Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T07:34:08.125Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Non-standard models for formal logics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

J. Barkley Rosser  and
Hao Wang
J. Barkley Rosser
Affiliation:
Cornell University
Hao Wang
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In his doctor's thesis [1], Henkin has shown that if a formal logic is consistent, and sufficiently complex (for instance, if it is adequate for number theory), then it must admit a non-standard model. In particular, he showed that there must be a model in which that portion of the model which is supposed to represent the positive integers of the formal logic is not in fact isomorphic to the positive integers; indeed it is not even well ordered by what is supposed to be the relation of ≦.

For the purposes of the present paper, we do not need a precise definition of what is meant by a standard model of a formal logic. The non-standard models which we shall discuss will be flagrantly non-standard, as for instance a model of the sort whose existence is proved by Henkin. It will suffice if we and our readers are in agreement that a model of a formal logic is not a standard model if either:

(a) The relation in the model which represents the equality relation in the formal logic is not the equality relation for objects of the model.

(b) That portion of the model which is supposed to represent the positive integers of the formal logic is not well ordered by the relation ≦.

(c) That portion of the model which is supposed to represent the ordinal numbers of the formal logic is not well ordered by the relation ≦.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , June 1950 , pp. 113 - 129
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1950

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

1.Henkin, Leon, The completeness of formal systems, Dissertation, Princeton University, 1947.Google Scholar
2.Quine, W. V., New foundations for mathematical logic, The American mathematical monthly, vol. 44 (1937), pp. 70–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Rosser, Barkley, On the consistency of Quine's new foundations for mathematical logic, this Journal, vol. 4 (1939), pp. 15–24.Google Scholar
4.Rosser, Barkley, The Burali-Forti paradox, this Journal, vol. 7 (1942), pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
5.Gödel, K., Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I, Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, vol. 38 (1931), pp. 173–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Gödel, K., The consistency of the continuum hypothesis, Princeton University Press, 1940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Church, Alonzo, Introduction to mathematical logic, Princeton University Press, 1944.Google Scholar
8.Kemeny, John G., Models of logical systems, this Journal, vol. 13 (1948), pp. 16–30.Google Scholar
9.Ackermann, W., Mengentheoretische Begründung der Logik, Mathematische Annalen, vol. 115 (1937), pp. 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Church, Alonzo, A formulation of the simple theory of types, this Journal, vol. 5 (1940), pp. 56–68.Google Scholar
11.Church, Alonzo, The calculi of lambda-conversion, Princeton University Press, 1941.Google Scholar
12.Rosser, J. B. and Turquette, A. R., Axiom schemes for m-valued functional calculi of first order, Part I, Definition of axiom schemes and proof of plausibility, this Journal, vol. 13 (1948), pp. 177–192.Google Scholar
13. Ilse Novak, L., A construction for models of consistent systems, Doctoral Dissertation, Radcliffe College, 1948.Google Scholar
14.Wang, Hao, On Zermelo's and von Neumann's axioms for set theory, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A., vol. 35 (1949), pp. 150–155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Tarski, A., Der Wahrheitsbegriff in den formalisierten Sprachen, Studio philosophical, vol. 1 (1936), pp. 261–405.Google Scholar