We characterize Morita equivalence of theories in the sense of Johnstone in terms of a new syntactic notion of a common definitional extension developed by Barrett and Halvorson for cartesian, regular, coherent, geometric and first-order theories. This provides a purely syntactic characterization of the relation between two theories that have equivalent categories of models naturally in any Grothendieck topos.

Let Δ be a set of axioms of a theory Tc(Δ) of classical predicate calculus (CPC); Δ may also be considered as a set of axioms of a theory TH(Δ) of Heyting's predicate calculus (HPC). Our aim is to investigate the decision problem of TH(Δ) in HPC for various known theories Δ of CPC.

Theorem I(a) of §1 states that if Δ is a finitely axiomatizable and undecidable theory of CPC then TH(Δ) is undecidable in HPC. Furthermore, the relations between theorems of HPC are more complicated and so two CPC-equivalent axiomatizations of the same theory may give rise to two different HPC theories, in fact, one decidable and the other not.

Semantically, the Kripke models (for which HPC is complete) are partially ordered families of classical models. Thus a formula expresses a property of a family of classical models (i.e. of a Kripke model). A theory Θ expresses a set of such properties. It may happen that a class of Kripke models defined by a set of formulas Θ is also definable in CPC (in a possibly richer language) by a CPC-theory Θ′! This establishes a connection between the decision problem of Θ in HPC and that of Θ′ in CPC. In particular if Θ′ is undecidable, so is Θ. Theorems II and III of §1 give sufficient conditions on Θ to be such that the corresponding Θ′ is undecidable. Θ′ is shown undecidable by interpreting the CPC theory of a reflexive and symmetric relation in Θ′.

In [5], Kleene extended previous notions of computations to objects of higher finite type in the maximal type-structure of functionals given by:

Tp(0) = N = the natural numbers,

Tp(n + 1) = NTp(n) = the set of total maps from Tp(n) to N.

He gave nine schemata, S1–S9, for describing algorithms for computations from a finite list of functionals, and indices to denote these algorithms. It is generally agreed that S1-S9 give a natural concept of computations in higher types.

The type-structure of countable functions, Ct(n) for n ϵ N, was first developed by Kleene [6] and Kreisel [7]. It arises from the notions of ‘constructivity’, and has been extensively studied as a domain for higher type recursion theory. Each countable functional is globally described by a countable amount of information coded in its associate, and it is determined locally by a finite amount of information about its argument. The countable functionals are well summarised in Normann [9], and treated in detail in Normann [8].

The purpose of this paper is to discuss a generalisation of the countable functionals, which we shall call the countably based functions, Cb(n) for n ϵ N. It is suggested by the notions of ‘predicativity’, in which we view N as a completed totality, and build higher types on it in a constructive manner. So we shall allow quantification over N and include application of 2E in our schemata. Each functional is determined locally by a countable amount of information about its argument, and so is globally described by a continuum of information coded in its associate, which will now be a type-2 object. This generalisation, obtained via associates, was proposed by Wainer, and seems to reflect topological properties of the countable functionals.

We develop an algebraic notion of recognizability for languages of words indexed by countable linear orderings. We prove that this notion is effectively equivalent to definability in monadic second-order (MSO) logic. We also provide three logical applications. First, we establish the first known collapse result for the quantifier alternation of MSO logic over countable linear orderings. Second, we solve an open problem posed by Gurevich and Rabinovich, concerning the MSO-definability of sets of rational numbers using the reals in the background. Third, we establish the MSO-definability of the set of yields induced by an MSO-definable set of trees, confirming a conjecture posed by Bruyère, Carton, and Sénizergues.

The current paper studies the formal properties of the Global Reflection Principle, to wit the assertion “All theorems of $\mathrm {Th}$ are true,” where $\mathrm {Th}$ is a theory in the language of arithmetic and the truth predicate satisfies the usual Tarskian inductive conditions for formulae in the language of arithmetic. We fix the gap in Kotlarski’s proof from [15], showing that the Global Reflection Principle for Peano Arithmetic is provable in the theory of compositional truth with bounded induction only ( $\mathrm {CT}_0$ ). Furthermore, we extend the above result showing that $\Sigma _1$ -uniform reflection over a theory of uniform Tarski biconditionals ( $\mathrm {UTB}^-$ ) is provable in $\mathrm {CT}_0$ , thus answering the question of Beklemishev and Pakhomov [2]. Finally, we introduce the notion of a prolongable satisfaction class and use it to study the structure of models of $\mathrm {CT}_0$ . In particular, we provide a new model-theoretical characterization of theories of finite iterations of uniform reflection and present a new proof characterizing the arithmetical consequences of $\mathrm {CT}_0$ .

