We construct a type p with preweight ω with respect to itself in a theory with few types. A type with this property must be present in a stable theory with finitely many (but more than one) countable models. The construction is a modification of Hrushovski's important pseudoplane construction.

We characterize, in terms of determinacy, the existence of the least inner model of “every object of type k has a sharp.” For k ∈ ω, we define two classes of sets, and , which lie strictly between and . Let #k be the (partial) sharp function on objects of type k. We show that the determinacy of follows from

L[#k] ⊨ “every object of type k has a sharp”,

and we show that the existence of indiscemibles for L[#k] is equivalent to a slightly stronger determinacy hypothesis, the determinacy of .

Assuming 0# does not exist, we present a combinatorial approach to Jensen's method of coding by a real. The forcing uses combinatorial consequences of fine structure (including the Covering Lemma, in various guises), but makes no direct appeal to fine structure itself.

We continue the investigation of the Laver ideal ℓ0 and Miller ideal m0 started in [GJSp] and [GRShSp]; these are the ideals on the Baire space associated with Laver forcing and Miller forcing. We solve several open problems from these papers. The main result is the construction of models for t < add(ℓ0), < add(m0), where add denotes the additivity coefficient of an ideal. For this we construct amoeba forcings for these forcings which do not add Cohen reals. We show that = ω2 implies add(m0) ≤ . We show that , implies cov(ℓ0) ≤ +, cov(m0) ≤ + respectively. Here cov denotes the covering coefficient. We also show that in the Cohen model cov(m0) < holds. Finally we prove that Cohen forcing does not add a superperfect tree of Cohen reals.

Since Georg Cantor discovered set theory the main problem in this area of mathematical research has been to discover what is the size of the continuum. The continuum hypothesis (CH) says that every infinite set of reals either has the same cardinality as the set of all reals or has the cardinality of the set of natural numbers, namely

In 1939 Kurt Gödel discovered the Constructible Universe and proved that CH holds in it. In the early sixties Paul Cohen proved that every universe of set theory can be extended to a bigger universe of set theory where CH fails. Moreover, given any reasonable cardinal κ, it is possible to build a model where the continuum size is κ. The new technique discovered by Cohen is called forcing and is being used successfully in other branches of mathematics (analysis, algebra, graph theory, etc.).

In the light of these two stupendous works the experts (especially the platonists) were forced to conclude that from the point of view of the classical axiomatization of set theory (called ZFC) it is impossible to give any answer to the continuum size problem: everything is possible!

In private communications Gödel suggested that the continuum size from a platonistic point of view should be ω2, the second uncountable cardinal. As this is not provable in ZFC, Gödel suggested that a new axiom should be added to ZFC to decide that the cardinality of the continuum is ω2.

The primary relation studied in recursion theory is that of relative complexity: A set or function A (of natural numbers) is reducible to one B if, given access to information about B, we can compute A. The primary reducibility is that of Turing, A ≤TB, where arbitrary (Turing) machines, φe, can be used; access to information about (the oracle) B is unlimited and the lengths of computations are potentially unbounded. Many other interesting reducibilities result from restricitng one or more of these facets of the procedure. Thus, for example, the strongest notion considered is one-one reducibility on sets: A ≤1B iff there is a one-one recursive (= effective) function f such that x Є A ⇔ f(x) Є B. Many-one (≤m) reducibility simply allows f to be many-one. Other intermediate reducibilities include truth-table (≤tt) and weak truth-table (≤wtt). The latter imposes a recursive bound f(x) on the information about B that can be used to compute A(x). The former also bounds the length of computations by requiring that the computation of A(x) from B halt in at most f(x) many steps.

Each such reducibility r defines a notion of degree, degr(A) = {B : A ≤rB ∧ B ≤rA}, and a corresponding structure of the r-degrees ordered by r-reducibility. (We typically denote the degree of A by a.) A major theme in recursion theory has been the investigation of the relation between a set's place in these orderings (the algebraic properties of its degree) and other algorithmic, set-theoretic or definability type notions of complexity. Important examples of such other notions include rates of growth of functions, the types of approximation procedures which converge to the given function or set and the (syntactic) complexity of defining the set (or function) in arithmetic or analysis.

Storage operators have been introduced by J. L. Krivine in [5] they are closed λ-terms which, for a data type, allow one to simulate a “call by value” while using the “call by name” strategy. In this paper, we introduce the directed λ-calculus and show that it has the usual properties of the ordinary λ-calculus. With this calculus we get an equivalent—and simple—definition of the storage operators that allows to show some of their properties:

• the stability of the set of storage operators under the β-equivalence (Theorem 5.1.1);

• the undecidability (and semidecidability) of the problem “is a closed λ-term t a storage operator for a finite set of closed normal λ-terms?” (Theorems 5.2.2 and 5.2.3);

• the existence of storage operators for every finite set of closed normal λ-terms (Theorem 5.4.3);

• the computation time of the “storage operation” (Theorem 5.5.2).

