The paper describes and proves completeness theorems for a series of proof systems formalizing common sense reasoning about uncertain knowledge in the case where this consists of sets of linear constraints on a probability function.

V. Lifschitz defined in 1979 a variant of realizability which validates Church's thesis with uniqueness condition, but not the general form of Church's thesis. In this paper we describe an extension of intuitionistic arithmetic in which the soundness of Lifschitz' realizability can be proved, and we give an axiomatic characterization of the Lifschitz-realizable formulas relative to this extension. By a “q-variant” we obtain a new derived rule. We also show how to extend Lifschitz' realizability to second-order arithmetic. Finally we describe an analogous development for elementary analysis, with partial continuous application replacing partial recursive application.

The paper gives a soundness and completeness proof for the implicative fragment of intuitionistic calculus with respect to the semantics of computability logic, which understands intuitionistic implication as interactive algorithmic reduction. This concept — more precisely, the associated concept of reducibility — is a generalization of Turing reducibility from the traditional, input/output sorts of problems to computational tasks of arbitrary degrees of interactivity.

Let be any proper ideal of subsets of the real line R which contains all finite subsets of R. We define an ideal * ∣ as follows: X ∈ * ∣ if there exists a Borel set B ⊂ R × R such that X ⊂ B and for any x ∈ R we have {y ∈ R: 〈x, y〉 ∈ B} ∈ . We show that there exists a family ⊂ * ∣ of power ω1 such that ⋃ ∉ * ∣ .

In the last section we investigate properties of ideals of Lebesgue measure zero sets and meager sets in Cohen extensions of models of set theory.

For the first Gödel incompleteness theorem, the existence in a formal system of arithmetic L of a sentence which is neither provable nor refutable, all that is required of the formula Th(x) of L used to express the notion ‘x is the g.n. (gödel number) of a theorem of L’ is mere numeralwise correctness, i.e. that for a numeral n, Th(n) is provable in L iff n is the g.n. of a theorem of L. It is well known that much more is needed for the second Gödel incompleteness theorem, the unprovability in L of the formula Con =df ¬(∃y, z)(Th(y) ∧ Th(z) ∧ neg(z, y)), which (if neg expresses negation) expresses the consistency of L. Conditions sufficient for this second theorem, more or less as stated by Hilbert-Bernays [1, p. 286] and elegantly formulated by Löb [2] may with a cavalier disregard for the distinction between use and mention be stated thus: The result of the first incompleteness theorem: there is a sentence G such that ⊢G ↔ ¬Th G), together with, if ⊢A then ⊢Th A, if ⊢(A → B) then ⊢(Th A → Th B), ⊢(Th A → Th Th A). On the other hand Feferman [3], Kreisel [4, p. 154] and Jeroslow [9] have given examples of systems and consistency formulae, based on numeralwise correct formulae Th(x), which are provable within the system.

A pair of sets (A0, A1) forms a minimal pair if A0 and A1 are nonrecursive, and if whenever a set B is recursive both in A0 and in A1 then B is recursive. C. E. M. Yates [8] and independently A. H. Lachlan [4] proved the existence of a minima] pair of recursively enumerable (r.e.) sets thereby establishing a conjecture of G. E. Sacks [6]. We simplify Lachlan's construction, and then generalize this result by constructing two disjoint pairs of r.e. sets (A0, B0) and (A1B1) such that if C0 separates (A0, A1 and C1 separates (B0, B1), then C0 and C1 form a minimal pair. (We say that C separates (A0, A1) if A0 ⊂ C and C ∩ = ∅.) The question arose in our study of (Turing) degrees of members of certain classes, where we proved the weaker result [2, Theorem 4.1] that the above pairs may be chosen so that C0 and C2 are merely Turing incomparable. (There we used a variation of the weaker result to improve a result of Scott and Tennenbaum that no complete extension of Peano arithmetic has minimal degree.)

