Let P be the set of prime numbers. Theorem 1 of [1] shows that the linear case of Schinzel's Hypothesis (H) implies that multiplication is definable in 〈ω,+,P〉 and therefore that the first-order theory of this structure is undecidable. Let m be any fixed natural number >2, let R be the set of natural numbers <m which are prime to m, and let r be any fixed element of R. The set

is infinite (Dirichlet). Theorem 1 of [1] can be improved as follows:

Proposition. The linear case of Schinzel's Hypothesis (H) implies that multiplication is definable in 〈ω,+,Pm,r〉 and therefore that the first-order theory of this structure is undecidable.

Proof. We follow [1] with the following new ingredients. Let k be the number of elements of R, i.e. k = ϕ(m) where ϕ is Euler's totient function. Since k is even, the polynomial g(n) = nk + n satisfies g(0) = g(−1) = 0, so (by Lemma 1 of [1]) it follows from the linear case of (H) that there are natural numbers al (l ϵ ω) such that al+g(0), al+g(1),…, al+g(l) are consecutive primes. Since R is finite, we may assume that all the al's have the same residue t in R, so that al+g(i) ≡ t+1+i (mod m) for i ϵ R. This implies that the function t+1+i (reduced mod m) gives a permutation of R, so we can find s ϵ R such that al+g(s) ≡ r (mod m). Consider the polynomial h(n) = g(s + mn) and let bl = as+ml. Then bl + h(0), bl + h(1),…, bl + h(l) are elements of Pm,r. They are not necessarily consecutive elements of Pm,r, but they are separated by a fixed number of elements of Pm,r. This implies that {h(n) ∣ n ϵ ω} is definable in 〈ω,+,Pm,r〉(by adapting the proof of Theorem 1 of [1]), and the result follows.

The work [11] deals with questions of first-order definability in algebraic function fields. In particular, it exhibits new cases in which the field of constant functions is definable, and it investigates the phenomenon of definable transcendental elements. We fix some of its proofs and make additional observations concerning definable closure in these fields.

Assume T is a small superstable theory. We introduce the notion of a flat Morley sequence, which is a counterpart of the notion of an infinite Morley sequence in a type p, in case when p is a complete type over a finite set of parameters. We show that for any flat Morley sequence Q there is a model M of T which is τ-atomic over {Q}. When additionally T has few countable models and is 1-based, we prove that within M there is an infinite Morley sequence I, with I ⊂ dcl(Q), such that M is prime over I.

A grafted frame is a new kind of frame which combines a modal frame and some relevance frames. A grafted model consists of a grafted frame and a truth-value assignment. In this paper, the grafted frame and the grafted model are constructed and used to show the completeness of S1. The implications of S1-completeness are discussed.

A grafted frame does not combine two kinds of frames simply by putting relations defined in the components together. That is, the resulting grafted frame is not in the form of <W,R,R′>, or more generally, in the form of <W, R, R′,R″>,…>, which consists of a non-empty set with several relations defined on it.1 Rather, it resembles the construction of fibering proposed by D. M. Gabbay and M. Finger (see [4] and [3]). On a grafted frame, some modal worlds, which belong to the initial modal frame, are attached by some relevance frames.

However, these two semantics have important differences. Consider the combined semantics involving semantics of relevance logic and modal logic. A fibred model and a grafted model proposed in this paper differ in the following respects. First, a fibred model is constructed from a class of modal models and a class of relevance models. A grafted model consists of a grafted frame and a truth-value assignment, where the grafted frame is constructed from a modal frame and some relevance frames, and the assignment is a union of a modal truth-value assignment VM and some relevance truth-value assignments VR. VM (VR) defined in this paper is not the same as the assignment contained in a modal (relevance) model. Second, in a fibred model each relevance world is associated (or fibred) with a modal model and each modal world with a relevance model.2 To be the grafted frame on which a grafted model is based, it is enough to have some modal worlds attached by some relevance frames. Moreover, no relevance world is associated with a modal frame in the grafted frame. Third, fibred models are intended to provide an appropriate semantics to combined logics. Grafted frames and grafted models are inspired to characterize S1, which, containing only one modality □, is not a combined logic. It is shown in this paper that S1 is sort of a meta-logic of the intersection of S0.4 and F, where S0.4, a new system proposed in this paper, is in turn a meta-logic of the relevance logic.

This paper is a sequel to [3] and it contains, among other things, proofs of the results announced in the last section of that paper.

In §1, we use the general method of [3] together with reflection arguments to study the properties of forcing with Δ perfect trees, for certain Spector pointclasses Γ, obtaining as a main result the existence of a continuum of minimal Δ-degrees for such Γ's, under determinacy hypotheses. In particular, using PD, we prove the existence of continuum many minimal Δ½n+1-degrees, for all n.

Following an idea of Leo Harrington, we extend these results in §2 to show the existence of minimal strict upper bounds for sequences of Δ-degrees which are not too far apart. As a corollary, it is computed that the length of the natural hierarchy of Δ½n+1-degrees is equal to ω when n ≥ 1. (By results of Sacks and Richter the length of the natural hierarchy of -degrees is known to be equal to the first recursively inaccessible ordinal.)

