We study from the proof complexity perspective the (informal) proof search problem (cf. [17, Sections 1.5 and 21.5]):

• • Is there an optimal way to search for propositional proofs?

We note that, as a consequence of Levin’s universal search, for any fixed proof system there exists a time-optimal proof search algorithm. Using classical proof complexity results about reflection principles we prove that a time-optimal proof search algorithm exists without restricting proof systems iff a p-optimal proof system exists.

To characterize precisely the time proof search algorithms need for individual formulas we introduce a new proof complexity measure based on algorithmic information concepts. In particular, to a proof system P we attach information-efficiency function $i_P(\tau )$ assigning to a tautology a natural number, and we show that:

• • $i_P(\tau )$ characterizes time any P-proof search algorithm has to use on $\tau $ ,

• • for a fixed P there is such an information-optimal algorithm (informally: it finds proofs of minimal information content),

• • a proof system is information-efficiency optimal (its information-efficiency function is minimal up to a multiplicative constant) iff it is p-optimal,

• • for non-automatizable systems P there are formulas $\tau $ with short proofs but having large information measure $i_P(\tau )$ .

We isolate and motivate the problem to establish unconditional super-logarithmic lower bounds for $i_P(\tau )$ where no super-polynomial size lower bounds are known. We also point out connections of the new measure with some topics in proof complexity other than proof search.

For any group satisfying a suitable chain condition, we construct a finitely additive measure on it that is invariant under certain actions.

The object of this note is to extend to Post's m-valued propositional calculus1 the axiomatization by Anderson and Belnap2 of the 2-valued propositional calculus.

Notation and definitions. We shall use the symbols ∼ and v for the primitives of Post and shall otherwise, except as stated below, use the same notation and definitions as in the previous paper.

We will show that there is a nontrivial strongly minimal expansion of (ω, s), the natural numbers with successor. Pillay and Steinhorn [1] proved that there is no -minimal expansion of (ω, ≤). This result provides an interesting contrast.

The strongly minimal expansion of (ω, s) is very easy to describe. Consider the order-two permutation of ω, π recursively defined by

Let T be Th(ω, s, π, 0).

Each Girard quantale (i.e., commutative quantale with a selected dualizing element) provides a support for a semantics for linear propositional formulas (but not for linear derivations). Several constructions of Girard quantales are known. We give two more constructions, one using an arbitrary partially ordered monoid and one using a partially ordered group (both commutative). In both cases the semantics can be controlled be a relation between pairs of elements of the support and formulas. This gives us a neat way of handling duality.

We answer some questions from [4] by giving suitable examples of small Polish structures. First, we present a class of small Polish group structures without generic elements. Next, we construct a first example of a small non-zero-dimensional Polish G-group.

We show that if M is a countable transitive model of $\text {ZF}$ and if $a,b$ are reals not in M, then there is a G generic over M such that $b \in L[a,G]$ . We then present several applications such as the following: if J is any countable transitive model of $\text {ZFC}$ and $M \not \subseteq J$ is another countable transitive model of $\text {ZFC}$ of the same ordinal height $\alpha $ , then there is a forcing extension N of J such that $M \cup N$ is not included in any transitive model of $\text {ZFC}$ of height $\alpha $ . Also, assuming $0^{\#}$ exists, letting S be the set of reals generic over L, although S is disjoint from the Turing cone above $0^{\#}$ , we have that for any non-constructible real a, $\{ a \oplus s : s \in S \}$ is cofinal in the Turing degrees.

It is known that the usual definition of a dense series without extreme elements is complete with respect to first-order functions, in the sense that any first-order function on the base of a set of postulates defining such a series either is implied by the postulates or is inconsistent with them. It is here understood, in accordance with the usual convention, that when we speak of a function on the base , the function shall be such as to place restrictions only upon elements belonging to the class determined by f; or, more exactly, every variable with a universal prefix shall occur under the hypothesis that its values satisfy f, while every variable with an existential prefix shall have this condition categorically imposed upon it.

