Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T12:12:52.252Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On nonstandard models in higher order logic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Christian Hort
Affiliation:
Mathematisches Institut, Universität München, Thereseinstrasse 39, D-8000 München 2, Federal Republic of Germany
Horst Osswald
Affiliation:
Mathematisches Institut, Universität München, Thereseinstrasse 39, D-8000 München 2, Federal Republic of Germany

Extract

There are two concepts of standard/nonstandard models in simple type theory.

The first concept—we might call it the pragmatical one—interprets type theory as a first order logic with countably many sorts of variables: the variables for the urelements of type 0,…, the n-ary relational variables of type (τ1, …, τn) with arguments of type (τ1,…,τn), respectively. If A ≠ ∅ then 〈Aτ〉 is called a model of type logic, if A0 = A and . 〈Aτ〉 is called full if, for every τ = (τ1,…,τn), . The variables for the urelements range over the elements of A and the variables of type (τ1,…, τn) range over those subsets of which are elements of . The theory Th(〈Aτ〉) is the set of all closed formulas in the language which hold in 〈Aτ〉 under natural interpretation of the constants. If 〈Bτ〉 is a model of Th(〈Aτ〉), then there exists a sequence 〈fτ〉 of functions fτ: AτBτ such that 〈fτ〉 is an elementary embedding from 〈Aτ〉 into 〈Bτ〉. 〈Bτ〉 is called a nonstandard model of 〈Aτ〉, if f0 is not surjective. Otherwise 〈Bτ〉 is called a standard model of 〈Aτ〉.

This first concept of model theory in type logic seems to be preferable for applications in model theory, for example in nonstandard analysis, since all nice properties of first order model theory (completeness, compactness, and so on) are preserved.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1984

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

REFERENCES

[1]Bernstein, A. R., Non-standard analysis, Studies in model theory (Morley, M. D., editor), MAA Studies in Mathematics, vol. 8, Mathematical Association of America, Buffalo, New York, 1973, pp. 3538.Google Scholar
[2]Boos, W., Lectures on large cardinal axioms, ⊨ISILC Logic Conference (Proceedings of the International Summer Institute and Logic Colloquium, Kiel, 1974), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 499, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1975, pp. 2588.Google Scholar
[3]Chang, C. C. and Keisler, H. J., Model theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1973.Google Scholar
[4]Henkin, L., Completeness in the theory of types, this Journal, vol. 15 (1950), pp. 8191.Google Scholar
[5]Keisler, H. J., Logic with the quantifier “there exist uncountahly many”, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 1 (1970), pp. 193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Keisler, H. J., Foundations of infinitesimal calculus, Prindle, Weber & Schmidt, Boston, Massachusetts, 1976.Google Scholar
[7]Kreisel, G. and Krivine, J.-L., Modelltheorie. Eine Einführung in die mathematische Logik und Grundlagentheorie, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1972.Google Scholar
[8]Magidor, M., On the role of supercompact and extendible cardinals in logic, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 10 (1971), pp. 147157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Prawitz, D., Hauptsatz for higher order logic, this Journal, vol. 33 (1968), pp. 452457.Google Scholar
[10]Robinson, A., Non-standard analysis, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1966.Google Scholar
[11]Schütte, K., Syntactical and semantical properties of simple type theory, this Journal, vol. 25 (1960), pp. 305326.Google Scholar
[12]Scott, D., Measurable cardinals and constructible sets, Bulletin de l'Academic Polonaise des Sciences. Série des Sciences Mathématiques, Astronomiques et Physiques, vol. 9 (1961), pp. 521524.Google Scholar
[13]Takahashi, M., A proof of cut-elimination theorem in simple type-theory, Journal of the Mathematical Society of Japan, vol. 19 (1967), pp. 399410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar