The importance of the fine and normal filters, which are the theme of this work, appears naturally in the study of large cardinals. It is well known that the filter generated by the closed unbounded sets on Pκ(λ), where κ is a regular cardinal, is the minimal normal filter that contains the cones on each of these spaces. Henle and Zwicker [5] introduce the space Qκ(λ) of partitions of λ with size less than κ and described several notions of normality such that the existence of fine and “normal” ultrafilters on this space has strong implications, such as κ is λ supercompact. We propose in the present paper to study the existence of fine and “normal” filters on Qκ(λ). We will work with the different notions of normality introduced in [5] and also a different new definition for normality on Qκ(λ), characterizing, in case it exists, the minimal “normal” filter containing the cones on Qκ(λ).

It is proved (Theorem 1) that if 0# exists, then any constructible forcing property which over L adds no reals, over V collapses an uncountable L-cardinal to cardinality ω. This improves a theorem of Foreman, Magidor, and Shelah. Also, a method for approximating this phenomenon generically is found (Theorem 2). The strategy is first to reduce the problem of ‘disabling’ forcing properties to that of specializing certain trees in a weak sense.

There are human beings whose intellectual power exceeds that of ordinary men. In my life, in my personal experience, there were three such men, and one of them was Andrei Nikolaevich Kolmogorov. I was lucky enough to be his immediate pupil. He invited me to be his pupil at the third year of my being student at the Moscow University. This talk is my tribute, my homage to my great teacher.

Andrei Nikolaevich Kolmogorov was born on April 25, 1903. He graduated from Moscow University in 1925, finished his post-graduate education at the same University in 1929, and since then without any interruption worked at Moscow University till his death on October 20, 1987, at the age 84½.

Kolmogorov was not only one of the greatest mathematicians of the twentieth century. By the width of his scientific interests and results he reminds one of the titans of the Renaissance. Indeed, he made prominent contributions to various fields from the theory of shooting to the theory of versification, from hydrodynamics to set theory. In this talk I should like to expound his contributions to mathematical logic.

Here the term “mathematical logic” is understood in a broad sense. In this sense it, like Gallia in Caesarian times, is divided into three parts:

(1) mathematical logic in the strict sense, i.e. the theory of formalized languages including deduction theory,

(2) the foundations of mathematics, and

(3) the theory of algorithms.

We give necessary conditions for a set to be definable by a formula with a universal quantifier and an existential quantifier over algebraic integer rings or algebraic number fields. From these necessary conditions we obtain some undefinability results. For example, N is not definable by such a formula over Z. This extends a previous result of R. M. Robinson.

Let I⊿0 denote the fragment of Peano arithmetic where induction is restricted only to bounded formulas (⊿0-formulas), i.e. formulas where all the quantifiers are bounded. We will examine the behaviour in I⊿0 of Chebyshev's classical result on the distribution of primes. Chebyshev showed that each of the following functions on N is bounded by a polynomial in each of the others:

In his proof he used, as auxiliaries, factorials and binomial coefficients.

When we work in a weak system like I⊿0 we have to deal with two problems:

(i) There is not an immediate meaning for symbols like xy, Πp≤xp, and x!.

(ii) Some basic functions like exponentiation, factorial, and product of primes up to a certain element, are in general only partially definable.

The first problem is equivalent to finding ⊿0-formulas representing the relations z = xy, y = Πp≤xp, and y = x!. While we can easily express that y is the product of all primes less than or equal to x in a ⊿0-way, it requires a subtle argument to define z = xy by a ⊿0-formula. The most natural way of expressing it is via the formalization of the Chinese remainder theorem coding the recursion procedure used in the definition of xy. But this can be expressed only via a Σ1-formula. ⊿0-definitions of exponentiation were given by Paris and Bennett (see [GD] and [B]), and all sensible definitions of this type are equivalent (see Remark 1). Later we will examine properties of such a definition E0(x, y, z). The ⊿00-definition of y = Πp≤xp is much more straightforward, since both the relation of being a prime and the divisibility relation are ⊿0-definable. We will give an explicit definition of it and denote it by Ψ(x, y). In this way, by a ⊿0-induction, we will be able to prove the uniqueness of the elements y and z satisfying Ψ(x, y) and E0(x, y, z), respectively.

