Let T be a (countable, complete, quantifier eliminable) ω-stable theory; an analysis of T, and consequently a classification of ω-stable theories, can be done by looking at the Boolean algebras B(M) of definable subsets of its countable models M (as usual, we often confuse a definable subset of M with the class of formulas defining it). If M ⊨ T, ∣M∣ = ℵ0, then, for every LM-formula ϕ(v) and for every ordinal α, we define a relation

(CB = Cantor-Bendixson, of course) by induction on α:

CB-rank ϕ(v) ≥ 0 if ϕ(M) ≠ ∅

CB-rank ϕ(v) ≥ λ for λ a limit ordinal, if CB-rank ϕ(v) ≥ for all v < λ;

CB-rank ϕ(v)≥ α + 1 if, for all n ∈ ω,

(*) there are LM-formulas ϕ0(v), …, ϕn − 1(v) such that

It is well known that the ω-stability of T implies that, for every consistent LM-formula ϕ(v), there is exactly one ordinal α < ω1 such that CB-rank ϕ(v) ≥ α and CB-rank ϕ(v)≱α + 1. Therefore we define:

CB-rank ϕ(v) = α

CB-degree ϕ(v) = d if d is the maximal n ∈ ω satisfying (*); and

CB-type ϕ(v) = (α, d).

Intuitionistic Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, which we call ZFI, was introduced by Friedman and Myhill in [3] in 1970. The idea was to have a theory with the same axioms as ordinary classical ZF, but with Heyting's predicate calculus HPC as the underlying logic. Since some classically equivalent statements are intuitionistically inequivalent, however, it was not always obvious which form of a classical axiom to take. For example, the usual formulation of the axiom of foundation had to be replaced with a principle of transfinite induction on the membership relation in order to avoid having excluded middle provable and thus making the logic classical. In [3] the replacement axiom is taken in its most common classical form:

In the presence of the separation axiom,

this is equivalent to the axiom

It is this schema Rep that we shall call the replacement axiom.

Friedman and Myhill were able to show in [3] that ZFI has a number of desirable “constructive” properties, including the existence property for both numbers and sets. They were not able to determine, however, whether ZFI is proof-theoretically as strong as ZF. This is still open.

Three years later, in [2], Friedman introduced a theory ZF− which is like ZFI except that the replacement axiom is changed to the classically equivalent collection axiom:

He showed that ZF− is proof-theoretically of the same strength as ZF, and he asked whether ZF− is equivalent to ZFI.

In this paper we give a positive answer to Julia Robinson's question whether the definability of + and · from S and ∣ that she proved in the case of positive integers is extendible to arbitrary integers (cf. [JR, p. 102]).

In the December 1982 issue of this Journal Weitkamp [W] posed some questions concerning the incomparability of certain “r.e.” sets for the notion of Kleene reducibility. He asked whether the incomparability of, for example, the Friedman set F (defined below) and the set WI0 (the set of reals coding wellfounded trees of admissible height) was equivalent to the existence of 0#, since forcing over L with a set of conditions could not achieve this. We answer this by showing that in a certain class generic extension of L they are comparable, but 0# does not exist. This is an application of Jensen's coding theorem (cf. [BJW]), using a modified construction due to René David [D]. Indeed the result here is a simple application of his result. Define F as follows:

Harrington showed, in effect, that one could not add a cone of Turing degrees to this set by forcing with sets of conditions over L. The method used here does add a cone of Turing degrees to a much simpler set RI1 (defined below)—and indeed the whole process could be viewed as forcing over L to obtain the determinacy of certain rather simple sets. It is the determinacy of the game with payoff set RI1 that ensures the comparability of F and WI0 (amongst many others).

We shall refrain from repeating all the basic definitions and lemmas since the reader can readily refer to [W]; we shall give the basic necessities.

If κ is a measurable cardinal, then it is a well-known fact that there is at least one normal ultrafilter over κ. In [K-1], Kunen showed that one cannot say more without further assumptions, for if U is a normal ultrafilter over κ, then L[U] is an inner model of ZFC in which κ has exactly one normal measure. On the other hand, Kunen and Paris showed [K-P] that if κ is measurable in the ground model, then there is a forcing extension in which κ has normal ultrafilters, so it is consistent that κ has the maximum possible number of normal ultrafilters. Starting with assumptions stronger than measurability, Mitchell [Mi-1] filled in the gap by constructing models of ZFC + GCH satisfying “there are exactly λ normal ultrafilters over κ”, where λ could be κ+ or κ++ (measured in the model), or anything ≤ κ. Whether or not Mitchell's results can be obtained by starting only with a measurable cardinal in the ground model and defining a forcing extension is unknown.