The Sikorski Extension Theorem [6] states that, for any Boolean algebra A and any complete Boolean algebra B, any homomorphism of a subalgebra of A into B can be extended to the whole of A. That is,

Inj: Any complete Boolean algebra is injective (in the category of Boolean algebras).

The proof of Inj uses the axiom of choice (AC); thus the implication AC → Inj can be proved in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZF). On the other hand, the Boolean prime ideal theorem

BPI: Every Boolean algebra contains a prime ideal (or, equivalently, an ultrafilter)

may be equivalently stated as:

The two element Boolean algebra 2 is injective,

and so the implication Inj → BPI can be proved in ZF.

In [3], Luxemburg surmises that this last implication cannot be reversed in ZF. It is the main purpose of this paper to show that this surmise is correct. We shall do this by showing that Inj implies that BPI holds in every Boolean extension of the universe of sets, and then invoking a recent result of Monro [5] to the effect that BPI does not yield this conclusion.

This paper looks at linear orders in the following way. A preordering is given, which is linear and recursively enumerable. By performing the natural identification, one obtains a linear order for which equality is not necessarily recursive. A format similar to Metakides and Nerode's [3] is used to study these linear orders. In effective studies of linear orders thus far, the law of antisymmetry (x ≦ y ∧ y ≦ x ⇒ y) has been assumed, so that if the order relation x ≦ y is r.e. then x < y is also r.e. Here the assumption is dropped, so that x < y may not be r.e. and the equality relation may not be recursive; the possibility that equality is not recursive leads to new twists which sometimes lead to negative results.

Reported here are some interesting preliminary results with simple proofs, which are obtained if one looks at these objects with a view to doing recursion theory in the style of Metakides and Nerode. (This style, set in [3], is seen in many subsequent papers by Metakides and Nerode, Kalantari, Remmel, Retzlaff, Shore, and others, e.g. [1], [4], [6], [7], [8], [11]. In a sequel, further investigations will be reported which look at r.e. presented linear orders in this fashion and in the context of Rosenstein's comprehensive work [10].

Obviously, only countable linear orders are under consideration here. For recursion-theoretic notation and terminology see Rogers [9].

We point out that a group first order definable in a differentially closed field K of characteristic 0 can be definably equipped with the structure of a differentially algebraic group over K. This is a translation into the framework of differentially closed fields of what is known for groups definable in algebraically closed fields (Weil's theorem).

I restrict myself here to showing (Theorem 20) how one can find a large “differentially algebraic group chunk” inside a group defined in a differentially closed field. The rest of the translation (Theorem 21) follows routinely, as in [B].

What is, perhaps, of interest is that the proof proceeds at a completely general (soft) model theoretic level, once Facts 1–4 below are known.

Fact 1. The theory of differentially closed fields of characteristic 0 is complete and has quantifier elimination in the language of differential fields (+, ·,0,1, −1,d).

Fact 2. Affine n-space over a differentially closed field is a Noetherian space when equipped with the differential Zariski topology.

Fact 3. If K is a differentially closed field, k ⊆ K a differential field, and a and are in k, then a is in the definable closure of k ◡ iff a ∈ ‹› (where k ‹› denotes the differential field generated by k and).

Fact 4. The theory of differentially closed fields of characteristic zero is totally transcendental (in particular, stable).

It is well known that if a postulate LLCpp or a rule of procedure ├α→├Lα (from a thesis α of a considered system to infer a thesis Lα of that system) is added to Lewis's modal system S3, we get his system S4 (see [7], p. 148). It is also known that the addition of this rule to S2 and SI has the effect of converting these systems into the Gödel-Feys-von Wright system T (M). My purpose in this paper is first to draw attention to some other ways of converting S3 and S2 into S4 and T respectively, as well as to extend a theorem of Halldén on S3, S4 and S7 to S2, T and S6. The results reached will also apply to the systems S3.5, S5 and S7.5, where S3.5 and S7.5 are obtained, respectively, from S3 and S7 by the addition of the postulate CNLpLNLp; an answer will be given to the question of irreducible modalities in S3.5. Moreover, two results will be proved that bear on the problem whether the systems S2 and T can be axiomatized by means of a finite number of axiom schemata and material detachment as the only primitive rule of inference.