We lay the combinatorial foundations for [5] by setting up and proving the essential properties of the coding apparatus for singular cardinals. We also prove another result concerning the coding apparatus for inaccessible cardinals.

The bounded proper forcing axiom BPFA is the statement that for any family of ℵ1 many maximal antichains of a proper forcing notion, each of size ℵ1, there is a directed set meeting all these antichains.

A regular cardinal κ is called ∑1-reflecting, if for any regular cardinal χ, for all formulas φ, “H(χ) ⊨ ‘φ’” implies “∃δ < κ, H(δ) ⊨ ‘φ’”.

We investigate several algebraic consequences of BPFA, and we show that the consistency strength of the bounded proper forcing axiom is exactly the existence of a ∑1-reflecting cardinal (which is less than the existence of a Mahlo cardinal).

We also show that the question of the existence of isomorphisms between two structures can be reduced to the question of rigidity of a structure.

We prove that any positive elementary (least fixed point) induction expressing the negation of transitive closure on finite nondirected graphs requires at least two recursion variables.

Both syntactic and semantic solutions are given for the entailment problem of duality theory. The test algebra theorem provides both a syntactic solution to the entailment problem in terms of primitive positive formula and a new derivation of the corresponding result in clone theory, viz. the syntactic description of Inv(Pol(R)) for a given set R of unitary relations on a finite set. The semantic solution to the entailment problem follows from the syntactic one, or can be given in the form of an algorithm. It shows, in the special case of a purely relational type, that duality-theoretic entailment is describable in terms of five constructs, namely trivial relations, intersection, repetition removal, product, and retractive projection. All except the last are concrete, in the sense that they are described by a quantifier-free formula. It is proved that if the finite algebra M generates a congruence-distributive variety and all subalgebras of M are subdirectly irreducible, then concrete constructs suffice to describe entailment. The concept of entailment appropriate to strong dualities is also introduced, and described in terms of coordinate projections, restriction of domains, and composition of partial functions.

Tense logics in the bimodal propositional language are investigated with respect to the Finite Model Property. In order to prove positive results techniques from investigations of modal logics above K4 are extended to tense logic. General negative results show the limits of the transfer.

We show that it is not possible to construct a Fraenkel-Mostowski model in which the axiom of choice for well-ordered families of sets and the axiom of choice for sets of well-orderable sets are both true, but the axiom of choice is false.

Let T be a complete o-minimal extension of the theory of real closed fields. We characterize the convex hulls of elementary substructures of models of T and show that the residue field of such a convex hull has a natural expansion to a model of T. We give a quantifier elimination relative to T for the theory of pairs (ℛ, V) where ℛ ⊨ T and V ≠ ℛ is the convex hull of an elementary substructure of ℛ. We deduce that the theory of such pairs is complete and weakly o-minimal. We also give a quantifier elimination relative to T for the theory of pairs with ℛ a model of T and a proper elementary substructure that is Dedekind complete in ℛ. We deduce that the theory of such “tame” pairs is complete.

Jónsson and Tarski [1951] introduced the notion of a Boolean algebra with (additive) operators (for short, a Bo). They showed that every Bo can be extended to a complete and atomic Bo satisfying certain additional conditions, and that any two complete, atomic extensions of satisfying these conditions are isomorphic over . Henkin [1970] extended these results to Boolean algebras with generalized (i.e., weakly additive) operators. The particular complete, atomic extension of studied by Jónsson and Tarski is called the perfect extension of , and is denoted by +. It is very useful in algebraic investigations of classes of algebras that are associated with logics.

Interesting examples of Bos abound in algebraic logic, and include relation algebras, cylindric algebras, and polyadic and quasi-polyadic algebras (with or without equality). Moreover, there are several important constructions that, when applied to certain Bos, lead to other, derived Bos. Obvious examples include the formation of subalgebras, homomorphic images, relativizations, and direct products. Other examples include the Boolean algebra of ideal elements of a Bo, the neat β;-reduct of an α-dimensional cylindric algebra (β; < α), and the relation algebraic reduct of a cylindric algebra (of dimension at least 3). It is natural to ask about the relationship between the perfect extension of a Bo and the perfect extension of one of its derived algebras ′: Is the perfect extension of the derived algebra just the derived algebra of the perfect extension? In symbols, is (′)+ = (+)′? For example, is the perfect extension of a subalgebra, homomorphic image, relativization, or direct product, just the corresponding subalgebra, homomorphic image, relativization, or direct product of the perfect extension (up to isomorphisms)? Is the perfect extension of the Boolean algebra of ideal elements, or the neat reduct of a cylindric algebra, or the relation algebraic reduct of a cylindric algebra just the Boolean algebra of ideal elements, or the neat β;-reduct, or the relation algebraic reduct, of the perfect extension? We shall prove a general result in this direction; namely, if the derived algebra is constructed as the range of a relatively multiplicative operator, then the answer to our question is “yes”. We shall also give examples to show that in “infinitary” constructions, our question can have a spectacularly negative answer.