We prove here theorems of the form: if T has a model M in which P1(M) is κ1-like ordered, P2(M) is κ2-like ordered …, and Q1(M) is of power λ1, …, then T has a model N in which P1(M) is κ1′-like ordered …, Q1(N) is of power λ1′, …. (In this article κ is a strong-limit singular cardinal, and κ′ is a singular cardinal.)

We also sometimes add the condition that M, N omits some types. The results are seemingly the best possible, i.e. according to our knowledge about n-cardinal problems (or, more precisely, a certain variant of them).

The system of combinatory logic to be presented in this paper will be called CΔ. It may be compared to various systems of combinatory logic constructed by Schonfinkel [11], Curry [1], Rosser [10], and Curry and Feys [2], and to the author's systems K′ [3] and S [5], and to extensional modifications of K′ [6], [7], [8], [9]. The present system falls within this latter category of extensional or semi-extensional systems, but it is more perspicuous than the others, and the proof of its consistency is more direct. It contains the theory of combinators in full strength. It also contains operators for disjunction, conjunction, negation, existence (that is, non-emptiness), and universality. A considerable part of classical mathematical analysis can be shown to be derivable in CΔ, just as in K′ [4], but with the added advantage of the availability of a limited extensionality principle.

Omitting-types theorems have been useful in model theory to construct models with special characteristics. For instance, one method of proving the ω-completeness theorem of Henkin [10] and Orey [20] involves constructing a model that omits the type {x ≠ 0, x ≠ 1, x ≠ 2,···} (i.e., {x ≠ 0, x ≠ 1, x ≠ 2,···} is not satisfiable in the model). Our purpose in this paper is to illustrate uses of omitting-types theorems in recursion theory. The Gandy-Kreisel-Tait Theorem [7] is the most well-known example. This theorem characterizes the class of hyperarithmetical sets as the intersection of all ω-models of analysis (the so-called hard core of analysis). The usual way to prove that a nonhyperarithmetical set does not belong to the hard core is to construct an ω-model of analysis that omits the type representing the set (Application 1). We will find basis results for and s — sets that are stronger than results previously known (Applications 2 and 3). The question of how far the natural hierarchy of hyperjumps extends was first settled by a forcing argument (Sacks) and subsequently by a compactness argument (Kripke, Richter). Another problem solved by a forcing argument (Sacks) and then by a compactness argument (Friedman-Jensen) was the characterization of the countable admissible ordinals as the relativized ω1's. Using omitting-types technique, we will supply a third kind of proof of these results (Applications 4 and 5). S. Simpson made a significant contribution in simplifying the proof of the latter result, with the interesting side effect that Friedman's result on ordinals in models of set theory is immediate (Application 6). One approach to abstract recursiveness and hyperarithmeticity on a countable set is to tenuously identify the set with the natural numbers. This approach is equivalent to other approaches to abstract recursion (Application 7). This last result may also be proved by a forcing method.

This paper is mainly concerned with describing complete theories of modules by decomposing them (up to elementary equivalence) into direct products of simpler modules. In §1, I give a decomposition theorem which works for arbitrary direct product theories T. Given such a T, I define T-indecomposable structures and show that every model of T is elementarily equivalent to a direct product of T-indecomposable models of T. In §2, I show that if R is a commutative ring then every R-module is elementarily equivalent to ΠMM where M ranges over the maximal ideals of R and M is the localization of at M. This is applied to prove that if R is a commutative von Neumann regular ring and TR is the theory of R-modules then the TR-indecomposables are precisely the cyclic modules of the form R/M where M is a maximal ideal. In §3, I use the decomposition established in §2 to characterize the ω1-categorical and ω-stable modules over a countable commutative von Neumann regular ring and the superstable modules over a commutative von Neumann regular ring of arbitrary cardinality. In the process, I also prove several general characterizations of ω-stable and superstable modules; e.g., if R is any countable ring, then an R-moduIe is ω-stable if and only if every R-module elementarily equivalent to it is equationally compact.

This paper examines the questions of functional completeness and canonical completeness in many-valued logics, offering proofs for several theorems on these topics.