There are substantial differences between the Mitchell models and the Kunen-Paris models. In the Kunen-Paris models κ can be the only measurable cardinal. However, in the Mitchell model in which κ has exactly 2 normal ultrafilters, one of them contains the set {α < κ: α is measurable} while the other does not. Thus it is natural to ask if it is possible to get a model M of ZFC in which κ is the only measurable cardinal and κ has exactly 2 normal ultrafilters. In this paper we will show that, using appropriate large cardinal assumptions, the answer is yes.

S. Ulam asked about the number of nonisomorphic projective algebras with κ generators. This paper answers his question for projective algebras of finite dimension at least three and shows that there are the maximum possible number, continuum many, of nonisomorphic one-generated structures of finite dimension n, where n is at least three, of the following kinds: projective set algebras, projective algebras, diagonal-free cylindric set algebras, diagonal-free cylindric algebras, cylindric set algebras, and cylindric algebras. The results of this paper extend earlier results to the collection of cylindric set algebras and provide a uniform proof for all the results. Extensions of these results for dimension two are discussed where some modifications on the hypotheses are needed. Furthermore for α ≥ 2, the number of isomorphism classes of regular locally finite cylindric set algebras of dimension α of the following two kinds are computed: ones of power κ for infinite κ ≥ ∣α∣, and ones with a single generator.

This paper establishes another very general completeness result for the logics within the field of K4. With each finite transitive frame ℭ we may associate a formula — Bℭ which validates just those frames ℑ in which ℭ is not in a certain sense embeddable (to be exact, ℭ is not the p-morphic image of any subframe of ℑ. By a subframe logic we mean the result of adding such formulas as axioms to K4. The general result is that each subframe logic has the finite model property.

There are a continuum of subframe logics and they include many of the standard ones, such as T, S4, S4.3, S5 and G. It turns out that the subframe logics are exactly those complete for a condition that is closed under subframes (any subframe of a frame satisfying the condition also satisfies the condition). As a consequence, every logic complete for a condition closed under subframes has the finite model property.

It is ascertained which of the subframe logics are compact. It turns out that the compact logics are just those whose axioms express an elementary condition. Tests are given for determining whether a given axiom expresses an elementary condition and for determining what it is in case it does.

In one respect the present general completeness result differs from most of the others in the literature. The others have usually either been what one might call logic based or formula based. They have usually either been to the effect that all of the logics containing a given logic are complete or to the effect that all logics whose axioms come from a given syntactically characterized class of formulas are complete. The present result is, by contrast, what one might call frame based. The axioms of the logics to be proved complete are characterized most directly in terms of their connection with certain frames.

One of the most fundamental results of higher-type recursion theory was first proved by Thomas Grilliot [3]. He showed that the functional embodying number quantification, 2E, is computable from a type-2 object F if and only if F has an effective discontinuity. For the background to this work we recommend Normann's book [9] or his summary [10], and for an example of its many applications Normann-Wainer [11].

The purpose of §1 of this paper is to give an effective proof of the “only if” part of this result: i.e. a construction of a discontinuity of F from the information 2E = {e}F. This contrasts with Grilliot's argument which is topological and nonconstructive, and shows that “Grilliot's trick” for computing 2E from a discontinuity of F is essentially the only method.

We then apply the method to two more general situations in which it gives new results. In §2 we treat type-3 objects in which 3E is computable (assuming AC and CH), and obtain a strengthening of the result of Hartley [5, §5]. In §3 we consider the superjump and characterise it as the least among a class of functionals with a particular sort of family of discontinuities.

The present work may perhaps be seen as a point of convergence of two historically distinct sequences of results. One sequence of results started with the work of Tennenbaum [59] who showed that there could be no nonstandard recursive model of the system PA of first order Peano arithmetic. Shepherdson [65] on the other hand showed that the system of arithmetic with open induction was sufficiently weak to allow the construction of nonstandard recursive models. Between these two results there remained for many years a large gap occasioned by a general lack of interest in weak systems of arithmetic. However Dana Scott observed that the addition alone of a nonstandard model of PA could not be recursive, while more recently McAloon [82] improved these results by showing that even for the weaker system of arithmetic with only bounded induction, neither the addition nor the multiplication of a nonstandard model could be recursive.

