. First of all it addresses a problem of B. Jónsson. He asked whether relation set algebras can be expanded by finitely many new operations in a “reasonable” way so that the class of these expansions would possess a finite equational base. The present paper gives a negative answer to this problem: Our main theorem states that whenever Rs+ is a class that consists of expansions of relation set algebras such that each operation of Rs+ is logical in Jónsson's sense, i.e., is the algebraic counterpart of some (derived) connective of first-order logic, then the equational theory of Rs+ has no finite axiom systems. Similar results are stated for the other classes mentioned above. As a corollary to this theorem we can solve a problem of Tarski and Givant [87], Namely, we claim that the valid formulas of certain languages cannot be axiomatized by a finite set of logical axiom schemes. At the same time we give a negative solution for a version of a problem of Henkin and Monk [74] (cf. also Monk [70] and Németi [89]).Throughout we use the terminology, notation and results of Henkin, Monk, Tarski [71] and [85]. We also use results of Maddux [89a].Notation. RA denotes the class of relation algebras, Rs denotes the class of relation set algebras and RRA is the class of representable relation algebras, i.e. the class of subdirect products of relation set algebras. The symbols RA, Rs and RRA abbreviate also the expressions relation algebra, relation set algebra and representable relation algebra, respectively.For any class C of similar algebras EqC is the set of identities that hold in C, while Eq1C is the set of those identities in EqC that contain at most one variable symbol. (We note that Henkin et al. [85] uses the symbol EqC in another sense.)