If σ is the order type of a recursive linear order which has a nontrivial automorphism, we let denote the least complexity in the arithmetical hierarchy such that every recursive order of type σ has a nontrivial automorphism of complexity . In Chapter 16 of his book Linear orderings [R], Rosenstein discussed the problem of determining for certain order types σ. For example Rosenstein proved that , where ζ is the order type of the integers, by constructing a recursive linear order of type ζ which has no nontrivial Σ 1-automorphism and showing that every recursive linear order of type ζ has a nontrivial Π 1-automorphism. Rosenstein also considered linear orders of order type 2 · η, where 2 is the order type of a two-element chain and η is the order type of the rational numbers. It is easily seen that any recursive linear order of type 2 · η has a nontrivial ⊿ 2-automorphism; he showed that there is a recursive linear order of type 2 · η that has no nontrivial Σ 1-automorphism. This left the question, posed in [R] and also by Lerman and Rosenstein in [LR], of whether or ⊿ 2. The main result of this article is that :

Let LIC be the implicational fragment of Dummett's LC, axiomatised by Bull in [1] by adding the axiom (L) CCCpqrCCCqprr to positive implication. The system which Bull in [2] calls OIC, i.e. positive implication plus (0) CCCCpqqrCCCpqrr, is contained in LIC (it is thesis 34 in [1], p. 193); but it does not contain it, as the following matrix (due to Bull)

verifies OIC but not (L) (CCC342CCC4322 = 2). Nor is (L) deducible in OIC supplemented by intuitionist axioms for negation, since the latter are all verified by the above matrix with Cp5 for Np.

In classical prepositional calculus for each proposition A(p) the following holds: ⊢A(p) ↔ A3(p). In this paper we consider what remains of this in the intuitionistic case. It turns out that for each proposition A(p) the following holds: there is an n ∈ N such that

As a byproduct of the proof we give some theorems which may be useful elsewhere in propositional calculus.

A classical quantified modal logic is used to define a “feasible” arithmetic whose provably total functions are exactly the polynomial-time computable functions. Informally, one understands ⃞∝ as “∝ is feasibly demonstrable”.

differs from a system that is as powerful as Peano Arithmetic only by the restriction of induction to ontic (i.e., ⃞-free) formulas. Thus, is defined without any reference to bounding terms, and admitting induction over formulas having arbitrarily many alternations of unbounded quantifiers. The system also uses only a very small set of initial functions.

To obtain the characterization, one extends the Curry-Howard isomorphism to include modal operations. This leads to a realizability translation based on recent results in higher-type ramified recursion. The fact that induction formulas are not restricted in their logical complexity, allows one to use the Friedman A translation directly.

The development also leads us to propose a new Frege rule, the “Modal Extension” rule: if ⊢ ∝ a then ⊢ A↔ ∝ for new symbol A.

We show that every formula of Lω1P is equivalent to one which is a propositional combination of formulas with only one quantifier. It follows that the complete theory of a probability model is determined by the distribution of a family of random variables induced by the model. We characterize the class of distribution which can arise in such a way. We use these results together with a form of de Finetti’s theorem to prove an almost sure interpolation theorem for Lω1P.

If ωn has the tree property for all 2 ≤ n < ω and , then for all and n < ω. Mnt(X) exists.

The purpose of this paper is to show that semantics for relevance logic, based on the Routley-Meyer semantics, can be given without using the Routley star operator to treat negation. In the resulting semantics, negation is treated implicationally. It is shown that, by the use of restrictions on the ternary accessibility relation, simplified by the use of some definitions, a semantics can be stipulated over which R is complete.

We present two ways in which the model L(ℝ) is canonical assuming the existence of large cardinals. We show that the theory of this model, with ordinal parameters, cannot be changed by small forcing: we show further that a set of ordinals in V cannot be added to L(ℝ) by small forcing. The large cardinal needed corresponds to the consistency strength of ADL(ℝ): roughly ω Woodin cardinals.

Here we investigate the classes of representable directed cylindric algebras of dimension α introduced by Németi [12]. can be seen in two different ways: first, as an algebraic counterpart of higher order logics and second, as a cylindric algebraic analogue of Quasi-Projective Relation Algebras. We will give a new, “purely cylindric algebraic” proof for the following theorems of Németi: (i) is a finitely axiomatizable variety whenever α ≥ 3 is finite and (ii) one can obtain a strong representation theorem for if one chooses an appropriate (non-well-founded) set theory as foundation of mathematics. These results provide a purely cylindric algebraic solution for the Finitization Problem (in the sense of [11]) in some non-well-founded set theories.