We will follow in this paper standard notation and terminology, as in Moschovakis' book [7]. Letters e, i, j, k, l, m, n vary over the set of natural numbers ω, a, b, c over the Cantor space 2ω and α, β, γ, δ, … over the set of reals ωω. Finally ξ, η, κ, λ always denote ordinals.

Validity in recursive structures was investigated by several authors. Kreisel [10] has shown that there exists a consistent sentence of classical predicate calculus (CPC) that does not possess a recursive model. The sentence is a conjunction of the axioms of a variant of Bernays set theory, including the axiom of infinity. The language contains additional constants besides ϵ. Later Kreisel [2] and Mostowski [3] presented a sentence (not possessing recursive models) which was a conjunction of axioms of a variant of Bernays set theory without the axiom of infinity but still with additional constants besides ϵ. Later Mostowski [4] improved the result by giving a sentence which can be demonstrated in Heyting arithmetic to be consistent and to have no recursive models. Rabin [6] obtained a simple proof that some sentence of set theory with the single nonlogical constant ϵ does not have any recursively enumerable models.

More generally, Mostowski [5] has shown that the set of all sentences valid in all RE models is not arithmetical and Vaught [1] improved this result by showing that it holds for a language of one binary relation. In fact, Vaught gives· a way of translating n-place relations to 2-place ones that preserves the RE characteristic of the model. For further results pertaining to recursive models see Vaught [1].

We settle a number of questions concerning definability in first order logic with an extra predicate symbol ranging over semi-linear sets. We give new results both on the positive and negative side: we show that in first-order logic one cannot query a semi-linear set as to whether or not it contains a line, or whether or not it contains the line segment between two given points. However, we show that some of these queries become definable if one makes small restrictions on the semi-linear sets considered.

The program of reverse mathematics has usually been to find which parts of set theory, often used as a base for other mathematics, are actually necessary for some particular mathematical theory. In recent years, Slaman, Groszek, et al, have given the approach a new twist. The priority arguments of recursion theory do not naturally or necessarily lead to a foundation involving any set theory; rather, Peano Arithmetic (PA) in the language of arithmetic suffices. From this point, the appropriate subsystems to consider are fragments of PA with limited induction. A theorem in this area would then have the form that certain induction axioms are independent of, necessary for, or even equivalent to a theorem about the Turing degrees. (See, for examples, [C], [GS], [M], [MS], and [SW].)

As go the integers so go the ordinals. One motivation of α-recursion theory (recursion on admissible ordinals) is to generalize classical recursion theory. Since induction in arithmetic is meant to capture the well-foundedness of ω, the corresponding axiom in set theory is foundation. So reverse mathematics, even in the context of a set theory (admissibility), can be changed by the influence of reverse recursion theory. We ask not which set existence axioms, but which foundation axioms, are necessary for the theorems of α-recursion theory.

When working in the theory KP – Foundation Schema (hereinafter called KP−), one should really not call it α-recursion theory, which refers implicitly to the full set of axioms KP. Just as the name β-recursion theory refers to what would be α-recursion theory only it includes also inadmissible ordinals, we call the subject of study here γ-recursion theory. This answers a question by Sacks and S. Friedman, “What is γ-recursion theory?”

One of the early partition relation theorems which include ordinals was the observation of Erdös and Rado [7] that if κ = cf(κ) > ω then the Dushnik–Miller theorem can be sharpened to κ→(κ, ω + 1)2. The question on the possible further extension of this result was answered by Hajnal who in [8] proved that the continuum hypothesis implies ω1 ↛ (ω1, ω + 2)2. He actually proved the stronger result ω1 ↛ (ω: 2))2. The consistency of the relation κ↛(κ, (ω: 2))2 was later extensively studied. Baumgartner [1] proved it for every κ which is the successor of a regular cardinal. Laver [9] showed that if κ is Mahlo there is a forcing notion which adds a witness for κ↛ (κ, (ω: 2))2 and preserves Mahloness, ω-Mahloness of κ, etc. We notice in connection with these results that λ→(λ, (ω: 2))2 holds if λ is singular, in fact λ→(λ, (μ: n))2 for n < ω, μ < λ (Theorem 4).

In [11] Todorčević proved that if cf(λ) > ω then a ccc forcing can add a counter-example to λ→(λ, ω + 2)2. We give an alternative proof of this (Theorem 5) and extend it to larger cardinals: if GCH holds, cf (λ) > κ = cf (κ) then < κ-closed, κ+-c.c. forcing adds a counter-example to λ→(λ, κ + 2)2 (Theorem 6).

Erdös and Hajnal remarked in their problem paper [5] that Galvin had proved ω2→(ω1, ω + 2)2 and he had also asked if ω2→(ω1, ω + 3)2 is true. We show in Theorem 1 that the negative relation is consistent.