Another sequence of results starts with the work of Lessan [78], and independently Jensen and Ehrenfeucht [76], who showed that the structures which may be obtained as the reducts to addition of countable nonstandard models of PA are exactly the countable recursively saturated models of Presburger arithmetic. More recently, Cegielski, McAloon and the author [81] showed that the above result holds true if PA is replaced by the much weaker system of bounded induction.

However in both the case of the Tennenbaum phenomenon and in that of the recursive saturation of addition the problem remained open as to how strong a system was really necessary to generate the required phenomenon. All that was clear a priori was that open induction was too weak to produce either result.

In this paper a model for barrecursion is presented. It has as a novelty that it contains discontinuous functionals. The model is based on a concept called strong majorizability. This concept is a modification of Howard's majorizability notion; see [T, p. 456].

In this paper it will be shown that HEO and HROE are isomorphic with respect to extensional equality. This answers a question of Troelstra [T, 2.4.12, p. 128]. The main problem is to extend effective operations to a larger domain. This will be achieved by a modification of the proof of the continuity of effective operations. Following a suggestion of A. S. Troelstra, similar results were obtained for ECF(U) and ICFE(U), where U is any universe of functions closed under “recursive in”.

This article is a rewriting of my Ph.D. Thesis, supervised by Professor G. Sabbagh, and incorporates a suggestion from Professor B. Poizat. My main result can be crudely summarized (but see below for detailed statements) by the equality: first-order theory of F[Xi]i∈I = weak second-order theory of F.

§I.1. Conventions. The letter F will always denote a commutative field, and I a nonempty set. A field or a ring (A; +, ·) will often be written A for short. We shall use symbols which are definable in all our models, and in the structure of natural numbers (N; +, ·):

— the constant 0, defined by the formula Z(x): ∀y (x + y = y);

— the constant 1, defined by the formula U(x): ∀y (x · y = y);

— the operation ∹ x − y = z ↔ x = y + z;

— the relation of division: x ∣ y ↔ ∃ z(x · z = y).

A domain is a commutative ring with unity and without any zero divisor.

By “… → …” we mean “… is definable in …, uniformly in any model M of L”.

All our constructions will be uniform, unless otherwise mentioned.

§I.2. Weak second-order models and languages. First of all, we have to define the models Pf(M), Sf(M), Sf′(M) and HF(M) associated to a model M = {A; ℐ) of a first-order language L [CK, pp. 18–20]. Let L1 be the extension of L obtained by adjunction of a second list of variables (denoted by capital letters), and of a membership symbol ∈. Pf(M) is the model (A, Pf(A); ℐ, ∈) of L1, (where Pf(A) is the set of finite subsets of A. Let L2 be the extension of L obtained by adjunction of a second list of variables, a membership symbol ∈, and a concatenation symbol ◠.

Hofstadter has introduced the notion of an explicit Henkin sentence. Roughly speaking, an explicit Henkin sentence not only asserts its own provability, as ordinary Henkin sentences do, but explicitly provides a detailed description of a proof. We provide, in this paper, a precise formalization of Hofstadter's notion and then show that true explicit Henkin sentences exist.

§I. In 1961, R. L. Vaught ([V]) asked if one could prove, without the continuum hypothesis, that there exists a countable complete theory with exactly ℵ1 isomorphism types of countable models. The following statement is known as Vaught conjecture:

Let T be a countable theory. If T has uncountably many countable models, then T hascountable models.

More than twenty years later, this question is still open. Many papers have been written on the question: see for example [HM], [M1], [M2] and [St]. In the opinion of many people, it is a major problem in model theory.

Of course, I cannot say what Vaught had in mind when he asked the question. I just want to explain here what meaning I personally see to this problem. In particular, I will not speak about the topological Vaught conjecture, which is quite another issue.

I suppose that the first question I shall have to face is the following: “Why on earth are you interested in the number of countable models—particularly since the whole question disappears if we assume the continuum hypothesis?” The answer is simply that I am not interested in the number of countable models, nor in the number of models in any cardinality, as a matter of fact. An explanation is due here; it will be a little technical and it will rest upon two names: Scott (sentences) and Morley (theorem).

We show that at each type κ ≥ 2, there exist c-irreducible functionals of c-r.e. degree, as defined in [Nor 1]. Our proofs are based on arguments due to Hinman, [Hin 1], and Dvornikov, [Dvo 1].