Fitch-style natural deduction was first introduced into relevant logic by Anderson in [1960], for the sentential logic E of entailment and its quantincational extension EQ. This was extended by Anderson and Belnap to the sentential relevant logics R and T and some of their fragments in [ENT1], and further extended to a wide range of sentential and quantified relevant logics by Brady in [1984]. This was done by putting conditions on the elimination rules, →E, ~E, ⋁E and ∃E, pertaining to the set of dependent hypotheses for formulae used in the application of the rule. Each of these rules were subjected to the same condition, this condition varying from logic to logic. These conditions, together with the set of natural deduction rules, precisely determine the particular relevant logic. Generally, this is a simpler representation of a relevant logic than the standard Routley-Meyer semantics, with its existential modelling conditions stated in terms of an otherwise arbitrary 3-place relation R, which is defined over a possibly infinite set of worlds. Readers are urged to refer to Brady [1984], if unfamiliar with the above natural deduction systems, but we will introduce in §2 a modified version in full detail.

Natural deduction for classical logic was invented by Jaskowski and Gentzen, but it was Prawitz in [1965] who normalized natural deduction, streamlining its rules so as to allow a subformula property to be proved. (This key property ensures that each formula in the proof of a theorem is indeed a subformula of that theorem.)

The aim of the present paper is to give some general conditions for constructions by finitely many workers. Constructions using infinitely many workers will not be considered here, although there are examples of such constructions. The original construction using the method of workers, due to Harrington [H], has a worker n for each n ∈ ω, as do the constructions in [K1] and [K2]. Marker [M] obtains a result using three workers. In [AJK], there are two constructions that use three workers. There are also two constructions that have, for an arbitrary recursive ordinal α, one worker for each β < α.

The main result here is a metatheorem, which is patterned after Proposition 1 of Ash [A]. As in [A], the object of the construction is to attach “labels” to the nodes in a highly nonrecursive path through a tree, while recursively enumerating neighborhoods of an “adherent” point in a metric space. There is a family of relations associated with the labels, and the metatheorem here and the one in [A] both say that the construction will succeed if these relations satisfy a list of properties. There are significant differences between the result here and that in [A]. One difference is that certain relations which in [A] were required to be r.e. need not be r.e. here. Another difference is that there are extra relations here, and as a result, the list of properties to be satisfied is longer and more horrible than that in [A].

We improve the canonization theorems generalizing the Erdös-Rado theorem, and as a result complete the answer to “When does a Hausdorff space of cardinality χ necessarily have a discrete subspace of cardinality k” We also improve the results on existence of free subsets.

This paper is a sequel to the joint publication of Scott and Krauss [8] in which the first aspects of a mathematical theory are developed which might be called “First Order Probability Logic”. No attempt will be made to present this additional material in a self-contained form. We will use the same notation and terminology as introduced and explained in Scott and Krauss [8], and we will frequently refer to the theorems stated and proved in the preceding paper.

Let U be a consistent axiomatic theory containing Robinson's Q [TMRUT, p. 51]. In order for the results below to be of interest, U must be powerful enough to carry out certain arguments involving versions of the “derivability conditions,” DC(i) to DC(iii) below, of [HBGM, p. 285], [F60, Theorem 4.7], or [L55]. Thus it must contain, at least, mathematical induction for formulas whose prenex normal forms contain at most existential quantifiers. For convenience, U is assumed also to contain symbols for primitive recursive functions and relations, and their defining equations. One of these is used to form the standard provability predicate, Prov ˹A˺, “there exists a number which is the Gödel number of a proof of A.” Upper corners denote numerals for Gödel numbers for the enclosed sentences, and parentheses are often omitted in their presence.

This paper contains some results concerning the relation between the sentence A, and the sentence Prov ˹A˺ in the Lindenbaum Sentence Algebra (LSA) for U, the Boolean algebra induced by the pre-order relation A ≤ B ⇔ ⊦A → B. Half of the answer is provided by a theorem of Löb [L55], which states that ⊦Prov ˹A˺ → A ⇔ ⊦A. Hence, in the presence of DC(iii), below, it is never true that Prov ˹A˺ < A in the LSA. However, there is a large and interesting set of sentences, denoted here by Γ, for which A < Prov ⌜A⌝.

