We determine the proof-theoretic ordinals (i) of ${\cal C} - {\bf{TI}}[\alpha ]$, the transfinite induction along α, for any hyperarithmetical level ${\cal C}$, in the first order setting and (ii) of any combination of iterated arithmetical comprehension and ${\cal C} - {\bf{TI}}[\alpha ]$ for ${\cal C}\, \equiv \,{\rm{\Pi }}_k^i ,{\rm{\Sigma }}_k^i$ ($i\, = \,0,1$) in the second order setting.

Let G be a Polish topological group, let X be a Polish space, let J: G × X → X be a Borel-measurable action of G on X, and let A ⊂ X be a Borel set which is invariant with respect to J, i.e., a Borel set of orbits. The following statement, or various equivalent versions of it, is known as the Topological Vaught's Conjecture.

We say that A contains perfectly many orbits if there is a perfect set P ⊂ A such that no two elements of P are in the same orbit. (Assuming ¬CH, A contains perfectly many orbits iff it contains 2ℵ0 orbits.) The Topological Vaught's Conjecture implies the usual, model theoretic, Vaught's Conjecture for Lω1ω, since the isomorphism classes are the orbits of an action of the group of permutations of ω; we give details in §0. The “Borel” assumption cannot be weakened for either A or J.

Given a Borel-measurable Polish action (G,X,J) and an invariant Borel set B ⊂ X, we say that B is a minimal counterexample if (G,X,J,B) is a counterexample to the Topological Vaught's Conjecture and for every invariant Borel C ⊂ B, either C or B\C contains only countably many orbits. This paper is concerned with counterexamples to the Topological Vaught's Conjecture (of course, there may not be any), and in particular, with minimal counterexamples. First, there is a theorem on the existence of minimal counterexamples. This theorem was known for the model theoretic case (it is due to Harnik and Makkai), and is here generalized to arbitrary Borel-measurable Polish actions. Second, we study the properties of minimal counterexamples. We give two different necessary and sufficient conditions for a counterexample to be minimal, as well as some consequences of minimality. Some of these results are proved assuming determinacy axioms.This second part seems to be new even in the model theoretic case.

We show that there is a low T-upper bound for the class of K-trivial sets, namely those which are weak from the point of view of algorithmic randomness. This result is a special case of a more general characterization of ideals in T-degrees for which there is a low T-upper bound.

We consider various strengthenings of the combinatorial principle ◊+ which are provable from V = L, and give applications in set theory.

On any reasonable definition of functions, neither the category of sets nor the category of small categories is cartesian closed in New Foundations (NF). The latter category is sometimes proposed as a foundation for category theory since it is among its own objects. Our result shows it is a poor one.

In NF, as in other set theories, a "function" f from a set A to a set B is defined to be a set f of ordered pairs 〈x, y〉 with x in A and y in B, such that (a) if 〈x, y〉 ∈ f and 〈x, y′〉 ∈ f then y = y′, and (b) for every x in A there is some y in B with 〈x, y〉 ∈ f. But in NF different definitions of ordered pairs give significantly different functions. I say a reasonable definition must give:

1. The formula z = 〈x, y〉 is stratifiable.

2. For every set S there is a set {〈x, x〉 ∣ x ∈ S}.

3. If f is a function from A to B, and g one from B to C, there is a set {〈x, z〉∣(∃y)〈x, y〉∈ f & 〈y, z〉∈ g}.

Principles 2 and 3 are needed for identity functions and composites. By principle 1, any sets A and B have a set A × B of all ordered pairs 〈x, y〉 with x in A and y in B, but it does not follow that functions exist making A × B a categorical product of A and B.

During the 1989 European ASL Summer Meeting in Berlin, the authors gave a series of eight lectures (short course) on the topic of the title. This survey article consists basically of the lecture notes for that course distributed to the participants of that conference. We have purposely tried in this printed version to preserve the informal style of the original notes.

Let us say first a few things aboui the content of these lectures. Our aim has been to present some recent work in descriptive set theory and its applications to an area of harmonic analysis. Typical uses of descriptive set theory in analysis are most often through regularity properties of definable sets, like measurability, the property of Baire, capacitability, etc., which are used to show that certain problems have solutions that behave nicely. In the theory we will present, definability itself, in fact the precise analysis of the “definable complexity” of certain sets, will be the main concern. It will be through such knowledge that we will be able to infer important structural properties of various objects which will then be used to solve analysis problems.

