Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T00:17:06.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Interpretations of sets of conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

W. V. Quine*
Affiliation:
Oxford University

Extract

The celebrated theorem of Löwenheim and Skolem tells us that every consistent set S of quantificational schemata (i.e., every set of well-formed formulas of the lower predicate calculus admitting of a true interpretation in some non-empty universe) admits of a true numerical interpretation (i.e., an interpretation of predicate letters such that all schemata of S come out true when the variables of quantification are construed as ranging over just the positive integers).

Later literature goes farther, and shows how, given S, actually to produce a numerical interpretation which will fit S in case S is consistent. The general case is covered by Kleene (see Bibliography). The special case where S contains just one schema (or any finite number, since we can form their conjunction) had been dealt with by Hilbert and Bernays. Certain extensions, along lines not to be embarked on here, have been made by Kleene, Kreisel, Hasenjäger, and Wang.

My present purpose is expository: to make the construction of the numerical interpretation, and the proof of its adequacy, more easily intelligible than they hitherto have been. The reasoning is mainly Kleene's, though closer in some ways to earlier reasoning of Gödel.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1954

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1]Dreben, Burton, On the completeness of quantification theory, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 38 (1952), pp. 10471052.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[2]Gödel, Kurt, Die Vollständigkeit der Axiome des logischen Funktionenkalküls, Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, vol. 37 (1930), pp. 349360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Hasenjaeger, Gisbert, Eine Bemerkung zu Henkin's Beweis für die Vollständigkeit des Prädikatenkalküls der ersten Stufe, this Journal, vol. 18 (1953), pp. 4248.Google Scholar
[4]Hilbert, D. and Bernays, P., Grundlagen der Mathematik, vol. 2 (Berlin, 1939; Ann Arbor: Edwards, 1944), pp. 167f, 185ff, 234253.Google Scholar
[5]Kleene, S. C., Introduction to metamathematics (Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Co., and New York: D. van Nostrand Co., 1952), pp. 389398; also p. 431, lines 22–26.Google Scholar
[6]Kreisel, Georg, Note on arithmetic models for consistent formulae of the predicate calculus, Fundamenta mathematicae, vol. 37 (1950), pp. 265285; second paper, Proceedings of the XIth International Congress of Philosophy (Brussels, 1953), vol. 14, pp. 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Wang, Hao, Arithmetic models for formal systems, Methodos, vol. 3 (1951), pp. 217232.Google Scholar