A commutative ring R with identity is called a local ring if R has only one maximal ideal. This is equivalent to saying that the sum of two nonunits is a non-unit. Therefore the theory of all commutative local rings is axiomatizible by a finite set of A2-sentences. A commutative local ring with identity is said to be an algebraically closed local ring if every finite system of polynomial equations and inequations in one or more variables with coefficients in R which has a solution in some commutative local extension of R already has a solution in R. Much work connected with algebraically closed structures of classes of rings has been done, for example by Cherlin [2], Macintyre [4] and Lipschitz and Saracino [3]. We want to show similar results for commutative local rings with identity. Our main results are the following:

Theorem. The theory of commutative local rings with identity has no model-companion.

The finitely generic and infinitely generic local rings are algebraically closed local rings.

Theorem. There is an A3 sentence which holds for all finitely generic local rings whose negation holds in every infinitely generic local ring.

An infinitary characterisation of the first-order sentences true in all substructures of a structure M is used to obtain partial reduction of the decision problem for such sentences to that for Th(M). For the relational structure 〈R, ≤, + 〉 this gives a decision procedure for the ∃x∀y-part of the theory of all substructures, yet we show that the ∃x1x2∀y-part, and the entire theory, is Π11-complete. The theory of all ordered subsemigroups of 〈R, ≤, + 〉 is also shown Π11-complete. Applications in the philosophy of science are mentioned.

The relation ≪ (is a homomorphic image of) between (linear) order types has properties similar to those of the better known relation ≤ (is embeddable in). For example, the order type η of the rationals not only embeds every countable order type but also maps homomorphically onto . If is scattered, then can be embedded in (ω* + ω)α for some α < ω1. In that case, is also a homomorphic image of (ω* + ω)α [Lan 2]. If is uncountable, then for some uncountable ordinal α, α ≪, α* ≪, or η ≪. Proofs of these facts are much the same for ≤ and ≪.

The main theorem of [Lav 1] implies that the embedding relation better-quasiorders the set of countable order types. Our main theorem (§3) states the analogous result for the homomorphism relation. As a consequence, if 0, 1, … is an infinite sequence of countable order types, then there are i, j, i < j, such that i, is a homomorphic image of j. We observed in [Lan 1] that if this is true, then for each countable order type there is a sentence of Lω1ω such that if is a countable order type, then satisfies if and only if is a homomorphic image of . In fact, the motivation for the work leading to this paper came from this observation.

On the negative side, it is pointed out (§3) that our theorem cannot be extended as far as that of [Lav 1].

This short article presents an algorithm for bracket abstraction [1] which avoids a combinatorial explosion in the size of the resulting expression when applied repeatedly for abstraction in a series of variables. It differs from a previous solution [2] in introducing only a finite number of additional combinators and in not requiring that all the variables to be abstracted be treated together in a single operation.

There are two origins for first-order theories. One type of theory arises by generalizing the common features of a number of different structures, e.g. the theory of groups, and formulating a set of axioms to encode these common features. Here the set of axioms is well understood, frequently it is finite or at least recursive, but there usually is no clear understanding of all the logical consequences of these axioms. The second type of theory arises by considering the set, T = Th(A), of all sentences true in a fixed structure A,3 e.g. the theory of arithmetic (N, +, 0) or the theory of the field of complex numbers (alias: the theory of algebraically closed fields of characteristic zero). The second case gives little more insight as to the truth in A (i.e. membership in T) of a given sentence ∅. But it does guarantee that for a given sentence ∅, either ∅ or ¬∅ is in T, that is, that T is a complete theory. When does a theory T of the first type, i.e. with well-understood axioms, posses this completeness property? An obvious sufficient condition is that T be secretly of the second type, that it have only one model, or, in jargon, T is categorical. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your point of view) for any theory with an infinite model, the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem shows this to be impossible: The theory has a model in every infinite power. In the mid-50's Łoś and Vaught discovered that if a theory T with no finite models is categorical in some infinite power α (all models with cardinality α are isomorphic) then T is complete. We will be dealing below with countable complete theories and will assume, unless stated to the contrary, that each theory has no finite models.

If A is an admissible set, let HC(A) = {x∣x ∈ A and x is hereditarily countable in A}. Then HC(A) is admissible. Corollaries are drawn characterizing the “real parts” of admissible sets and the analytical consequences of admissible set theory.

The stability of each of the theories of separably closed fields is proved, in the manner of Shelah's proof of the corresponding result for differentially closed fields. These are at present the only known stable but not superstable theories of fields. We indicate in §3 how each of the theories of separably closed fields can be associated with a model complete theory in the language of differential algebra. We assume familiarity with some basic facts about model completeness [4], stability [7], separably closed fields [2] or [3], and (for §3 only) differential fields [8].

We study topological constructions in the recursion theoretic framework of the lattice of recursively enumerable open subsets of a topological space X. Various constructions produce complemented recursively enumerable open sets with additional recursion theoretic properties, as well as noncomplemented open sets. In contrast to techniques in classical topology, we construct a disjoint recursively enumerable collection of basic open sets which cannot be extended to a recursively enumerable disjoint collection of basic open sets whose union is dense in X.