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.

Research in AI has recently begun to address the problems of nondeductive reasoning, i.e., the problems that arise when, on the basis of approximate or incomplete evidence, we form well-reasoned but possibly false judgments. Attempts to stimulate such reasoning fall into two main categories: the numerical approach is based on probabilities and the nonnumerical one tries to reconstruct nondeductive reasoning as a special type of deductive process. In this paper, we are concerned with the latter usually known as nonmonotonic deduction, because the set of theorems does not increase monotonically with the set of axioms.

It is generally acknowledged that nonmonotonic (n.m.) formalisms (e.g., [C], [MC1], [MC2] [MD], [MD-D], [Rl], [R2], [S]) are plagued by a number of difficulties. A key issue concerns the fact that most systems do not produce an axiomatizable set of validities. Thus, the chief objective of this paper is to develop an alternative approach in which the set of n.m. inferences, which somehow qualify as being deductively sound, is r.e.

The basic idea here is to reproduce the situation in First Order Logic where the metalogical concept of deduction translates into the logical notion of material implication. Since n.m. deductions are no longer truth preserving, our way to deal with a change in the metaconcept is to extend the standard logic apparatus so that it can reflect the new metaconcept. In other words, the intent is to study a concept of nonmonotonic implication that goes hand in hand with a notion of n.m. deduction. And in our case, it is convenient that the former be characterized within the more tractable context of monotonic logic.

In [MPP] it was shown that in every reduct of = ‹ ℝ, +, ·, <› that properly expands ℳ = ‹ℝ, +, <, λa›a∈ℝ, all the bounded semi-algebraic (that is, -definable) sets are definable. Said differently, every such is an expansion of = ‹ℝ, +, <, λa, Bi›a∈ℝ, i∈I where {Bi}i∈I is the collection of all bounded semialgebraic sets and the λa's are scalar multiplication by a. In [PSS] (see Theorem 1.2 below) it was shown that the structure is a proper reduct of ; that is, one cannot define in it all the semialgebraic sets. In [Pe] we show that is the only reduct properly between ℳ and . As a first step towards this result, we investigate in this paper the definable sets in reducts such as . (We point out that ‘definable’ will always mean ‘definable with parameters’.)

Definition 1.1. Let X ⊆ ℝn. X is called semi-bounded if it is definable in the structure ‹ℝ, +, <, λa, B1, …, Bk›a∈ℝ, where the Bi's are bounded subsets of ℝn.

The main result of this paper (see Theorem 3.1) shows roughly that, in Ominimal expansions of that satisfy the partition condition (see Definition 2.3), every semibounded set can be partitioned into finitely many sets, each of which is of a form similar to a cylinder. Namely, these sets are obtained through the “stretching” of a bounded cell by finitely many linear vectors. As a corollary (see Theorem 1.4), we get different characterizations of semibounded sets, either in terms of their structure or in terms of their definability power.

The following result, by A. Pillay, P. Scowcroft and C. Steinhorn, was the main motivation for this paper. The theorem is formulated here in a slightly stronger form than originally, but the proof itself is essentially the original one. A short version of the proof is included in §4.

Tychonoff's theorem states that a product of compact spaces is compact. In [3], P. Johnstone presents a proof of Tychonoff's theorem in a “localic” framework. The surprise is that the point-free formulation of Tychonoff's theorem is provable without the axiom of choice, whereas in the usual formulation it is equivalent to the axiom of choice (see Kelley [5]).

