We define a structure which is much simpler than a morass, but whose existence is equivalent to the existence of a morass.

Lachlan's nondiamond theorem [7, Theorem 5] asserts that there is no embedding of the four-element Boolean algebra (diamond) in the recursively enumerable degrees which preserves infima, suprema, and least and greatest elements. Lachlan observed that, essentially by relativization, the theorem can be extended to

Using the Sacks splitting theorem he concluded that there exists a pair of r.e. degrees which does not have an infimum, thus showing that the r.e. degrees do not form a lattice.

We will first prove the following extension of (1):

where an r.e. degree a is non-b-cappable if . From (2) we obtain more information about pairs of r.e. degrees without infima: For every nonzero low r.e. degree there exists an incomparable one such that the two degrees do not have an infimum and there is an r.e. degree which is not half of a pair of incomparable r.e. degrees which has an infimum in the low r.e. degrees. Probably the most interesting corollary of (2) is that the join of any cappable r.e. degree (i.e. half of a minimal pair) and any low r.e. degree is incomplete. Consequently there is an incomplete noncappable degree above every incomplete r.e. degree. Cooper's result [3] that ascending sequences of uniformly r.e. degrees can have minimal upper bounds in the set R of r.e. degrees is another corollary of (2).

The jump hierarchy of Turing degrees assigns to each ξ < (ℵ1)L the degree 0(ξ); we presuppose familiarity with its definition and with the basic terminology of [5]. Let λ be a limit ordinal, λ < (ℵ1)L. The central result of [5] concerns the relation between 0(λ) and exact pairs on Iλ = {0(ξ) ∣ ξ < λ}. In [6] this question is raised: Where a is an upper bound on Iλ, how far apart are a and 0(λ)? It is there shown that if λ is locally countable and admissible, they may be very far apart: 0(λ) = the least member of {a(Ind(λ))∣, a is an upper bound on Iλ}; this is rather pathological, for Ind(λ) may be larger than λ. If λ is locally countable but neither admissible nor a limit of admissibles, we are essentially in the case of λ < ; by results of Sacks [12] and Enderton and Putnam [2], 0(λ) = the least member of {a(2) ∣ a is an upper bound on Iλ}. If λ is not locally countable, Ind(λ) is neither admissible nor a limit of admissibles, so we are again in a case like that of λ < . But what if λ is locally countable and nonadmissible, but is a limit of admissibles? For the rest of this paper let λ be such an ordinal. The central result of this paper answers this question for some such λ.

If M ⊨ PA (= Peano Arithmetic), we set AM = {N ⊂eM: N ⊨ PA} and study this family.

A type-structure of partial effective functionals over the natural numbers, based on a canonical enumeration of the partial recursive functions, is developed. These partial functionals, defined by a direct elementary technique, turn out to be the computable elements of the hereditary continuous partial objects; moreover, there is a commutative system of enumerations of any given type by any type below (relative numberings).

By this and by results in [1] and [2], the Kleene-Kreisel countable functionals and the hereditary effective operations (HEO) are easily characterized.

In [J] R. Jensen proved that any model of ZFC can be generically extended to a model of ZFC + (∃a ⊆ ω)(V = L[a]). This extension was made via a class P of forcing conditions. One can ask what can be said about the class HOD in such extensions. In particular one can ask whether V = HOD holds in Jensen's model. A full answer to this question is given by the following assertion:

Theorem. Let N = L[a] be given by forcing with Jensen's conditions (the classP).

Then:

1. N ⊨ V ≠ HOD,

2. N ⊨ (∀n < ω)(HODn + 1 ⊈ HODω).

3. N ⊨ (∀α ≥ ω)(HODα = HODω), or equivalently HODω + 1 = HODω.

The result is established by investigating homogeneity properties of certain complete Boolean algebras that are associated with the partial orderings of forcing conditions for coding using almost disjoint sets.

We explain shortly the first of our two technical results: It is rather well known that if we have a subset then by performing threefold almost disjoint coding we come to a set a0 ⊆ ω such that ; cf. [JS]. This is achieved by iterating over almost disjoint forcing . That means we first code by a subset , of [ω1ω2) using the almost disjoint forcing conditions . Then we code by aω, contained in [ω, ω1), using forcing with over .