Originally generalized quantifiers were introduced to specify that a given formula was true for “many x's” e.g. ⊨ Qxφ(x) iff card{x ∈ ∣∣ ∣ ⊨ φ[x]} ≥ ℵ0, ℵ1, or some fixed cardinal κ. In this paper we formalize the notion that φ{x) is true “for almost all x”. This is accomplished by referring to structures = (′, μ) where ′ is a first-order structure and μ is a measure of a suitable type on the universe of ′. We will prove that the language Lμ obtained from first-order logic by adjoining a quantifier Qμ, which ranges over the measure μ, is fully compact if we assume the existence of a proper class of measurable cardinals. As a corollary to the compactness theorem we obtain the recursive enumerability of the validities of Lμ. Finally, the Magidor-Malitz quantifiers Qkn (n ∈ ω) will be added to Lμ together with analogous quantifiers Qμm (m ∈ ω) to form Lκμ<ω,<ω, which is compact for sets of sentences of cardinality < κ, where κ is a measurable cardinal > ℵ0.

An alternate approach to formalizing “for almost all” has been recently developed by Barwise, Kaufmann and Makkai [1] who follow a suggestion of Shelah [5].

Let G be a locally compact abelian group, Γ its dual group, and μ its Haar measure. For a function f: G → C, the Fourier transform of f is defined by

for every γ ∈ Γ.

We extend this definition for a function f on G, whose values are pairwise commutable normal operators in a Hilbert space. Then we study harmonic analysis for this extended Fourier transform.

Our method is Boolean valued analysis as introduced in [11] and [12]. Instead of developing the theory in a step-by-step manner, we shall develop a general machinery showing how to transform classical theorems to theorems in our situation.

In Chapter 1, we summarize the basic knowledge on Hilbert space, on Boolean valued model of set theory, and on Boolean valued analysis. In Chapter 2, we develop the theory of integration. Since we deal with unbounded operators as well as bounded operators, we need a new theory of integration. For a separable Hilbert space, the value of our integration coincides with the value of the usual integration with an adequate generalization for unbounded operators.

In Chapter 3, we establish machinery for our transfer principle and carry out the transformation of many classical theorems to theorems for our case.

A minimal pair of recursively enumerable (r.e.) degrees is a pair of degrees a, b of nonrecursive r.e. sets with the property that if c ≤ a and c ≤ b then c = 0. Lachlan [2] and Yates [4] independently proved the existence of minimal pairs. It was natural to ask whether for an arbitrary nonzero r.e. degree c there is a minimal pair a, b with a ≤ c and b ≤ c. In 1971 Lachlan and Ladner proved that a minimal pair below c cannot be obtained in a uniformly effective way from c for r.e. c ≠ 0. but the result was never published. More recently Cooper [1] showed that if c is r.e. and c′ = 0″ then there is a minimal pair below c.

In this paper we prove two results:

Theorem 1. There exists a nonzero r.e. degree with no minimal pair below it.

Theorem 2. There exists a nonzero r.e. degree c such that, if d is r.e. and 0 < d ≤ c, then there is a minimal pair below d.

The second theorem is a straightforward variation on the original minimal pair construction, but the proof of the first theorem has some novel features. After some preliminaries in §1, the first theorem is proved in §2 and the second in §3.

I am grateful to Richard Ladner who collaborated with me during the first phase of work on this paper as witnessed by our joint abstract [3]. The many discussions we had about the construction required in Theorem 1 were of great help to me.

Matatyahu Rubin pointed out that the proof of Lemma 6.1 [2] works only for rings of prime or zero characteristic. This invalidates the characterization of semiprime rings with the descending chain condition on right or left ideals which admit elimination of quantifiers given in [2] and cited in the abstract [1]. Although the correct characterization is easy to derive, it is complex to state.

Let be the class of finite fields. Let be the class of 2 × 2 matrix rings over a field with a prime number of elements. Let be the class of rings of the form GF(pn) ⊕ GF(pk) such that either n = k or g.c.d.(n, k) = 1 and p is a prime. Let ′ be the class of algebraically closed fields. Let P denote the set of all prime numbers together with zero. Let be the set of all ordered pairs (f, Q) where Q is a finite subset of P and f: Q → ⋃ ⋃ ⋃ such that the characteristic of the ring f(q) is q. Finally, let be the class of rings of the form ⊕q∈Qf(q) for some (f,Q) in .

A corrected version of Theorem 6.2 [2] is

Theorem 1. Let R be a ring with the descending chain condition on left or right ideals and without nonzero trivial ideals. Then R admits elimination of quantifiers if only if R belong to.

The elementary calculus of binary relations as developed by Tarski in [5] may be thought of as a certain part of the first-order predicate calculus. Though less expressive, its theory (i.e. the set of its valid sentences) was shown to be undecidable by Tarski in [6]. Translated into algebraic logic this means that the equational theory of the class of relation algebras is undecidable. Similarly it can be proved that the same holds for the (sub-) class of proper relation algebras.

The idea in Tarski's proof is to describe a pairing function by which any quantifier prefix may be contracted. In this note we apply a different method to treat the case of finite structures. We prove the

Theorem. The equational theory of the class of finite proper relation algebras is undecidable.

This result was announced in [4]. The main tool is representing the graph of primitive recursive functions via the cardinalities in finite simple models of equations.

The notion of a model companion for a first-order theory T was introduced and discussed in [1] and [2] as a generalization of the concept of a model completion of a theory. Both concepts reflect, on a general model theoretic level, properties of the theory of algebraically closed fields. The literature provides many examples of first-order theories with and without model companions—see [3] for a survey of these results. In this paper, we give a further generalization of the notion of a model companion.

Roughly speaking, we allow instead of embeddings more general classes of maps (e.g. homomorphisms) and we allow any set of formulas which is preserved by these maps instead of existential formulas. This plan is worked out in detail in [5], where we discuss also several examples. One of these examples is given in this paper.

In order to clarify the model theoretic background, we now introduce the relevant concepts and theorems from [5].