A well-known question of Feferman asks whether there is a logic which extends the logic , is ℵ0-compact and satisfies the interpolation theorem. (Cf. Makowsky [M] for background and terminology.)

The same question was open when ℵ1 in is replaced by any other uncountable cardinal κ. We shall show that when κ is an uncountable strongly compact cardinal and there is a strongly compact cardinal > κ, then there is such a logic. It is impossible to prove the existence of uncountable strongly compact cardinals in ZFC. However, the logic that we describe has a simple and natural definition, together with several other pleasant properties. For example it satisfies Robinson's lemma, PPP (pair preservation property, viz. the theory of the sum of two models is the sum of their theories), versions of the elementary chain lemma for chains of length < λ, and isomorphism of (suitable) ultralimits.

This logic is described in §2 below; we call it 1. It is not a new logic—it was introduced in [Sh, Part II, §3] as an example of a logic which has the amalgamation and joint embedding properties. See the transparent presentation in [M]. But we shall repeat all the definitions. In [HS] we presented a logic with some of the same properties as 1, also based on a strongly compact cardinal λ; but unlike 1, it was not a sublogic of λ,λ.

1. The notion of derivability. Italic capitals, with or without subscripts, will be used as variables. They are to take as values some manner of elements which may for the present be left undetermined. Now let us consider abstractly the notion of the derivability of an element X from one or more specified elements by a series of steps of a specified kind. This involves reference to two conditions upon elements. One of these conditions, expressible by some statement form containing a single free variable, determines the elements from which X is said to be derivable. The other condition, expressed say by a statement form containing k + 1 free variables, determines the kind of steps by which the derivation is to proceed; it is the condition which any elements Z1, … Zk, Y must fulfill if progress from Zi, …, Zk to Y is to constitute a step of derivation in the intended sense. Supposing “f(Y)” supplanted by the first of these statement forms, whatever it may be, and “g(Z1, …, Zk, Y)” supplanted by the other, let us adopt the form of notation

to express derivability of X in the suggested sense. The meaning of (1) can be formulated more accurately as follows:

(i) There are elements Y1 to Ym (for some m) such that Ym = X and, for each i≦m, either f(Yi) or else there are numbers j1 to Ym, each less than i, for which g(Yj1, …, Yjk, Yi).

(Variable subscripts are to be understood, here and throughout the paper, as referring only to positive integers.)

The notion (1) is illustrated in the ancestral R* of a relation R;1 for,

Another illustration is afforded by metamathematics. Suppose our elements are the expressions used in some formal system; suppose we have defined “Post(Y)”, meaning that Y is a postulate of that system; and suppose we have defined “Inf(ZI, …, Zk, Y)” (for some fixed k large enough for all purposes of the system in question), meaning that Y proceeds from Z1, …, Zk by one application of one or another of the rules of inference of the system. Then

would mean that X is a theorem of the system.

Kirby and Paris have exhibited combinatorial algorithms whose computations always terminate, but for which termination is not provable in elementary arithmetic. However, termination of these computations can be proved by adding an axiom first introduced by Goodstein in 1944. Our purpose is to investigate this axiom of Goodstein, and some of its variants, and to show that these are potentially adequate to prove termination of computations of a wide class of algorithms. We prove that many variations of Goodstein's axiom are equivalent, over elementary arithmetic, and contrast these results with those recently obtained for Kruskal's theorem.

That elementary number theory is consistent and can be given a metamathematical consistency proof has been well known since Gentzen's 1936 paper, and a number of different proofs of this result have since been offered. What is presented here is essentially a simplified and generalized version of the proof given by Ackermann in 1940 [1]; but the proof given here applies to systems formalized in standard quantification theory rather than in Hilbert's ε-calculus, and is based upon the analysis of quantificational reasoning given by Herbrand's Fundamental Theorem. Dreben and Denton sketch such a proof in [2], but at a crucial point they follow Ackermann in tying the strategy of their proof too closely to the standard model. This makes the proof more complex than it need be and restricts its application to systems with induction on the standard well-ordering. The present proof is both simpler and more general in that it applies to systems ZR of number theory with induction on arbitrary recursive well-orderings R. This generalization was first obtained by Tait in [11] using functionals of lowest type. Some technical devices employed below are similar to ones used by Tait, but while the proof-theoretic methods employed here are naturally characterizable in terms of functionals of lowest type the present proof avoids the introduction of such functionals into the languages studied.

Kristiansen and Murwanashyaka recently proved that Robinson arithmetic, Q, is interpretable in an elementary theory of full binary trees, T. We prove that, conversely, T is interpretable in Q by producing a formal interpretation of T in an elementary concatenation theory QT+, thereby also establishing mutual interpretability of T with several well-known weak essentially undecidable theories of numbers, strings, and sets. We also introduce a “hybrid” elementary theory of strings and trees, WQT*, and establish its mutual interpretability with Robinson’s weak arithmetic R, the weak theory of trees WT of Kristiansen and Murwanashyaka, and the weak concatenation theory WTCε of Higuchi and Horihata.