The proof given in [3], however, is classical and seems to use the replacement axiom of Zermelo-Fraenkel. The aim of this paper is to present what we believe to be a more direct proof, which is intuitionistic and can be proved using as primitive only the notion of inductive definition, as it is for instance presented in Martin-Löf [6]. One main point of the paper is to show that the theory of locales can be developed rather naturally in the framework of inductive definitions. We think that our arguments can be presented in the constructive set theory of Aczel [2].

The paper is organized as follows. In §1 we show the argument in the case of a product of two spaces. This proof has a direct generalisation to the case of a product over a set with a decidable equality.

§1. Product of two spaces. We first recall a possible definition of a point-free space (see Johnstone [3] or Vickers [10]). It is a poset (X, ≤), together with a meet operation ab, written multiplicatively, and, for each a ∈ X, a set Cov(a) of subsets of {x ∈ X ∣ x ≤ a}. We ask that if M ∈ Cov(a) and b ≤ a, then {bs ∈ s ∈ M} ∈ Cov(b). This property of Cov will be called the axiom of covering. The elements of Cov(u) are called basic covers of u ∈ X.

In this paper we study transitive group actions.:G × X → X, definable in an ω-stable theory, where G is a connected group and X a set of Morley rank 2, with respect to sharp transitivity on qα. Here q is the generic type of X (X is of degree 1 by Proposition (1)), for ordinals α > 0, qα is the αth power of q, i.e. (aβ)β < α, ⊨ qα iff (aβ)β < α is an independent sequence (in the sense of forking) of realizations of q, and G is defined to be sharply transitive on qα iff for all (aβ)β < α, (bβ)β < α ⊨ qα there is one and only one g ∈ G with g.aβ = bβ for all β < α. The question studied here is: For which powers α of q are there group actions subject to the above conditions with G sharply transitive on qα?

In §1 we will see that for group actions satisfying the above conditions, G can be sharply transitive only on finite powers of q. Moreover, if G is sharply transitive on qn for some n ≥ 2, then the action of the stabilizer Ga on a certain subset Y of X satisfies the conditions above with Ga being sharply transitive on qm−1, where q′ is the generic type of Y (Proposition (8)). Thus, there would be a complete answer to the question if one could find some n < ω such that there is no group action as above with G sharply transitive on qn, but for n – 1 there is. In this paper we prove that such n exists and that it is either 5 or 6. More precisely, in §2 we prove that there is no group action satisfying the above conditions with G sharply transitive on q6. This is the main result of this paper. It is not known to the author whether the same also holds for q5 instead of q6. However, it does not hold for q4, as is seen in §3. There we give an example provided from projective geometry, for a group action satisfying the above conditions with G sharply transitive on q4; for G we choose PGL(3, K) and for X the projective plane over K, where K is some algebraically closed field.

We prove that if ℵα is uncountable and regular, then the Beth-closure of ℒωω(Qα) is not a sublogic of ℒαω(Qn), where Qn is the class of all n-ary generalized quantifiers. In particular, B(ℒωω(Qα)) is not a sublogic of any finitely generated logic; i.e., there does not exist a finite set Q of Lindström quantifiers such that B(ℒωω(Qα)) ≤ ℒωω(Q).

Gentzen's sequent calculus LJ, and its variants such as G3 [21], are (as is well known) convenient as a basis for automating proof search for IPC (intuitionistic propositional calculus). But a problem arises: that of detecting loops, arising from the use (in reverse) of the rule ⊃⇒ for implication introduction on the left. We describe below an equivalent calculus, yet another variant on these systems, where the problem no longer arises: this gives a simple but effective decision procedure for IPC.

The underlying method can be traced back forty years to Vorob′ev [33], [34]. It has been rediscovered recently by several authors (the present author in August 1990, Hudelmaier [18], [19], Paulson [27], and Lincoln et al. [23]). Since the main idea is not plainly apparent in Vorob′ev's work, and there are mathematical applications [28], it is desirable to have a simple proof. We present such a proof, exploiting the Dershowtiz-Manna theorem [4] on multiset orderings.