This paper investigates the quantifier “there exist unboundedly many” in the context of first-order arithmetic. An alternative axiomatization is found for Peano arithmetic based on an axiom schema of regularity: The union of boundedly many bounded sets is bounded. We also obtain combinatorial equivalents of certain second-order theories associated with cuts in nonstandard models of arithmetic.

Ziegler studies in [2] the expressive power of (Lωω)t for T3 topological spaces. He defines for every natural number n the set of n-types by induction: . If A is a T3 space, the n-type of a ∈ A is defined inductively by: : in every neighborhood of a there is an a′ ≠ a with tn(a′, A) = α}. These types are (Lωω)t-definable. Then, it is shown that two T3 spaces are (Lωω)t-equivalent precisely if for every n-type α they have the same number of points with n-type α (cf. [2]).

In order to study the expressability of (Lω1ω)t, for T3 spaces, we introduce in this paper the notion of accessible set. Looking at the behaviour of convergence by means of this notion, we refine Ziegler's notion of n-type and introduce a new set Sn of n-types, which are (Lω1ω)t-definable. Then, we prove a characterization of (Lω1ω)t-equivalence for a wide class of T3 spaces. A T3 space A belongs to this class if there is a κ ∈ ω such that, for every n ∈ ω, there are at most κ n-types in Sn which are satisfiable in A. Such a space is said to be of a-finite type. Some relations between these spaces and the spaces of finite type in the sense of [2] are shown in the last section.

The contents of the present paper are treated in more detail in [3].

A hundred years ago, Frege proposed a logical definition of the natural numbers based on the following idea:

He replaced this circular definition by the following one:

He tried afterwards to found his theory over a notion of class satisfying a general comprehension principle:

Russell quickly derived a contradiction from this principle (the famous Russell's paradox) but saved Frege's arithmetic with his theory of types based on the following comprehension principle:

In 1979, talking at the Claude Bernard University in Lyon, I remarked that 3 types suffice to provide Frege's arithmetic, showing in fact that PA2 (second order Peano arithmetic) holds in TT3 + AI (theory of types 0, 1, 2 plus a suitable axiom of infinity). I asked whether TT3 + AI was a conservative extension of PA2. Pabion [3] gave a positive answer by a subtle use of the Fraenkel-Moskowski method. This result will be improved in the present paper, with a view to getting models of NF3 + AI in which Frege's arithmetic forms a model isomorphic to a given countable model of PA2.

In [4] I proved that in any nontrivial algebraic language there are no algorithms which enable us to decide whether a given finite set of equations Σ has each of the following properties except P2 (for which the problem is open):

P0(Σ) = the equational theory of Σ is equationally complete.

P1(Σ) = the first-order theory of Σ is complete.

P2(Σ) = the first-order theory of Σ is model-complete.

P3(Σ) = the first-order theory of the infinite models of Σ is complete.

P4(Σ) = the first-order theory of the infinite models of Σ is model-complete.

P5(Σ) = Σ has the joint embedding property.

In this paper I prove that, in any finite trivial algebraic language, such algorithms exist for all the above Pi's. I make use of Ehrenfeucht's result [2]: The first-order theory generated by the logical axioms of any trivial algebraic language is decidable. The results proved here are part of my Ph.D. thesis [3]. I thank Wilfrid Hodges, who supervised it.

Throughout the paper is a finite trivial algebraic language, i.e. a first-order language with equality, with one operation symbol f of rank 1 and at most finitely many constant symbols.

In this paper we present an equivalence between the category of commutative regular rings and the category of Boolean-valued fields, i.e., Boolean-valued sets for which the field axioms are true. The author used this equivalence in [12] to develop a Galois theory for commutative regular rings. Here we apply the equivalence to give an alternative construction of an algebraic closure for any commutative regular ring (the original proof is due to Carson [2]).

Boolean-valued sets were developed in 1965 by Scott and Solovay [10] to simplify independence proofs in set theory. They later were applied by Takeuti [13] to obtain results on Hilbert and Banach spaces. Ellentuck [3] and Weispfenning [14] considered Boolean-valued rings which consisted of rings and associated Boolean-valued relations. (Lemma 4.2 shows that their equality relation is the same as the one used in this paper.) To the author's knowledge, the present work is the first to employ the Boolean-valued sets of Scott and Solovay to obtain results in algebra.