We work in set-theory without choice ZF . A set is countable if it is finite or equipotent with ℕ. Given a closed subset F of [0, 1]I which is a bounded subset of ℓ 1(I) (resp. such that F ⊆ c 0(I)), we show that the countable axiom of choice for finite sets, (resp. the countable axiom of choice AC ℕ) implies that F is compact. This enhances previous results where AC ℕ (resp. the axiom of Dependent Choices) was required. If I is linearly orderable (for example I = ℝ), then, in ZF , the closed unit ball of the Hilbert space ℓ 2 (I) is (Loeb-)compact in the weak topology. However, the weak compactness of the closed unit ball of is not provable in ZF .

This paper will be concerned with an adaptation of Parry's trapezoid symbolism to the solving of problems.

In Parry's notation ‘pq’, in particular, sets forth the relationship that obtains when p is true, whether q be true or false. The symbol may also be regarded as manifesting the matrix analysis of p. It is this aspect which offers promise for manipulation. We propose to write the symbol ‘’ for p itself. It is to be kept in mind, however, that ‘’ is the symbol of p when there are but two variables. How to proceed when there are more than two will be seen later.

The symbol for q will in like manner be ‘⌋’.

Let ‘’ and ‘’, then, be regarded as elemental symbols setting forth the matrix analysis of the variables. Suppose further that in transcribing from conventional to the trapezoid symbolism we substitute for the variables only, retaining the constants (antithetically to Parry's procedure). Thus ‘p ∨ q’ becomes, not ‘pq’ as with Parry, but ‘ ∨ ’. Problem-solving consists of merging the trapezoidal symbols according to procedures specified by the constants. As symbols are merged, the constants are eliminated.

The resultant symbol constitutes the solution.

The rules for merging symbols are derived from the elementary processes of forming truth-tables:

Disjunction of two symbols consists of superimposing them.

Conjunction consists of preserving only such sides as are common to both the conjoined symbols.

Let M be a transitive model of ZFC. We say that a transitive model of ZFC, N, is an outer model of M if M ⊆ N and ORD ∩ M = ORD ∩ N. The outer model theory of M is the collection of all formulas with parameters from M which hold in all outer models of M (which exist in a universe in which M is countable; this is independent of the choice of such a universe). Satisfaction defined with respect to outer models can be seen as a useful strengthening of first-order logic. Starting from an inaccessible cardinal κ, we show that it is consistent to have a transitive model M of ZFC of size κ in which the outer model theory is lightface definable, and moreover M satisfies V = HOD. The proof combines the infinitary logic L∞,ω, Barwise’s results on admissible sets, and a new forcing iteration of length strictly less than κ+ which manipulates the continuum function on certain regular cardinals below κ. In the appendix, we review some unpublished results of Mack Stanley which are directly related to our topic.

We say a structure ${\cal M}$ in a first-order language ${\cal L}$ is indivisible if for every coloring of its universe in two colors, there is a monochromatic substructure ${\cal M}\prime \subseteq {\cal M}$ such that ${\cal M}\prime \cong {\cal M}$. Additionally, we say that ${\cal M}$ is symmetrically indivisible if ${\cal M}\prime$ can be chosen to be symmetrically embedded in ${\cal M}$ (that is, every automorphism of ${\cal M}\prime$ can be extended to an automorphism of ${\cal M}$). Similarly, we say that ${\cal M}$ is elementarily indivisible if ${\cal M}\prime$ can be chosen to be an elementary substructure. We define new products of structures in a relational language. We use these products to give recipes for construction of elementarily indivisible structures which are not transitive and elementarily indivisible structures which are not symmetrically indivisible, answering two questions presented by A. Hasson, M. Kojman, and A. Onshuus.

We study the expansion of stable structures by adding predicates for arbitrary subsets. Generalizing work of Poizat-Bouscaren on the one hand and Baldwin-Benedikt-Casanovas-Ziegler on the other we provide a sufficient condition (Theorem 4.7) for such an expansion to be stable. This generalization weakens the original definitions in two ways: dealing with arbitrary subsets rather than just submodels and removing the ‘small’ or ‘belles paires’ hypothesis. We use this generalization to characterize in terms of pairs, the ‘triviality’ of the geometry on a strongly minimal set (Theorem 2.5). Call a set A benign if any type over A in the expanded language is determined by its restriction to the base language. We characterize the notion of benign as a kind of local homogenity (Theorem 1.7). Answering a question of [8] we characterize the property that M has the finite cover property over A (Theorem 3.9).