The first lecture provides a short historical introduction to the subject of uniqueness for trigonometric series, which is the area of harmonic analysis whose problems are the origin of this work. As is well known, it was Cantor who proved the first major result in this subject in 1870, and it was his subsequent work here that led him to the creation of set theory.

We show, for any ordinal γ ≥ 3, that the class ℜaCAγ is pseudo-elementary and has a recursively enumerable elementary theory. ScK denotes the class of strong subalgebras of members of the class K. We devise games, Fn (3 ≤ n ≤ ω), G, H, and show, for an atomic relation algebra with countably many atoms, that

for 3 ≤ n < ω. We use these games to show, for γ > 5 and any class K of relation algebras satisfying

that K is not closed under subalgebras and is not elementary. For infinite γ, the inclusion ℜaCAγ ⊂ ScℜaCAγ is strict.

For infinite γ and for a countable relation algebra we show that has a complete representation if and only if is atomic and ∃ has a winning strategy in F (At()) if and only if is atomic and ∈ ScℜaCAγ.

Weakly minimal sets were first invented by Shelah [S] to solve Łoś' conjecture for uncountable theories. The first major result about them, which is that any nonalgebraic strong type either is of Morley rank 1 or has locally modular geometry, was proved by Buechler [B1]. Recently, Hrushovski [Hr] showed that a locally modular weakly minimal set interprets an abelian group, a result which revolutionized the study of these sets. Also Hrushovski showed that the geometry on the connected component of a weakly minimal locally modular group is that of a vector space over a division ring. This is also implicit in the result of Pillay and Hrushovski (Theorem 1.3 from [HP]) quoted below. In a sense, this completes their study, as any vector space over any division ring is in fact strongly minimal if there is no other structure. But the question remains as to what other structure such a group could have. This is the issue we address here.

Some work has been done on this question; in fact, Pillay ([Pi], generalized in [HP]) has demonstrated, in the more general context of a weakly normal group A, that any definable subset of An is in fact a Boolean combination of almost 0-definable cosets of almost 0-definable subgroups. In the weakly minimal case this can be sharpened a fair bit. The case of a weakly minimal group of bounded exponent is dealt with in [HL]. Here we consider the case where the group has unbounded exponent.

In [1], p. 171, Sacks asks (question (Q5)) whether there is a recursively enumerable degree of unsolvability d such that for all n ≧ 0. Sacks points out that the set of conditions which d must satisfy is not arithmetical. For this reason he suggests that a proof of (Q5) might require some new combinatorial device. The purpose of this note is to show how (Q5) may be proved simply by extending the methods of [l].2

We reformulate, in the context of continuous logic, an oscillation theorem proved by G. Hjorth and give a proof of the theorem in that setting which is similar to, but simpler than, Hjorth's original one. The point of view presented here clarifies the relation between Hjorth's theorem and first-order logic.

I present solutions to several questions of Paul Bankston [2] by means of another version of the ultracoproduct construction, and explain the relation of ultracoproduct of compact Hausdorff spaces to other constructions combining topology, algebra and logic.

A countably infinite relational structure M is called absolutely ubiquitous if the following holds: whenever N is a countably infinite structure, and M and N have the same isomorphism types of finite induced substructures, there is an isomorphism from M to N. Here a characterisation is given of absolutely ubiquitous structures over languages with finitely many relation symbols. A corresponding result is proved for uncountable structures.

This paper answers some questions of D. Ross in [R]. In §1, we show that some consequences of the ℵ1- or ℵ1-special model axiom in [R] cannot be proved by the κ-isomorphism property for any cardinal κ. In §2, we show that with one exception, the ℵ0-isomorphism property does imply the remaining consequences of the special model axiom in [R]. In §3, we improve a result in [R] by showing that the κ-special model axiom is equivalent to the ℵ0-special model axiom plus κ-saturation.

We consider various versions of the ♣ principle. This principle is a known consequence of ◊. It is well known that ◊ is not sensitive to minor changes in its definition, e.g., changing the guessing requirement form “guessing exactly” to “guessing modulo a finite set”. We show however, that this is not true for ♣. We consider some other variants of ♣ as well.