Let be a well-founded model of ZFC whose class of ordinals has uncountable cofinality, such that has a Σn end extension for each n ∈ ω. It is shown in Theorem 1.1 that there is such a model which has no elementary end extension. In the process some interesting facts about topless end extensions (those with no least new ordinal) are uncovered, for example Theorem 2.1: If is a well-founded model of ZFC, such that has uncountable cofinality and has a topless Σ3 end extension, then has a topless elementary end extension and also a well-founded elementary end extension, and contains ordinals which are (in ) highly hyperinaccessible. In §3 related results are proved for κ-like models (κ any regular cardinal) which need not be well founded. As an application a soft proof is given of a theorem of Schmerl on the model-theoretic relation κ → λ. (The author has been informed that Silver had earlier, independently, found a similar unpublished proof of that theorem.) Also, a simpler proof is given of (a generalization of) a characterization by Keisler and Silver of the class of well-founded models which have a Σn end extension for each n ∈ ω. The case κ = ω1 is investigated more deeply in §4, where the problem solved by Theorem 1.1 is considered for non-well-founded models. In Theorems 4.1 and 4.4, ω1-like models of ZFC are constructed which have a Σn end extension for all n ∈ ω but have no elementary end extension. ω1-like models of ZFC which have no Σ3 end extension are produced in Theorem 4.2. The proof uses a notion of satisfaction class, which is also applied in the proof of Theorem 4.6: No model of ZFC has a definable end extension which satisfies ZFC. Finally, Theorem 5.1 generalizes results of Keisler and Morley, and Hutchinson, by asserting that every model of ZFC of countable cofinality has a topless elementary end extension. This contrasts with the rest of the paper, which shows that for well-founded models of uncountable cofinality and for κ-like models with κ regular, topless end extensions are much rarer than blunt end extensions.

A computer handles λ-terms more easily if these are translated into combinatory terms. This translation process is called bracket abstraction. The simplest abstraction algorithm—the (fab) algorithm of Curry (see Curry and Feys [6])—is lengthy to implement and produces combinatory terms that increase rapidly in length as the number of variables to be abstracted increases.

There are several ways in which these problems can be alleviated:

(1) A change in order of the clauses in the algorithm so that (f) is performed as a last resort.

(2) The use of an extra clause (c), appropriate to βη reduction.

(3) The introduction of a finite number of extra combinators.

The original 1924 form of bracket abstraction of Schönfinkel [17], which in fact predates λ-calculus, uses all three of these techniques; all are also mentioned in Curry and Feys [6].

A technique employed by many computing scientists (Turner [20], Peyton Jones [16], Oberhauser [15]) is to use the (fab) algorithm followed by certain “optimizations” or simplifications involving extra combinators and sometimes special cases of (c).

Another is either to allow a fixed infinite set of (super-) combinators (Abdali [1], Kennaway and Sleep [10], Krishnamurthy [12], Tonino [19]) or to allow new combinators to be defined one by one during the abstraction process (Hughes [7] and [8]).

A final method encodes the variables to be abstracted as an n-tuple—this requires only a finite number of combinators (Curien [5], Statman [18]).

§1. The set Cn(R, A + X) is the set of all expressions deducible, on the ground of formulas A, from the class X of formulas of the implicational propositional calculus, by means of rules belonging to the set R. In other words, Cn(R, A + X) is the set of expressions obtained from the set X by the help of a two-parameter function Cn[R, A]. The formulais called the classical deduction theorem.

The classical deduction theorem is true for the system 〈R, A〉 (where R is the set of primitive rules, A is the set of axioms of the propositional calculus) if it holds for the function Cn[R, A].

Eine auf neue Art und mit neuen symbolischen Mitteln durchgeführte Analyse des Prozesses der Prädikation ergibt, daβ das für die logisch-mengentheoretischen Paradoxa nach Art des Russellschen essentielle Moment weder das der Selbstprädikation als solches ist noch irgendetwas, was man anderweitig bisher für sie verantwortlich gemacht hat, sondern vielmehr der Umstand, daβ der Algorithmus der Prädikation ebensowohl wie zu einem natürlichen Abschluβ auch auf einen unendlichen Regreβ führen kann. Damit werden die genannten Paradoxa als den bekannten erledigten der mathematischen unendlichen Prozesse wesentlich gleichartig und der gleichen Behandlung zugänglich erkannt. Das neue Kalkülmittel der limitierten Variablen bewirkt – ohne irgendwelche metalogische Regulative ad hoc – die automatische Sicherung des logischen Kalküls gegen die früheren Verführungen.

I will give precise versions of the foregoing verbal definitions, by formalizing them within a formal metalanguage.

