We consider fragments of uniform reflection for formulas in the analytic hierarchy over theories of second order arithmetic. The main result is that for any second order arithmetic theory $T_0$ extending $\mathsf {RCA}_0$ and axiomatizable by a $\Pi ^1_{k+2}$ sentence, and for any $n\geq k+1$ ,

$$\begin{align*}T_0+ \mathrm{RFN}_{\varPi^1_{n+2}}(T) \ = \ T_0 + \mathrm{TI}_{\varPi^1_n}(\varepsilon_0), \end{align*}$$

$$\begin{align*}T_0+ \mathrm{RFN}_{\varSigma^1_{n+1}}(T) \ = \ T_0+ \mathrm{TI}_{\varPi^1_n}(\varepsilon_0)^{-}, \end{align*}$$

$T_0$

$\mathrm {TI}_{\varPi ^1_n}(\varepsilon _0)^{-}$

$\varepsilon _0$

$\varPi ^1_n$

In continuation of [JOH04, OH07], we prove that existentially closed CSA-groups have the independence property. This is done by showing that there exist words having the independence property relative to the class of torsion-free hyperbolic groups.

What seem to be Kurt Gödel’s first notes on logic, an exercise notebook of 84 pages, contains formal proofs in higher-order arithmetic and set theory. The choice of these topics is clearly suggested by their inclusion in Hilbert and Ackermann’s logic book of 1928, the Grundzüge der theoretischen Logik. Such proofs are notoriously hard to construct within axiomatic logic. Gödel takes without further ado into use a linear system of natural deduction for the full language of higher-order logic, with formal derivations closer to one hundred steps in length and up to four nested temporary assumptions with their scope indicated by vertical intermittent lines.

This paper augments Hailperin's substantial efforts (1976/1986) to place Boole's algebra of logic on a solid footing. Namely Horn sentences are used to give a modern formulation of the principle that Boole adopted in 1854 as the foundation for his algebra of logic—we call this principle The Rule of 0 and 1.

In this paper, we examine the limit of applicability of Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem ($\textsf {G1}$ for short). We first define the notion “$\textsf {G1}$ holds for the theory $T$”. This paper is motivated by the following question: can we find a theory with a minimal degree of interpretation for which $\textsf {G1}$ holds. To approach this question, we first examine the following question: is there a theory T such that Robinson’s $\mathbf {R}$ interprets T but T does not interpret $\mathbf {R}$ (i.e., T is weaker than $\mathbf {R}$ w.r.t. interpretation) and $\textsf {G1}$ holds for T? In this paper, we show that there are many such theories based on Jeřábek’s work using some model theory. We prove that for each recursively inseparable pair $\langle A,B\rangle $, we can construct a r.e. theory $U_{\langle A,B\rangle }$ such that $U_{\langle A,B\rangle }$ is weaker than $\mathbf {R}$ w.r.t. interpretation and $\textsf {G1}$ holds for $U_{\langle A,B\rangle }$. As a corollary, we answer a question from Albert Visser. Moreover, we prove that for any Turing degree $\mathbf {0}< \mathbf {d}<\mathbf {0}^{\prime }$, there is a theory T with Turing degree $\mathbf {d}$ such that $\textsf {G1}$ holds for T and T is weaker than $\mathbf {R}$ w.r.t. Turing reducibility. As a corollary, based on Shoenfield’s work using some recursion theory, we show that there is no theory with a minimal degree of Turing reducibility for which $\textsf {G1}$ holds.

Frege’s theorem says that second-order Peano arithmetic is interpretable in Hume’s Principle and full impredicative comprehension. Hume’s Principle is one example of an abstraction principle, while another paradigmatic example is Basic Law V from Frege’s Grundgesetze. In this paper we study the strength of abstraction principles in the presence of predicative restrictions on the comprehension schema, and in particular we study a predicative Fregean theory which contains all the abstraction principles whose underlying equivalence relations can be proven to be equivalence relations in a weak background second-order logic. We show that this predicative Fregean theory interprets second-order Peano arithmetic (cf. Theorem 3.2).

We put in print a classical result that states that for most purposes, there is no harm in assuming the existence of saturated models in model theory. The presentation is aimed for model theorists with only basic knowledge of axiomatic set theory.

Certain set theoretical notions cannot be split into finer subnotions.

This paper was read by Michael Dummett at Leiden University on September 26, 1992 at the invitation by Göran Sundholm to address the topic mentioned in the title. Dummett’s lecture was part of a workshop, Meaning Theory and Intuitionism, with 12 invited speakers over three days. After the workshop, Dummett gave a copy of the manuscript to Sundholm together with permission to publish it. At the time, nothing came of the publication plans, nor did Dummett publish it in any other form. The text has remained virtually unknown, and apart from a lecture of Per Martin-Löf, also at Leiden, on the same topic (published in this journal), it has received no scholarly attention. We are indebted to Dummett’s literary executor, Professor Ian Rumfitt, of All Souls College, Oxford, who after nearly three decades confirmed the earlier permission to publish.