The notion of a symmetric extension extends the usual notion of forcing by identifying a particular class of names which forms an intermediate model of $ZF$ between the ground model and the generic extension, and often the axiom of choice fails in these models. Symmetric extensions are generally used to prove choiceless consistency results. We develop a framework for iterating symmetric extensions in order to construct new models of $ZF$. We show how to obtain some well-known and lesser-known results using this framework. Specifically, we discuss Kinna–Wagner principles and obtain some results related to their failure.

We establish several results regarding dividing and forking in NTP2 theories. We show that dividing is the same as array-dividing. Combining it with existence of strictly invariant sequences we deduce that forking satisfies the chain condition over extension bases (namely, the forking ideal is S1, in Hrushovski’s terminology). Using it we prove an independence theorem over extension bases (which, in the case of simple theories, specializes to the ordinary independence theorem). As an application we show that Lascar strong type and compact strong type coincide over extension bases in an NTP2 theory.

We also define the dividing order of a theory—a generalization of Poizat’s fundamental order from stable theories—and give some equivalent characterizations under the assumption of NTP2. The last section is devoted to a refinement of the class of strong theories and its place in the classification hierarchy.

The results in this paper were motivated by the following question of Sacks. Suppose T is a recursive theory with countably many countable models. What can you say about the least ordinal α such that all models of T have Scott rank below α? If Martin's conjecture is true for T then α ≤ ω · 2.

Our goal was to look at this problem in a more abstract setting. Let E be a equivalence relation on ωω with countably many classes each of which is Borel. What can you say about the least α such that each equivalence class is ? This problem is closely related to the following question. Suppose X ⊆ ωω is and Borel. What can you say about the least α such that X is ?

In §1 we answer these questions in ZFC. In §2 we give more informative answers under the added assumptions V = L or -determinacy. The final section contains related results on the separation of sets by Borel sets.

Our notation is standard. The reader may consult Moschovakis [5] for undefined terms.

Some of these results were proved first by Sami and rediscovered by Kechris and Marker.

Sacks [2] has asked whether there exists a uniform solution to Post's problem, i.e. an enumeration operation W such that d < W(d) < d′ for every degree d. It is shown here that if such an operation W exists it cannot itself in a particular technical sense be uniform. In fact, the jump operation is characterized amongst such uniform enumeration operations by the condition: d < W(d) for all d. In addition, it is proved that the only other uniform enumeration operations such that d ≤ W(d) for all d are those which equal the identity operation above some fixed degree.

Fraïssé studied countable structures through analysis of the age of , i.e., the set of all finitely generated substructures of . We investigate the effectiveness of his analysis, considering effectively presented lists of finitely generated structures and asking when such a list is the age of a computable structure. We focus particularly on the Fraïssé limit. We also show that degree spectra of relations on a sufficiently nice Fraïssé limit are always upward closed unless the relation is definable by a quantifier-free formula. We give some sufficient or necessary conditions for a Fraïssé limit to be spectrally universal. As an application, we prove that the computable atomless Boolean algebra is spectrally universal.

Some of the most striking results in modern set theory have emerged from the study of simply-definable sets of real numbers. Indeed, simple questions like: what are the posible cardinalities?, are they measurable?, do they have the property of Baire?, etc., cannot be answered in ZFC.

When one restricts the attention to the analytic sets, i.e., the continuous images of Borel sets, then ZFC does provide an answer to these questions. But this is no longer true for the projective sets, i.e., all the sets of reals that can be obtained from the Borel sets by taking continuous images and complements. In this paper we shall concentrate on particular projective classes, the , and using forcing constructions we will produce models of ZFC where, for some n, all , sets have some specified property. For the definition and basic facts about the projective classes , and , as well as the Kleene (or lightface) classes , and , we refer the reader to Moschovakis [19].

The first part of the paper is about measure and category. Early in this century, Luzin [16] and Luzin-Sierpiński [17] showed that all analytic (i.e., ) sets of reals are Lebesgue measurable and have the property of Baire.