Can a supercompact cardinal κ be Laver indestructible when there is a level-by-level agreement between strong compactness and supercompactness? In this article, we show that if there is a sufficiently large cardinal above κ, then no, it cannot. Conversely, if one weakens the requirement either by demanding less indestructibility, such as requiring only indestructibility by stratified posets. or less level-by-level agreement, such as requiring it only on measure one sets, then yes. it can.

Ramsey's theorem [5] asserts that every infinite set X has the following partition property (RP): For every partition of the set [X]2 of two-element subsets of X into two pieces, there is an infinite subset Y of X such that [Y]2 is included in one of the pieces. Ramsey explicitly indicated that his proof of this theorem used the axiom of choice. Kleinberg [3] showed that every proof of Ramsey's theorem must use the axiom of choice, although rather weak forms of this axiom suffice. J. Dawson has raised the question of the position of Ramsey's theorem in the hierarchy of weak axioms of choice.

In this paper, we prove or refute the provability of each of the possible implications between Ramsey's theorem and the weak axioms of choice mentioned in Appendix A.3 of Jech's book [2]. Our results, along with some known facts which we include for completeness, may be summarized as follows (the notation being as in [2]):

A. The following principles do not (even jointly) imply Ramsey's theorem, nor does Ramsey's theorem imply any of them:

the Boolean prime ideal theorem,

the selection principle,

the order extension principle,

the ordering principle,

choice from wellordered sets (ACW),

choice from finite sets,

choice from pairs (C2).

B. Each of the following principles implies Ramsey's theorem, but none of them follows from Ramsey's theorem:

the axiom of choice,

wellordered choice (∀kACk),

dependent choice of any infinite length k (DCk),

countable choice (ACN0),

nonexistence of infinite Dedekind-finite sets (WN0).

Craig's interpolation lemma (if φ → ψ is valid, then φ → θ and θ → ψ are valid, for θ a formula constructed using only primitive symbols which occur both in φ and ψ) fails for many propositional and first order modal logics. The interpolation property is often regarded as a sign of well-matched syntax and semantics. Hybrid logicians claim that modal logic is missing important syntactic machinery, namely tools for referring to worlds, and that adding such machinery solves many technical problems. The paper presents strong evidence for this claim by defining interpolation algorithms for both propositional and first order hybrid logic. These algorithms produce interpolants for the hybrid logic of every elementary class of frames satisfying the property that a frame is in the class if and only if all its point-generated subframes are in the class. In addition, on the class of all frames, the basic algorithm is conservative: on purely modal input it computes interpolants in which the hybrid syntactic machinery does not occur.

By intermediate prepositional logics we mean prepositional logics between the intuitionistic and classical logics.

K. Gödel [1] proved that there is a set of intermediate prepositional logics which possesses the order type ω. The method enables us to define intermediate logics in terms of axioms and rules of inference. We shall call it the axiomatic method.

We show that the intersection of the class of 2-REA degrees with that of the ω-r.e. degrees consists precisely of the class of d.r.e. degrees. We also include some applications and show that there is no natural generalization of this result to higher levels of the REA hierarchy.

We present a generalisation of the type-theoretic interpretation of constructive set theory into Martin-Löf type theory. The original interpretation treated logic in Martin-Löf type theory via the propositions-as-types interpretation. The generalisation involves replacing Martin-Löf type theory with a new type theory in which logic is treated as primitive. The primitive treatment of logic in type theories allows us to study reinterpretations of logic, such as the double-negation translation.

Let M = 〈M, +, <, 0, {λ}λЄD〉 be an ordered vector space over an ordered division ring D, and G = 〈G, ⊕, eG〉 an n-dimensional group definable in M. We show that if G is definably compact and definably connected with respect to the t-topology, then it is definably isomorphic to a ‘definable quotient group’ U/L, for some convex V-definable subgroup U of 〈Mn, +〉 and a lattice L of rank n. As two consequences, we derive Pillay's conjecture for a saturated M as above and we show that the o-minimal fundamental group of G is isomorphic to L.

In a previous paper [13] we introduced a hierarchy (GnAω)n∈ℕ of subsystems of classical arithmetic in all finite types where the growth of definable functions of GnAω corresponds to the well-known Grzegorczyk hierarchy. Let AC-qf denote the schema of quantifier-free choice.