Consider the task of constructing proofs in Gentzen's sequent calculus LJ of intuitionistic sequents Γ⇒ G, where Γ is a set of assumption formulae and G is a formula (in the language of zero-order logic, using the nullary constant f [absurdity], the unary constant ¬ [negation, with ¬A =defA ⊃ f] and the binary constants &, ∨, and ⊃ [conjunction, disjunction, and implication respectively]). By the Hauptsatz [15], there is an apparently simple algorithm which breaks up the sequent, growing the proof tree until one reaches axioms (of the form Γ⇒ A where A is in Γ), or can make no further progress and must backtrack or even abandon the search. (Gentzen's argument in fact was to use the subformula property derived from the Hauptsatz to limit the size of the search tree. Došen [5] improves on this argument.)

Cet article fait suite à [D] dont il utilise les résultats.

Soit if ℒ langage constitué de deux constantes 0 et 1, et de deux fonctions + et ·; si A est un sous-ensemble d'une structure de ℒ, nous noterons if ℒ (A) le langage obtenu en ajoutant à ℒ if les éléments de A comme constantes.

Tous les corps considérés seront commutatifs. Nous appellerons corps de courbe sur un corps k une extension K de k finiment engendrée de degré de transcendance 1 sur k telle que k soit relativement algébriquement clos dans K.

Nous appellerons ensemble de coefficients d'une courbe sur un corps k un sous-ensemble A de K tel qu'il existe un système de générateurs de l'idéal de cette courbe dont les coefficient sont des éléments de A.

Nous nous proposons d'étudier les conjectures suivantes:

1. Conjecture. Si K est un corps de courbe sur un corps algébriquement clos k, il existe un sous-ensemble fini A de k tel que tout corps de courbe sur kélémentairement équivalent à K dans le langage ℒ (A), lui est k-isomorphe.

2. Conjecture. Deux corps de courbe sur un corps algébriquement clos K élémentairement équivalents dans le langage ℒ sont isomorphes.

Nous démontrerons ces conjectures lorsque le genre est différent de 1, et si le genre est 1, lorsque la caractéristique est nulle et le corps de courbe sans multiplication complexe.

Une version plus simple de cet article est parue dans [D′].

We prove the following surprising property of Heyting's intuitionistic propositional calculus, IpC. Consider the collection of formulas, ϕ, built up from propositional variables (p, q, r, …) and falsity (⊥) using conjunction (∧), disjunction (∨) and implication (→). Write ⊢ϕ to indicate that such a formula is intuitionistically valid. We show that for each variable p and formula ϕ there exists a formula Apϕ (effectively computable from ϕ), containing only variables not equal to p which occur in ϕ, and such that for all formulas ψ not involving p, ⊢ψ → Apϕ if and only if ⊢ψ → ϕ. Consequently quantification over propositional variables can be modelled in IpC, and there is an interpretation of the second order propositional calculus, IpC2, in IpC which restricts to the identity on first order propositions.

An immediate corollary is the strengthening of the usual interpolation theorem for IpC to the statement that there are least and greatest interpolant formulas for any given pair of formulas. The result also has a number of interesting consequences for the algebraic counterpart of IpC, the theory of Heyting algebras. In particular we show that a model of IpC2 can be constructed whose algebra of truth-values is equal to any given Heyting algebra.

Conjecture (1) of [Ma83] is confirmed here by the following result: if 3 ≤ α < ω, then there is a finite relation algebra of dimension α, which is not a relation algebra of dimension α + 1. A logical consequence of this theorem is that for every finite α ≥ 3 there is a formula of the form S ⊆ T (asserting that one binary relation is included in another), which is provable with α + 1 variables, but not provable with only α variables (using a special sequent calculus designed for deducing properties of binary relations).