Göran Sundholm

Ansten Klev

We ask, when is a property of a model a logical property? According to the so-called Tarski–Sher criterion this is the case when the property is preserved by isomorphisms. We relate this to model-theoretic characteristics of abstract logics in which the model class is definable. This results in a graded concept of logicality in the terminology of Sagi [46]. We investigate which characteristics of logics, such as variants of the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem, Completeness theorem, and absoluteness, are relevant from the logicality point of view, continuing earlier work by Bonnay, Feferman, and Sagi. We suggest that a logic is the more logical the closer it is to first order logic. We also offer a refinement of the result of McGee that logical properties of models can be expressed in $L_{\infty \infty }$ if the expression is allowed to depend on the cardinality of the model, based on replacing $L_{\infty \infty }$ by a “tamer” logic.

We prove that the category of Nachbin’s compact ordered spaces and order-preserving continuous maps between them is dually equivalent to a variety of algebras, with operations of at most countable arity. Furthermore, we observe that the countable bound on the arity is the best possible: the category of compact ordered spaces is not dually equivalent to any variety of finitary algebras. Indeed, the following stronger results hold: the category of compact ordered spaces is not dually equivalent to (i) any finitely accessible category, (ii) any first-order definable class of structures, and (iii) any class of finitary algebras closed under products and subalgebras. An explicit equational axiomatisation of the dual of the category of compact ordered spaces is obtained; in fact, we provide a finite one, meaning that our description uses only finitely many function symbols and finitely many equational axioms. In preparation for the latter result, we establish a generalisation of a celebrated theorem by Mundici: our result—whose proof is independent of Mundici’s theorem—asserts that the category of unital commutative distributive lattice-ordered monoids is equivalent to the category of what we call MV-monoidal algebras.

Abstract taken directly from the thesis.

E-mail: [email protected]

URL: https://air.unimi.it/retrieve/handle/2434/812809/1698986/phd_unimi_R11882.pdf

Boolean-valued models generalize classical two-valued models by allowing arbitrary complete Boolean algebras as value ranges. The goal of my dissertation is to study Boolean-valued models and explore their philosophical and mathematical applications.

In Chapter 1, I build a robust theory of first-order Boolean-valued models that parallels the existing theory of two-valued models. I develop essential model-theoretic notions like “Boolean-valuation,” “diagram,” and “elementary diagram,” and prove a series of theorems on Boolean-valued models, including the (strengthened) Soundness and Completeness Theorem, the Löwenheim–Skolem Theorems, the Elementary Chain Theorem, and many more.

Chapter 2 gives an example of a philosophical application of Boolean-valued models. I apply Boolean-valued models to the language of mereology to model indeterminacy in the parthood relation. I argue that Boolean-valued semantics is the best degree-theoretic semantics for the language of mereology. In particular, it trumps the well-known alternative—fuzzy-valued semantics. I also show that, contrary to what many have argued, indeterminacy in parthood entails neither indeterminacy in existence nor indeterminacy in identity, though being compatible with both.

Chapter 3 (joint work with Bokai Yao) gives an example of a mathematical application of Boolean-valued models. Scott and Solovay famously used Boolean-valued models on set theory to obtain relative consistency results. In Chapter 3, I investigate two ways of extending the Scott–Solovay construction to set theory with urelements. I argue that the standard way of extending the construction faces a serious problem, and offer a new way that is free from the problem.

Abstract prepared by Xinhe Wu.

E-mail: [email protected]

It was questions about points on the real line that initiated the study of set theory. Points paved the way to point sets and these to ever more abstract sets. And there was more: Reflection on structural properties of point sets not only initiated the study of ordinary sets; it also supplied blueprints for defining extra-ordinary, “large” sets, transcending those provided by standard set theory. In return, the existence of such large sets turned out critical to settling open conjectures about point sets.

How to explain such action at a distance between the very large and the rather small? Rather than having an air of magic, could these results rest on deep structural similarities between the two superficially distant species of sets?

In this essay I dissect one group of such two-way results. Their linchpin is the notion of measure.

§1. Vitali's impossibility result. Our starting point is a problem in measure theory regarding the notion of “Lebesgue measure.” Before presenting the problem, I would like to review the notion of Lebesgue measure. Rather than listing its main properties, I would like to show how Lebesgue measure is born out of an attempt to generalize the notion of the length of an interval to arbitrary sets of reals. One tries to approximate arbitrary sets of reals by intervals, in the hope that the lengths of the intervals will induce a measure on these sets.

On a very natural conception of sets, every set has an absolute complement. The ordinary cumulative hierarchy dismisses this idea outright. But we can rectify this, whilst retaining classical logic. Indeed, we can develop a boolean algebra of sets arranged in well-ordered levels. I show this by presenting Boolean Level Theory, which fuses ordinary Level Theory (from Part 1) with ideas due to Thomas Forster, Alonzo Church, and Urs Oswald. BLT neatly implement Conway’s games and surreal numbers; and a natural extension of BLT is definitionally equivalent with ZF.