Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T16:10:27.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Noncharacterizability of the syntax set

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

John Paulos*
Affiliation:
Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122

Extract

Craig showed in [3] that Beth's theorem fails for 2nd order logic. This is so since the syntax for 2nd order logic can be represented in the structure of natural numbers and itself can be characterized in 2nd order logic. Thus the satisfaction relation S is implicitly definable yet not explicitly definable (by a Tarski diagonal argument) and Beth fails. Kreisel pointed out in a review of Craig's paper that a similar argument shows that Beth's theorem fails for ω-logic or for any logic whose syntax can be represented in and in which can be characterized. In this paper we use the abstract model-theoretic notions of truth adequacy, truth-maximality and truth-completeness developed by Feferman in [4] to prove the following generalization of Craig's result: If L is a truth-complete logic, then no structure in which the syntax is represented is L-characterizable. This is applied via a corollary to give new examples of failures of Beth's theorem. Another way to construe this result is that truth-complete logics L have the desirable model-theoretic property (see [5]) that the structure in which the syntax is represented is not generalized finite (interpreting generalized finite as L-characterizability).

Since the basic notions of [4] are defined in terms of many-sorted logics, we will consider all our logics to be many-sorted.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1976

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] Barwise, J., Abstract first-order logic and L∞ω , Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 4 (1972).Google Scholar
[2] Barwise, J., Soft model theory notes, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 7 (1974).Google Scholar
[3] Craig, W., Satisfaction for nth order languages defined in nth order languages, this Journal, vol. 30 (1965).Google Scholar
[4] Feferman, S., Applications of many-sorted interpolation theorems, Proceedings of the Tarski Symposium (Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 25), American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1974.Google Scholar
[5] Feferman, S., Two notes on abstract model theory. Part I, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 82 (1974); Part II (to appear).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6] Henkin, L., Infinitistic formulas, Infinistic methods, Pergamon Press, Warsaw, 1959, p. 181.Google Scholar
[7] Kreisel, G., Choice of infinitary languages by definability criteria, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 72, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1968.Google Scholar
[8] Lindstrom, , On extensions of elementary logic, Theoria, vol. 35 (1969).Google Scholar
[9] Lopez-Escobar, E. G. K., A noninterpolation theorem, Bulletin de l'Académie Polonaise des Sciences, vol. 17 (1969).Google Scholar
[10] Mostowski, A., Craig's interpolation theorem in some extended systems of logic, Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science III, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1968.Google Scholar
[11] Paulos, J., Truth-maximality and Δ-closed logics, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 1974.Google Scholar