A skeletal description of the domain for these theorems is as follows. We are concerned with a proper logic L, containing a denumerably infinite class of propositional symbols, P, Q, R, …, a finite set of unary operations, U1, U2,…, Ub, and a finite set of binary operations, B1, B2, …, Bc. Well-formed formulas in L are recursively defined by the conventional set of rules. With L there is associated an integer, M ≧ 2, and the integers m, where (1 ≦m≦M), are the truth values of L.

We present a full completeness theorem for the multiplicative fragment of a variant of noncommutative linear logic, Yetter's cyclic linear logic (CyLL). The semantics is obtained by interpreting proofs as dinatural transformations on a category of topological vector spaces, these transformations being equivariant under certain actions of a noncocommutative Hopf algebra called the shuffle algebra Multiplicative sequents are assigned a vector space of such dinaturals, and we show that this space has as a basis the denotations of cut-free proofs in CyLL + MIX. This can be viewed as a fully faithful representation of a free *-autonomous category, canonically enriched over vector spaces.

This paper is a natural extension of the authors' previous work, “Linear Läuchli Semantics”, where a similar theorem is obtained for the commutative logic MLL + MIX. In that paper, we interpret proofs as dinaturals which are invariant under certain actions of the additive group of integers. Here we also present a simplification of that work by showing that the invariance criterion is actually a consequence of dinaturality. The passage from groups to Hopf algebras in this paper corresponds to the passage from commutative to noncommutative logic. However, in our noncommutative setting, one must still keep the invariance condition on dinaturals.

It is shown that the class of Kolmogorov-Loveland stochastic sequences is not closed under selecting subsequences by monotonic computable selection rules. This result gives a strong negative answer to the question whether the Kolmogorov-Loveland stochastic sequences are closed under selecting sequences by Kolmogorov-Loveland selection rules, i.e., by not necessarily monotonic, partial computable selection rules. The following previously known results are obtained as corollaries. The Mises-Wald-Church stochastic sequences are not closed under computable permutations, hence in particular they form a strict superclass of the class of Kolmogorov-Loveland stochastic sequences. The Kolmogorov-Loveland selection rules are not closed under composition.

We re-express a previous general result in a way which seems easier to remember, using the terminology of infinite games. We show how this can be applied to construct recursive linear orderings, showing, for example, that if there is a linear ordering of type τ, then there is a recursive ordering of type ωβ · τ.

When bounds on complexity of some aspect of a structure are preserved under isomorphism, we refer to them as intrinsic. Here, building on work of Soskov [34], [33], we give syntactical conditions necessary and sufficient for a relation to be intrinsically on a structure. We consider some examples of computable structures and intrinsically relations R. We also consider a general family of examples of intrinsically relations arising in computable structures of maximum Scott rank.

For three of the examples, the maximal well-ordered initial segment in a Harrison ordering, the superatomic part of a Harrison Boolean algebra, and the height-possessing part of a Harrison p-group, we show that the Turing degrees of images of the relation in computable copies of the structure are the same as the Turing degrees of paths through Kleene's . With this as motivation, we investigate the possible degrees of these paths. We show that there is a path in which ∅′ is not computable. In fact, there is one in which no noncomputable hyperarithmetical set is computable. There are paths that are Turing incomparable, or Turing incomparable over a given hyperarithmetical set. There is a pair of paths whose degrees form a minimal pair. However, there is no path of minimal degree.

Notations, conventions, and definitions. {μi∣i < ω} will be an effective enumeration of all partial recursive μi{ω → 2. A type of a theory T will be a set of formulas in the language of T, in finitely many free variables, which is consistent with T. A complete type is a maximal type in some fixed number of free variables. A type is recursive if, relative to some effective enumeration of the formulas of the language, the characteristic function for the type is recursive. A set ψ of recursive types has property P if some set of indices of characteristic functions for all the types in ψ has property P. So, for example, we might say that a set of recursive types is . If is an L-structure, then the type spectrum of , denoted ‘TySp()’, is the set of complete types realized in (we will assume that an n-type has formulas with free variables among {x1, …, xn}). A type spectrum for a theory T is a type spectrum of some model of T. ‘TySp0(T)’ will denote the set of principal types of T.