Let be the ring of all entire functions of one complex variable, and let DA be the subring of those entire functions that are differentially algebraic (DA); that is, they satisfy a nontrivial algebraic differential equation.

where P is a non-identically-zero polynomial in its n + 2 variables. It seems not to be known whether DA is elementarily equivalent to . This would mean that DA and have exactly the same true statements about them, in the first-order language of rings. (Roughly speaking, a sentence about a ring R is first-order if it has finite length and quantifies only over elements (i.e., not subsets or functions or relations) of R.) It follows from [NAN] that DA and are not isomorphic as rings, but this does not answer the question of elementary equivalence.

We give a sufficient condition for a countable model M of PA to be expandable to an ω-model of AST with absolute Ω-orderings. The condition is in terms of saturation schemes or, equivalently, in terms of the ability of the model to code sequences which have some kind of definition in (M, ω). We also show that a weaker scheme of saturation leads to the existence of wellorderings of the model with nice properties. Finally, we answer affirmatively the question of whether the intersection of all β-expansions of a β-expandable model M is the set RA(M, ω)—the ramified analytical hierarchy over (M, ω).

The results are based on forcing constructions.

The canonicity and compactness of the KM system are problems historically important in the development of our understanding of intensional logic (as explained in Goldblatt's paper, The McKinsey axiom is not canonical). The problems, however, were unsolved for years in modal logic. In the beginning of 1990, Goldblatt showed that KM is not canonical in The McKinsey axiom is not canonical. The remaining task is to solve the problem of the compactness of KM. In this paper we present a proof showing that the KM system is not compact.

The symbols of the language of propositional modal logic are as follows:

1. A denumerably infinite set of sentence letters, for example, {p0, P1, p2, …};

2. The Boolean connectives &, ⋁, ¬, →, ↔ and parentheses;

3. The modal operators L and M where M is defined as ¬L¬.

The formation rules of well-formed propositional modal formulae are the formation rules of formulae in classic propositional logic plus the following rule:

If A is a well-formed formula, so is LA.

A normal modal system is a set of formulae that contains all tautologies and the formula

and is closed under the following transformation rules:

Uniform substitution. If A is a theorem, so is every substitution-instance of A.

Modus ponens. If A and A → B are theorems, so is B.

Necessitation. If A is a theorem, so is LA.

Let L be a normal system. Then a set S of formulae is L-consistent if and only if for any formula B, which is the conjunction of some formulae in S, B is not included in L. A set S of formulae is maximal if and only if for every formula A, S either contains A or contains ¬A. A set S of formulae is maximal L-consistent if and only if it is both maximal and L-consistent.

Based on the relevant logic R, the system R# was proposed as a relevant Peano arithmetic. R# has many nice properties: the most conspicuous theorems of classical Peano arithmetic PA are readily provable therein; it is readily and effectively shown to be nontrivial; it incorporates both intuitionist and classical proof methods. But it is shown here that R# is properly weaker than PA, in the sense that there is a strictly positive theorem QRF of PA which is unprovable in R#. The reason is interesting: if PA is slightly weakened to a subtheory P+, it admits the complex ring C as a model; thus QRF is chosen to be a theorem of PA but false in C. Inasmuch as all strictly positive theorems of R# are already theorems of P+, this nonconservativity result shows that QRF is also a nontheorem of R#. As a consequence, Ackermann's rule γ is inadmissible in R#. Accordingly, an extension of R# which retains its good features is desired. The system R##, got by adding an omega-rule, is such an extension. Central question: is there an effectively axiomatizable system intermediate between R# and R#, which does formalize arithmetic on relevant principles, but also admits γ in a natural way?

We prove that the set of all recursive functions cannot be inferred using first-order queries in the query language containing extra symbols [+ , <]. The proof of this theorem involves a new decidability result about Presburger arithmetic which is of independent interest. Using our machinery, we show that the set of all primitive recursive functions cannot be inferred with a bounded number of mind changes, again using queries in [+, <]. Additionally, we resolve an open question in [7] about passive versus active learning.