Let $\to $ be a continuous $\protect \operatorname {\mathrm {[0,1]}}$ -valued function defined on the unit square $\protect \operatorname {\mathrm {[0,1]}}^2$ , having the following properties: (i) $x\to (y\to z)= y\to (x\to z)$ and (ii) $x\to y=1 $ iff $x\leq y$ . Let $\neg x=x\to 0$ . Then the algebra $W=(\protect \operatorname {\mathrm {[0,1]}},1,\neg ,\to )$ satisfies the time-honored Łukasiewicz axioms of his infinite-valued calculus. Let $x\to _{\text {\tiny \L }}y=\min (1,1-x+y)$ and $\neg _{\text {\tiny \L }}x=x\to _{\text {\tiny \L }} 0 =1-x.$ Then there is precisely one isomorphism $\phi $ of W onto the standard Wajsberg algebra $W_{\text {\tiny \L }}= (\protect \operatorname {\mathrm {[0,1]}},1,\neg _{\text {\tiny \L }},\to _{\text {\tiny \L }})$ . Thus $x\to y= \phi ^{-1}(\min (1,1-\phi (x)+\phi (y)))$ .

We show that g ≤ c(Sym(ω)) where g is the groupwise density number and c(Sym(ω)) is the cofinality of the infinite symmetric group. This solves (the second half of) a problem addressed by Thomas.

The authors show, by means of a finitary version of the combinatorial principle of [7]. the consistency of the failure, relative to the consistency of supercompact cardinals, of the following: for all regular filters D on a cardinal λ. if Mi and Ni are elementarily equivalent models of a language of size ≤ λ, then the second player has a winning strategy in the Ehrenfeucht-Fraïssé game of length λ+ on ΠiMi/D and ΠiNi/D. If in addition 2λ = λ+ and i < λ implies |Mi| + |Ni| ≤ λ+ this means that the ultrapowers are isomorphic. This settles negatively conjecture 18 in [2].

The program of “basic logic” can be summarized as follows:

I. To treat every syntactical system as a subclass of a certain fixed infinite classUof “U-expressions.” This can always be done by modifying in trivial ways the notation of each syntactical system which is not already such a subclass. As a result all syntactical systems become comparable with each other in the sense that they are merely different subclasses of a single class of expressions. The class U can be chosen in such a way as to be inductively definable thus in terms of a fixed symbol ‘σ’: (1) The symbol ‘σ’ is a U-expression. (2) The result of placing two U-expressions (or two occurrences of the same U-expression) next to each other, and enclosing this total expression within a pair of parentheses, is a U-expression.

II. To formulate a particular syntactical systemKwithin which every syntactical system (and indeedKitself) is “represented.” Such a system is here said to be a “basic system,” and an appropriate interpretation of it is said to be a “basic logic.” Within such a logic every finitary logic is definable, as well as the basic logic itself. Such a logic should be of fundamental importance, especially if it is so constructed as to be the weakest such logic and so contain no theorems that are not essential to its being basic.

With the above considerations in view, the system K has been defined in such a way that it is a subclass of U and is a basic syntactical system. A simpler definition of K will be given than heretofore in previous papers, and the minimum character of K will be made more clear.

There is a Turing computable embedding $\Phi $ of directed graphs $\mathcal {A}$ in undirected graphs (see [15]). Moreover, there is a fixed tuple of formulas that give a uniform effective interpretation; i.e., for all directed graphs $\mathcal {A}$ , these formulas interpret $\mathcal {A}$ in $\Phi (\mathcal {A})$ . It follows that $\mathcal {A}$ is Medvedev reducible to $\Phi (\mathcal {A})$ uniformly; i.e., $\mathcal {A}\leq _s\Phi (\mathcal {A})$ with a fixed Turing operator that serves for all $\mathcal {A}$ . We observe that there is a graph G that is not Medvedev reducible to any linear ordering. Hence, G is not effectively interpreted in any linear ordering. Similarly, there is a graph that is not interpreted in any linear ordering using computable $\Sigma _2$ formulas. Any graph can be interpreted in a linear ordering using computable $\Sigma _3$ formulas. Friedman and Stanley [4] gave a Turing computable embedding L of directed graphs in linear orderings. We show that there is no fixed tuple of $L_{\omega _1\omega }$ -formulas that, for all G, interpret the input graph G in the output linear ordering $L(G)$ . Harrison-Trainor and Montalbán [7] have also shown this, by a quite different proof.

An ordered field is said to be Scott complete iff it is complete with respect to its uniform structure. Zakon has asked whether nonstandard real lines are Scott complete. We prove in ZFC that for any complete Boolean algebra B which is not (ω, 2)-distributive there is an ultrafilter of B such that the Boolean ultrapower of the real line modulo is not Scott complete. We also show how forcing in set theory gives rise to examples of Boolean ultrapowers of the real line which are not Scott complete.