We prove that the first-order theory of the Medvedev degrees, the first-order theory of the Muchnik degrees, and the third-order theory of true arithmetic are pairwise recursively isomorphic (obtained independently by Lewis, Nies, and Sorbi [7]). We then restrict our attention to the degrees of closed sets and prove that the following theories are pairwise recursively isomorphic: the first-order theory of the closed Medvedev degrees, the first-order theory of the compact Medvedev degrees, the first-order theory of the closed Muchnik degrees, the first-order theory of the compact Muchnik degrees, and the second-order theory of true arithmetic. Our coding methods also prove that neither the closed Medvedev degrees nor the compact Medvedev degrees are elementarily equivalent to either the closed Muchnik degrees or the compact Muchnik degrees.

It is known that Leśniewski constructed an interpretation of mereology in the real number system using binary expansions.2 Unfortunately, this construction is no longer extant. The following paper, except for a slight variation, is an attempt to reconstruct this interpretation.

Leśniewski probably considered sequences of 0's and I's (except for the sequence of all 0's) and defined a first sequence as an element of the second if every place in which the first has a I, so also does the second.

In this paper a number of nonstandard systems of predicate logic with or without identity, are translated with subsystems of applied standard system of predicate logic with identity. There are nonstandard theories of quantification which, following [16], are described as inclusive systems; their theorems are valid in all domains, including the empty domain. Theories of quantification which allow for the substitution of denotationless terms for free variables, are described, following [21], as systems of free logic; they are said to be free of the requirement that all singular terms must have denotations. Free logics and inclusive logics may each be of the other type. A nonstandard theory of identity, described, following [12] as a theory of nonreflexive identity, may be combined with a standard or with a nonstandard theory of quantification. Another kind of nonstandard system of predicate logic examined is a nonstandard version of a system of monadic predicate logic in which a distinction is made between sentence and predicate negation, and which is nonstandard in the sense that the laws relating sentence and predicate negation diverge from the standard ones. In the systems examined, this is combined with an inclusive quantification theory.

The notion of strong reduction is introduced in Curry and Feys' book Combinatory logic [1] as an analogue, in the theory of combinatore, to reduction (more exactly, βη-reduction) in the theory of λ-conversion. The existence of an analogue and its possible importance are suggested by an equivalence between the theory of combinatore and λ-conversion, and the Church-Rosser theorem in λ-conversion. This theorem implies that if a formula X is convertible to a formula X* which cannot be further reduced—is irreducible, or in normal form—then X is convertible to X* by a reduction alone. Moreover, the reduction may be performed in a certain prescribed order.

We construct the finitely generated free algebras and determine the free spectra of varieties of linear equivalential algebras and linear equivalential algebras of finite height corresponding, respectively, to the equivalential fragments of intermediate Gödel-Dummett logic and intermediate finite-valued logics of Gödel. Thus we compute the number of purely equivalential propositional formulas in these logics in n variables for an arbitrary n ∈ ℕ.

Since the late 1940's model theory has found numerous applications to algebra. I would like to indicate some of the points of contact between model theoretic methods and strictly algebraic concerns by means of a few concrete examples and typical applications.

§1. The Lefschetz principle. Algebraic geometry has proved to be a fruitful source of model theoretic ideas. What exactly is algebraic geometry? We consider a field K, and let Kn be the set of n-tuples (a 1 … an ) with coordinates ai in K. Kn is called affine n-space over K. Fix polynomials p 1 …, pk in K[x 1, …, xn ] and define

that is V(p 1 …, pk ) is the locus of common zeroes of the pi in Kn . We call V(Pi …, Pk ) the algebraic variety determined by p 1, …, pk . With this terminology we may say:

Algebraic geometry is the study of algebraic varieties defined over an arbitrary field K. This definition lacks both rigor and accuracy, and we will indicate below how it may be improved.

So far we have placed no restrictions on the base field K. Following Weil [4] it is convenient to start with a so-called “universal domain”; in other words take K to be algebraically closed and of infinite transcendence degree over the prime field. Any particular field can of course be embedded in such a universal domain.