Whenever many-sorted theories are discussed in logic texts (e.g., [3, pp. 483–485]), it is fashionable to observe that every many-sorted theory can be effectively replaced by an equally powerful one-sorted theory *. The theory * contains for each sort σ of a unary predicate symbol Sσ used to indicate that an individual is of sort σ; the nonlogical axioms of * are the “translations” of those of together with axioms asserting that there is at least one individual of each sort and that all function symbols behave properly with respect to sorts. This observation suggests that perhaps many-sorted theories are no more useful than one-sorted theories. That this is not always the case has been pointed out previously [1, p. 13]. The content of this note is that can be interpretable in without * being interpretable in *.

If a function symbol f in a many-sorted theory takes as its arguments n terms a1,…, an of sorts σ1, …, σn, respectively and produces a term fa1 … an of sort σ, then f is said to be of type (σ1, …, σn;σ). Likewise, a predicate symbol is of type (σ1, …, σn) if it takes as its arguments n terms of sorts σ1, …, σn. We assume that for each sort σ there is a predicate symbol = σ of type (σ, σ).

The theory of trees with additional unary predicates and quantification over nodes and branches embraces a rich branching time logic. This theory was reduced in the companion paper to the first-order theory of binary, bounded, well-founded trees with additional unary predicates. Here we prove the decidability of the latter theory.

One long-range objective of logic is to find models of arithmetic with noteworthy properties, perhaps properties that imply some long-standing number theoretic conjectures. In areas of mathematics such as algebra or set theory, new models are often made by extending old models, that is, by adjoining new elements to already existing models. Usually the extension retains most of the characteristics of the old model with at least one exception that makes the new model interesting. However, such a scheme is difficult in the area of arithmetic. Many interesting properties of the fine structure of arithmetic are diophantine and hence unchangeable in extensions. For instance, one cannot change a prime number into a composite one by adjoining new elements.

One could possibly get around this diophantine difficulty in one of two ways. One way is to change the usual language of addition and multiplication to an equivalent language that does not transmit so much information to extensions. For instance, multiplication is definable from the squaring function, as one sees from the identity 2xy = (x + y)2 − x2 − y2, and the squaring function in turn is definable either from the unary square predicate (as one sees from the fact that n = m2 if n and n + 2m + 1 are successive squares) or from the divisor relation (as one sees from the fact that n = m2 if n is the smallest number such that m divides n and m + 1 divides n + m). Either of these two alternatives to multiplication might make for interesting extensions.

For sets of natural numbers A and B, A is enumeration reducible to B if there is some effective algorithm which when given any enumeration of B will produce an enumeration of A. Gutteridge [5] has shown that in the upper semilattice of the enumeration degrees there are no minimal degrees (see Cooper [3]), and in this paper we study those pairs of degrees with gib 0. Case [1] constructed a minimal pair. This minimal pair construction can be relativised to any gib, and following a suggestion of Jockusch we can also fix one of the degrees and still construct the pair. These methods yield an easier proof of Case's exact pair theorem for countable ideals. 0″ is an upper bound for the minimal pair constructed in §1, and in §2 we improve this bound to any Σ2-high Δ2 degree. In contrast to this we show that every low degree c bounds a degree a which is not in any minimal pair bounded by c. The structure of the co-r.e. e-degrees is isomorphic to that of the r.e. Turing degrees, and Gutteridge has constructed co-r.e. degrees which form a minimal pair in the e-degrees. In §3 we show that if a, b is any minimal pair of co-r.e. degrees such that a is low then a, b is a minimal pair in the e-degrees (and so Gutteridge's result follows). As a corollary of this we can embed any countable distributive lattice and the two nondistributive five-element lattices in the e-degrees below 0′. However the lowness assumption is necessary, as we also prove that there is a minimal pair of (high) r.e. degrees which is not a minimal pair in the e-degrees (under the isomorphism). In §4 we present more concise proofs of some unpublished work of Lagemann on bounding incomparable pairs and embedding partial orderings.

As usual, {Wi}i ∈ ω is the standard listing of the recursively enumerable sets, Du is the finite set with canonical index u and {‹ m, n ›}m, n ∈ ω is a recursive, one-to-one coding of the pairs of numbers onto the numbers. Capital italic letters will be variables over sets of natural numbers, and lower case boldface letters from the beginning of the alphabet will vary over degrees.

If dominating functions in ωω are adjoined repeatedly over a model of GCH via a finite-support c.c.c. iteration, then in the resulting generic extension there are no long towers, every well-ordered unbounded family of increasing functions is a scale, and the splitting number (and hence the distributivity number ) remains at ω1.