Let κ and λ be infinite cardinals, a filter on κ and a set of functions from κ to κ. The filter is generated by if consists of those subsets of κ which contain the range of some element of . The set is <λ-closed if it is closed in the <λ-topology on κκ. (In general, the <λ-topology on IA has basic open sets all such that, for all i ∈ I, Ui ⊆ A and ∣{i ∈ I: Ui ≠ A} ∣<λ.) The primary question considered in this paper asks “Is there a uniform ultrafilter on κ which is generated by a closed set of functions?” (Closed means <ω-closed.) We also establish the independence of two related questions. One is due to Carlson: “Does there exist a regular cardinal κ and a subtree T of <κκ such that the set of branches of T generates a uniform ultrafilter on κ?”; and the other is due to Pouzet: “For all regular cardinals κ, is it true that no uniform ultrafilter on κ is it true that no uniform ultrafilter on κ analytic?”

We show that if κ is a singular, strong limit cardinal, then there is a uniform ultrafilter on κ which is generated by a closed set of increasing functions. Also, from the consistency of an almost huge cardinal, we get the consistency of CH + “There is a uniform ultrafilter on ℵ1 which is generated by a closed set of increasing functions”. In contrast with the above results, we show that if Κ is any cardinal, λ is a regular cardinal less than or equal to κ and ℙ is the forcing notion for adding at least (κ<λ)+ generic subsets of λ, then in VP, no uniform ultrafilter on κ is generated by a closed set of functions.

In this paper we characterize the well-known computational complexity classes of the polynomial time hierarchy as classes of provably recursive functions (with graphs of suitable bounded complexity) of some second order theories with weak comprehension axiom schemas but without any induction schemas (Theorem 6). We also find a natural relationship between our theories and the theories of bounded arithmetic (Lemmas 4 and 5). Our proofs use a technique which enables us to “speed up” induction without increasing the bounded complexity of the induction formulas. This technique is also used to obtain an interpretability result for the theories of bounded arithmetic (Theorem 4).

We prove that a number of axioms, each a consequence of PFA (the Proper Forcing Axiom) are equivalent. In particular we show that TOP (the Thinning-out Principle as introduced by Baumgartner in the Handbook of set-theoretic topology), is equivalent to the following statement: If I is an ideal on ω1 with ω1 generators, then there exists an uncountable X ⊆ ω1, such that either [X]ω ∩ I = ∅ or [X]ω ⊆ I.

We show that the Π4-theory of the partial order of recursively enumerable weak truth-table degrees is undecidable, and give a new proof of the similar fact for r.e. T-degrees. This is accomplished by introducing a new coding scheme which consists in defining the class of finite bipartite graphs with parameters.

This paper considers o-minimal expansions of the structure —the ordered additive reals. More particularly we consider the case when the expansions are “eventually nonlinear” (see below), and find that multiplication is actually definable in all cases except when the structure is “eventually almost linear”, which is a rare special case in which multiplication is obviously not definable. Thus the main theorem established is:

Theorem 1.1. For an o-minimal expansion of , if is eventually non-almost-linear then multiplication is definable in.

(A structure is eventually almost linear iff every definable function f is of the form f(x) = λx + c + ε(x) on some interval (K, ∞), where λ, c Є ℝ and ε is a function of x which tends to 0 faster than any negative power of x as x → +∞. Otherwise, i.e. if there is a definable function which is not of this form, it is eventually non-almost-linear.)

This is proved in §4.1, after §§2 and 3 have established technology concerning the rate of growth of functions and approximating derivatives.

In §4.2 an analogy is made with the result of exponentiation being definable in a polynomially unbounded o-minimal expansion of ℝ as an ordered field (see [Mi]). In fact, by means of the isomorphism x ↦ ln(x) we see that Theorem 1.1 also implies this latter result.

Unless otherwise stated, all structures considered in the paper have ℝ as their universe and all functions are real functions.