Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T23:06:28.865Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A note on two-place predicates and fitting sequences of measure functions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Herman Rubin
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Patrick Suppes
Affiliation:
Stanford University

Extract

Carnap (in [1], p. 566) has remarked that his measure function m* is fitting for finite languages using a fixed number of one-place predicates, i.e., for any sentence i, m*(i) is the same in all such restricted finite languages in which i occurs. The main purpose of this brief note is to show by means of a counter-example that m* does not have the intuitively desirable property of fittingness when we consider languages using two-place predicates.

We first state for finite languages a general theorem (related to the results in [2]) which guides the construction of large numbers of counter-examples.

Theorem. Let be the symmetric group of n letters. In a language which consists of a finite number of predicates and n individual names, the number of state descriptions in a structure description is equal to the index of some subgroup G in .

Proof. Let Σ be a structure description (of a language satisfying our hypothesis) and let S be an arbitrary state description in Σ. Let π be a permutation in , and let π*S be the state description which results from S by applying the permutation π to the individual names of . It is easily verified that for every π in π*S ∊ Σ. Also, for π, ψ in ,

We define the set G of permutations as follows :

.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1955

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Carnap, R., Logical foundations of probability, Chicago, 1950.Google Scholar
[2]Davis, R. L., The number of structures of finite relations, Proceedings of the American mathematical society, vol. 4 (1953), pp. 486495.Google Scholar