[11], [13], [8] and [7] study various analytical principles Γ in the context of the theories GnAω + AC-qf (mainly for n = 2) and use proof-theoretic tools like, e.g., monotone functional interpretation (which was introduced in [12]) to determine their impact on the growth of uniform bounds Φ such that

which are extractable from given proofs (based on these principles Γ) of sentences

Here A0(u, k, v, w) is quantifier-free and contains only u, k, v, w as free variables; t is a closed term and ≤p is defined pointwise. The term ‘uniform bound’ refers to the fact that Φ does not depend on v ≤ptuk (see [12] for the relevance of such uniform bounds in numerical analysis and for concrete applications to approximation theory).

We study logical systems for reasoning about equations involving recursive definitions. In particular, we are interested in “propositional” fragments of the functional language of recursion FLR [18, 17], i.e., without the value passing or abstraction allowed in FLR. The “pure,” propositional fragment FLR0 turns out to coincide with the iteration theories of [1]. Our main focus here concerns the sharp contrast between the simple class of valid identities and the very complex consequence relation over several natural classes of models.

We confirm a conjecture, about neat embeddings of cylindric algebras, made in 1969 by J. D. Monk, and a later conjecture by Maddux about relation algebras obtained from cylindric algebras. These results in algebraic logic have the following consequence for predicate logic: for every finite cardinal α ≥ 3 there is a logically valid sentence X, in a first-order language ℒ with equality and exactly one nonlogical binary relation symbol E, such that X contains only 3 variables (each of which may occur arbitrarily many times), X has a proof containing exactly α + 1 variables, but X has no proof containing only α variables. This solves a problem posed by Tarski and Givant in 1987.

A logical calculus Κ was defined in a previous paper and then shown in a subsequent paper to contain within itself a representation of every constructively definable subclass of expressions of a certain infinite class U of expressions, where Κ itself is one such subclass. (The former paper will be referred to as BL and the latter paper as RC.) The calculus Κ was called a “basic calculus” and its theorems were thought of as expressing the asserted propositions of a “basic logic,” that is, of a logic within which is definable every constructively definable system of logic and indeed every constructively definable class or relation. The notion of constructive definability was essentially equated with the notion of recursive enumerability.

The purpose of this paper is to show that some of the difficulties confronting logicians are caused by too narrow an interpretation of the function of mathematical logic. I hope to show that very fruitful results can be obtained by considering a much wider range of problems than usually found in the literature.

I believe that the function of mathematical logic is to study all logical systems. The problems now considered usually concern some particular system or set of systems. Of course we would have to agree first on what a logical system is. I shall suggest a tentative definition. The rest of my paper will proceed on the assumption that we have agreed on this question. However, it is only necessary for this paper that some definition should be accepted, it is not necessary that it should be the one I suasest.

A typical approach to semantics for relevance (and other) logics: specify a class of algebraic structures and take a model to be one of these structures, α, together with some function or relation which associates with every formula A a subset of α. (This is the approach of, among others, Urquhart, Routley and Meyer and Fine.) In some cases there are restrictions on the class of subsets of α with which a formula can be associated: for example, in the semantics of Routley and Meyer [1973], a formula can only be associated with subsets which are closed upwards. It is natural to take a proposition of α to be such a subset of α, and, further, to take the propositional quantifiers to range over these propositions. (Routley and Meyer [1973] explicitly consider this interpretation.) Given such an algebraic semantics, we call (following Routley and Meyer [1973], who follow Henkin [1950]) the above-described interpretation of the quantifiers the primary interpretation associated with the semantics.

Since Gilmore showed that some theory with a positive comprehension scheme is consistent when the axiom of extensionality is dropped and inconsistent with it (see [1] and [2]), the problem of the consistency of various positive comprehension schemes has been investigated. We give here a short classification, which shows clearly the importance of the axiom of extensionality and of the abstraction operator in these consistency problems. The most difficult problem was to show the consistency of the comprehension scheme for positive formulas, with extensionality but without abstraction operator. In his unpublished thesis, Set theory in which the axiom of foundation fails [3], Malitz solved partially this problem but he needed to assume the existence of some unusual kind of large cardinal; as his original construction is very interesting and his thesis is unpublished, we give a short summary of it. M. Forti solved the problem completely by working in ZF with a free-construction principle (sometimes called an anti-foundation axiom), instead of ZF with the axiom of foundation, as Malitz did.