In order to avoid the necessity of formulating a meta-language, I will make use of VI 112, (i.e., Gödel's The consistency of the continuum hypothesis). Actually, the system there developed is unnecessarily strong for the limited purpose of this illustration. It will suffice to choose for the system of VI 112 without axioms C4 and E (axioms of replacement and choice); this system will be the logical basis of , and to this I will add some set-constants and some meaning postulates. The logical basis is roughly as strong as Zermelo's system with an axiom of infinity.

Within I will set up analogues of the previous definitions, applicable to a wide variety of object-languages. For the sake of concreteness it will be convenient to think of as having Zermelo set theory, without the axiom of infinity, as its logical basis – but it must be kept in mind that this is not an essential feature of the forthcoming definitions.

Our is certainly strong enough to have all primitive recursive functions calculable within it. This supplies us with the needed tool for talking about , within , by introducing a number of primitive recursive functions, properties, and relations describing the structure of . The exact definitions of these will depend on the exact form of , but for the forthcoming definitions it will suffice to know that these functions, properties, and relations are representable in for the given . This makes the resulting definitions most useful, since they can be applied to any of the type described.

A mapping u: X → Y between metric spaces is sequentially continuous if for each sequence (xn) converging to x ∈ X, (u(xn)) converges to u(x). It is well known in classical mathematics that a sequentially continuous mapping between metric spaces is continuous; but, as all proofs of this result involve the law of excluded middle, there appears to be a constructive distinction between sequential continuity and continuity. Although this distinction is worth exploring in its own right, there is another reason why sequential continuity is interesting to the constructive mathematician: Ishihara [8] has a version of Banach's inverse mapping theorem in functional analysis that involves the sequential continuity, rather than continuity, of the linear mappings; if this result could be upgraded by deleting the word “sequential”, then we could prove constructively the standard versions of the inverse mapping theorem and the closed graph theorem.

Troelstra [9] showed that in Brouwer's intuitionistic mathematics (INT) a sequentially continuous mapping on a separable metric space is continuous. On the other hand, Ishihara [6, 7] proved constructively that the continuity of sequentially continuous mappings on a separable metric space is equivalent to a certain boundedness principle for subsets of ℕ; in the same paper, he showed that the latter principle holds within the recursive constructive mathematics (RUSS) of the Markov School. Since it is not known whether that principle holds within Bishop's constructive mathematics (BISH), of which INT and RUSS are models and which can be regarded as the constructive core of mathematics, the exploration of sequential continuity within BISH holds some interest.

In this paper the symbolism, definitions and results of my two papers, namely A test for the existence of tautologies according to many-valued truth-tables (hereafter referred to as ET) and Note on truth-tables (hereafter referred to as TT) will be presupposed.

The problem whether two arbitrary truth-tables with finite number of elements are equal or not was reduced in TT to the question of equality of two identical tables in which different elements have been designated. However, no general method for testing the equality of truth-tables was given there, although some cases were discussed for which such a method is available. In the present paper we shall describe a general method using the considerations of ET and TT.

The purpose of this paper is to construct a non-finitary system of logic S, based on the theory of types, in which classical quantification theory holds without restriction and the axiom of reducibility holds with such slight restriction as is perhaps unlikely to interfere with the construction of classical mathematics. The system will be shown to be consistent.

For purposes of orientation, a rough description of the ontology of the system will first be given. The ‘individuals’ are expressions built up in the following way: ‘0’ is an individual, and if ϕ and ψ are individuals, so is ˹*ϕψ˺. The usual apparatus of truth functional connectives and quantifiers is employed, and one primitive four place predicate ‘S’. ˹Sϕψχω˺ says that ϕ is the result of writing ψ for all occurrences of χ in ω, where ϕ, ψ, χ and ω may be formulae, individuals, or members of a wider category called ‘expressions’ which includes individuals, formulae, and other things as well. (At first sight this looks like a confusion of use and mention, but the formation rules and rules of inference are so phrased that no ambiguity arises.)

The individuals are divided into types concentrically, so that type 0 has them all as members and type n includes type m for m > n. There is no highest type, but we shall find it convenient from the point of view of exposition to construct an infinity of ‘auxiliary’ systems Q(k), restricted to types ≦ k, before presenting the system S.

We solve a longstanding question of Rosenstein, and make progress toward solving a long-standing open problem in the area of computable linear orderings by showing that every computable η-like linear ordering without an infinite strongly η-like interval has a computable copy without nontrivial computable self-embedding.

The precise characterization of those computable linear orderings which have computable copies without nontrivial computable self-embedding remains open.

In this paper, we investigate the extent to which techniques used in [10], [2], and [3]—developed to prove coloring theorems at successors of singular cardinals of uncountable cofinality—can be extended to cover the countable cofinality case.