We will assume that the reader is familiar with Henkin constructions of models, and of passing from a maximal consistent set of sentences, with “Henkin constants”, to a model. In particular, for a theory T in L we will let {ai∣i < ω} be new distinct constant symbols, and {φi < ω} a list of all sentences in the expanded language. ‘ΔN’ will denote the elementary diagram constructed at stage N, and .

We investigate the connections between computability theory and Nonstandard Analysis. In particular, we investigate the two following topics and show that they are intimately related.

(T.1) A basic property of Cantor space$2^ $ is Heine–Borel compactness: for any open covering of $2^ $, there is a finite subcovering. A natural question is: How hard is it to compute such a finite subcovering? We make this precise by analysing the complexity of so-called fan functionals that given any $G:2^ \to $, output a finite sequence $\langle f_0 , \ldots ,f_n \rangle $ in $2^ $ such that the neighbourhoods defined from $\overline {f_i } G\left( {f_i } \right)$ for $i \le n$ form a covering of $2^ $.

(T.2) A basic property of Cantor space in Nonstandard Analysis is Abraham Robinson’s nonstandard compactness, i.e., that every binary sequence is “infinitely close” to a standard binary sequence. We analyse the strength of this nonstandard compactness property of Cantor space, compared to the other axioms of Nonstandard Analysis and usual mathematics.

Our study of (T.1) yields exotic objects in computability theory, while (T.2) leads to surprising results in Reverse Mathematics. We stress that (T.1) and (T.2) are highly intertwined, i.e., our study is holistic in nature in that results in computability theory yield results in Nonstandard Analysis and vice versa.

All notions of mathematical logic, as measured e.g. by Principia mathematica, can be constructed from a basis which embraces variables and just two further primitives: the familiar notions of inclusion and abstraction. Inclusion will be expressed by the usual form of notation “(x⊂y)”, which may be read “x is included in y.” Abstraction will be expressed by the form of notation “x3 …” as with Peano, the blank being filled by any formula (statement or statement form); the whole may be read “the class of all objects x such that ….”

A system of logic based on these primitives will be presented in this paper. The system involves the familiar theory of class types, which, for metamathematical convenience, will be recorded in the system by use of distinctive styles of variables; thus the variables “x”, “y”, and “z”, also with subscripts when further variety is needed, will take individuals as values; the variables “x′”, “y′”, and “z′”, also with subscripts, will take classes of individuals as values; the variables “x″”, “y″”, and “z″”, also with subscripts, will take classes of classes of individuals as values; and so on. The metamathematical notion of term, covering all variables and also all expressions of abstraction, is now describable recursively thus: a variable is a term, and the number of accents which it bears is called its rank; and if terms of equal rank are put for “ζ” and “η” and a variable of rank n is put for “α” in “α3(ζ ⊂ η)”, the result is a term of rank n+1. A formula finally, is any result of putting terms of equal rank for “ζ” and “η” in “(ζ ⊂ η)”.

We show that to every recursive total continuous functional Φ there is a PCF-definable representative Ψ of Φ in the hierarchy of partial continuous functionals, where PCF is Plotkin's programming language for computable functionals. PCF-definable is equivalent to Kleene's S1–S9-computable over the partial continuous functionals.

If the Bounded Proper Forcing Axiom BPFA holds, then Mouse Reflection holds at ℵ2 with respect to all mouse operators up to the level of Woodin cardinals in the next ZFC-model. This yields that if Woodin's ℙmax axiom (*) holds, then BPFA implies that V is closed under the “Woodin-in-the-next-ZFC-model” operator. We also discuss stronger Mouse Reflection principles which we show to follow from strengthenings of BPFA, and we discuss the theory BPFA plus “NSω1 is precipitous” and strengthenings thereof. Along the way, we answer a question of Baumgartner and Taylor, [2, Question 6.11].