The idea that commutative regular rings can be studied by examining the properties of related fields is not new. For several years algebraists and logicians have investigated commutative regular rings by representing a commutative regular ring as a subdirect product of fields or as the ring of global sections of a sheaf of fields over a Boolean space (see, for example, [9] and [8]). These representations depend, as does the work presented here, on the fact that the set of central idempotents of any ring with identity forms a Boolean algebra. The advantage of the Boolean-valued set approach is that the axioms of classical logic and set theory are true in the Boolean universe. Therefore, if the axioms for a field are true for a Boolean-valued set, then other properties of the set can be deduced immediately from field theory.

Among the more traditional semantics for intuitionistic logic the Beth and the Kripke semantics seem well-suited for direct manipulations required for the derivation of metamathematical results. In particular Smoryński demonstrated the usefulness of Kripke models for the purpose of obtaining closure properties for first-order arithmetic, [S], and second-order arithmetic, [J-S]. Weinstein used similar techniques to handle intuitionistic analysis, [W]. Since, however, Beth-models seem to lend themselves better for dealing with analysis, cf. [D], we have developed a somewhat more liberal semantics, that shares the features of both Kripke and Beth semantics, in order to obtain analogues of Smoryński's collecting operations, which we will call Smoryński-glueing, in line with the categorical tradition.

(1.1) A well-known example of a theory with built-in Skolem functions is (first-order) Peano arithmetic (or rather a certain definitional extension of it). See [C-K, pp. 143, 162] for the notion of a theory with built-in Skolem functions, and for a treatment of the example just mentioned. This property of Peano arithmetic obviously comes from the fact that in each nonempty definable subset of a model we can definably choose an element, namely, its least member.

(1.2) Consider now a real closed field R and a nonempty subset D of R which is definable (with parameters) in R. Again we can definably choose an element of D, as follows: D is a union of finitely many singletons and intervals (a, b) where – ∞ ≤ a < b ≤ + ∞; if D has a least element we choose that element; if not, D contains an interval (a, b) for which a ∈ R ∪ { − ∞}is minimal; for this a we choose b ∈ R ∪ {∞} maximal such that (a, b) ⊂ D. Four cases have to be distinguished:

(i) a = − ∞ and b = + ∞; then we choose 0;

(ii) a = − ∞ and b ∈ R; then we choose b − 1;

(iii) a ∈ R and b ∈ = + ∞; then we choose a + 1;

(iv) a ∈ R and b ∈ R; then we choose the midpoint (a + b)/2.

It follows as in the case of Peano arithmetic that the theory RCF of real closed fields has a definitional extension with built-in Skolem functions.

We consider a well-known partial order of Prikry for producing a collapsing function of minimal degree. Assuming MA + ¬CH, every new real constructs the collapsing map.

Under the assumption that all “rules” are recursive (ECT) the statement Cont(NN, N) that all functions from NN to N are continuous becomes equivalent to a statement KLS in the language of arithmetic about “effective operations”. Our main result is that KLS is underivable in intuitionistic Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory + ECT. Similar results apply for functions from R to R and from 2N to N. Such results were known for weaker theories, e.g. HA and HAS. We extend not only the theorem but the method, fp-realizability, to intuitionistic ZF.

An impressive theory has been developed, largely by Shelah, around the notion of a stable theory. This includes detailed structure theorems for the models of such theories as well as a generalized notion of independence. The various stability properties can be defined in terms of the numbers of types over sets, or in terms of the complexity of definable sets. In the concrete examples of stable theories, however, one finds an important distinction between “positive” and “negative” information, such a distinction not being an a priori consequence of the general definitions. In the naive examples this may take the form of distinguishing between say a class of a definable equivalence relation and the complement of a class. In the more algebraic examples, this distinction may have a “topological” significance, for example with the Zariski topology on (the set of n-tuples of) an algebraically closed field, the “closed” sets being those given by sets of polynomial equalities. Note that in the latter case, every definable set is a Boolean combination of such closed sets (the definable sets are precisely the constructible sets). Similarly, stability conditions in practice reduce to chain conditions on certain “special” definable sets (e.g. in modules, stable groups). The aim here is to develop and present such notions in the general (model-theoretic) context. The basic notion is that of an “equation”. Given a complete theory T in a language L, an L-formula φ(x̄, ȳ) is said to be an equation (in x̄) if any collection Φ of instances of φ(i.e. of formulae φ(x̄, ā)) is equivalent to a finite subset Φ′ ⊂ Φ.