This permits one to obtain the consistency of this positive theory, relative to ZF. In his general investigations about “topological set theories” (to be published), E. Weydert has independently proved the same result. The authors are grateful to the Mathematisches Forshungsinstitut Oberwolfach for giving them the opportunity of discussing these subjects and meeting E. Weydert during the meeting “New Foundations”, March 1–7, 1987.

Assume ZFC + “There is a weakly compact cardinal” is consistent. Then:

(i) For every S ⊆ ω, ZFC + “S and the monadic theory of ω2 are recursive each in the other” is consistent; and

(ii) ZFC + “The full second-order theory of ω2 is interpretable in the monadic theory of ω2” is consistent.

Let E be a computably enumerable (c.e.) equivalence relation on the set ω of natural numbers. We say that the quotient set $\omega /E$ (or equivalently, the relation E) realizes a linearly ordered set ${\cal L}$ if there exists a c.e. relation ⊴ respecting E such that the induced structure ($\omega /E$; ⊴) is isomorphic to ${\cal L}$. Thus, one can consider the class of all linearly ordered sets that are realized by $\omega /E$; formally, ${\cal K}\left( E \right) = \left\{ {{\cal L}\,|\,{\rm{the}}\,{\rm{order}}\, - \,{\rm{type}}\,{\cal L}\,{\rm{is}}\,{\rm{realized}}\,{\rm{by}}\,E} \right\}$. In this paper we study the relationship between computability-theoretic properties of E and algebraic properties of linearly ordered sets realized by E. One can also define the following pre-order $ \le _{lo} $ on the class of all c.e. equivalence relations: $E_1 \le _{lo} E_2 $ if every linear order realized by E1 is also realized by E2. Following the tradition of computability theory, the lo-degrees are the classes of equivalence relations induced by the pre-order $ \le _{lo} $. We study the partially ordered set of lo-degrees. For instance, we construct various chains and anti-chains and show the existence of a maximal element among the lo-degrees.

A Turing degree a is said to be almost everywhere dominating if, for almost all X ∈ 2ω with respect to the “fair coin” probability measure on 2ω, and for all g: ω → ω Turing reducible to X, there exists f: ω → ω of Turing degree a which dominates g. We study the problem of characterizing the almost everywhere dominating Turing degrees and other, similarly defined classes of Turing degrees. We relate this problem to some questions in the reverse mathematics of measure theory.

This paper deals with Hilbert's substitution method for eliminating bound variables from first order proofs. With a first order system S framed in the ε-calculus [2] the problem is to associate a system S' without bound variables and an effective procedure for transforming derivations in S into derivations in S′. The transform of a formula A derived in S is to be an “ε-substitution instance” of A, i.e. it is obtained by replacing terms εxB(x) in A by terms of S′. In general the choice of these terms will depend on the particular derivation of A, and not on A alone. Cf. [4]. The present formulation sharpens Hilbert's original statement of the problem, i.e. that the transform of A should be finitistically verifiable, by making explicit the methods of verification used, namely those formalized in S′; on the other hand, it generalizes Hilbert's formulation since S′ need not be restricted to finitist systems.

The bound variable elimination procedure can always be taken to be primitive recursive in (the Gödel number of) the derivation of A. Constructions which transcend primitive recursion can simply be built into S′.

In this paper we show that if S′ is taken to be a second order system with constants for functionals, then the existence of suitable ε-substitution instances can be expressed by the solvability of certain functional equations in S′. We deal with two cases here. If S is number theory without induction, i.e. essentially predicate calculus with identity, then we can solve the equations in question by taking for S′ the free variable part S* of S with an added rule of definition of functionals by cases (recursive definition on finite ordinals), which is a conservative extension of S*.

We give a direct, purely arithmetical and elementary proof of the strong normalization of the cut-elimination procedure for full (i.e., in presence of all the usual connectives) classical natural deduction.