Consider a set of postulates defining a dense series without extreme elements, and add to this set the condition of Dedekind section, to be formulated as follows. Let the conjunction of the three functions,

be written H(ϕ), where the free variables f and g, being parameters throughout, are suppressed. This is the hypothesis of Dedekind's condition, and the conclusion is

which may be written C(ϕ).

In the study of categories whose morphisms display a behaviour similar to that of partial functions, the concept of morphism domain is, obviously, central. In this paper an operation defined on morphisms describes those properties which are related to morphisms being regarded as abstractions of partial functions. This operation allows us to characterise the morphism domains directly, and gives rise to an algebra defined by a simple set of identities. No product-like categorical structures are needed therefore. We also develop the construction of topologies together with the notion of continuous morphism, in order to test the effectiveness of this approach. It is interesting to see how much of the computational character of the morphisms is translated into continuity.

The purpose of this paper is to study logical implications which are much weaker than the implication of intuitionistic logic.

In §1 we define the system SI (system of Simple Implication) which is obtained from intuitionistic logic by restricting the inference rules of intuitionistic implication. The implication of the system SI is called the “simple implication” and denoted by ⊃, where the simple implication ⊃ has the following properties:

(1) The simple implication ⊃ is much weaker than the usual intuitionistic implication.

(2) The simple implication ⊃ can be interpreted by the notion of provability, i.e., we have a very simple semantics for SI so that a sentence A ⊃ B is interpreted as “there exists a proof of B from A”.

(3) The full-strength intuitionistic implication ⇒ is definable in a weak second order extension of SI; in other words, it is definable by help of a variant of the weak comprehension schema and the simple implication ⊃. Therefore, though SI is much weaker than the intuitionistic logic, the second order extension of SI is equivalent to the second order extension of the intuitionistic logic.

(4) The simple implication is definable in a weak modal logic MI by the use of the modal operator and the intuitionistic implication ⇒ with full strength. More precisely, A ⊃ B is defined as the strict implication of the form ◽(A ⇒ B).

In §1, we show (3) and (4). (2) is shown in §2 in a more general setting.

Semantics by introduction rules of logical connectives has been studied from various points of view by many authors (e.g. Gentzen [4], Lorentzen [5], Dummett [1], [2], Prawitz [8]. Martin-Löf [7], Maehara [6]). Among them Gentzen (in §§10 and 11 of [4]) introduced such a semantics in order to justify logical inferences and the mathematical induction rule. He observed that all of the inference rules of intuitionistic arithmetic, except for those on implication and negation, are justified by means of his semantics, but justification of the inference rules on implication and negation contains a circular argument for the interpretation by introduction rules, where the natural interpretation of A ⊃ B by ⊃-introduction rule is “there exists a proof of B from A ” (cf. §11 of Gentzen [4]).

A structure ${\mathbb Y}$ of a relational language L is called almost chainable iff there are a finite set $F \subset Y$ and a linear order $\,<$ on the set $Y\setminus F$ such that for each partial automorphism $\varphi $ (i.e., local automorphism, in Fraïssé’s terminology) of the linear order $\langle Y\setminus F, <\rangle $ the mapping $\mathop {\mathrm {id}}\nolimits _F \cup \varphi $ is a partial automorphism of ${\mathbb Y}$ . By theorems of Fraïssé and Pouzet, an infinite structure ${\mathbb Y}$ is almost chainable iff the profile of ${\mathbb Y}$ is bounded; namely, iff there is a positive integer m such that ${\mathbb Y}$ has $\leq m$ non-isomorphic substructures of size n, for each positive integer n. A complete first order L-theory ${\mathcal T}$ having infinite models is called almost chainable iff all models of ${\mathcal T}$ are almost chainable and it is shown that the last condition is equivalent to the existence of one countable almost chainable model of ${\mathcal T}$ . In addition, it is proved that an almost chainable theory has either one or continuum many non-isomorphic countable models and, thus, the Vaught conjecture is confirmed for almost chainable theories.