It is a well-known fact that two structures are ∞ω-equivalent if and only if they are isomorphic in some Boolean extension of the universe of sets (cf. [4]; an early allusion to this result appears in [8]). My principal object here is to show that arbitrary toposes defined over the category of sets may be used instead. Thus ∞ω-equivalence means isomorphism in the extremely general context of some universe of "variable" sets in which not only is much of the usual set-theoretic machinery unavailable but the underlying logic is not even classical. This provides further support for the view that ∞ω-equivalence is a relation between structures of fundamental importance.

Let denote the set of degrees ≤ 0′. A degree a ≤ 0′ is said to be complemented in if there exists a degree b ≤ 0′ such that b ∪ a = 0′ and b ∩ a = 0. R.W. Robinson (cf. [11]) showed that every degree a ≤ 0′ satisfying a″ = 0″ is complemented in and the author [8] showed that every degree a ≤ 0′ satisfying a′ = 0″ is complemented in . Also, in [2], R. L. Epstein showed that every r.e. degree is complemented in . In this paper we will show that in fact every degree ≤ 0′ is complemented in . We will further show that the same is true in the upper semilattice of degrees ≤ c, where c is any complete degree. This is in contrast to the situation in the upper semilattice of r.e. degrees in which, as Lachlan [6] has shown, no degree other than 0 and 0′ is complemented.

Kleene [7] and Kreisel [8] defined independently the countable (continuous) functionals. Kleene [7] defined the countable functionals of type k to be total functionals of type k acting in a continuous way when restricted to countable arguments of type k − 1. He also defined the associates for countable functionals. They are functions α: N → N containing information about how the functional acts on countable arguments. Kleene [7] showed that the countable functionals are closed under the computations derived from S1–S9 of his paper [6], and that every computable functional has a recursive associate.

Kreisel defined the continuous functionals to be equivalence-classes of associates. By his definition it is meaningless to let a continuous functional act upon anything but continuous arguments.

One disadvantage of Kleene's approach is that two different functionals may have the same associates We will later see that there may be two functionals φ1 and φ2 with the same associates but such that the relations

are not the same.

In more recent papers on the countable functionals it is normal to regard the hierarchy 〈Ct(k)〉kϵN of countable functionals as a type-structure such that the functionals in Ct(k + 1) are maps from Ct(k) to N(Ct(0) = N), see e.g. Bergstra [1] and Gandy and Hyland [3].

We will then enjoy the streamlined formalism of a type-structure in which S1–S9 have meaning, but avoid the ambiguities of Kleene's original approach.

We will presuppose a brief familiarity with the theory of the countable functionals.

If T is an isol let D(T) be the least set of isols which contains T and is closed under predecessors and the application of almost recursive combinatorial functions. We find an infinite regressive isol T such that the universal theory (with respect to recursive relations and almost recursive combinatorial functions) of D(T) is the same as that of the nonnegative integers.

Les synthèses nouvelles par le rapprochement de disciplines mathématiques différentes constituent des événements remarquables dans l'histoire des mathématiques. Une telle synthèse semble émerger actuellement du rapprochement de:

(1) La géométrie algébrique sous la forme élaborée par Grothendieck.

(2) La logique formelle.

Le point de contact s'est effectué aux environs de 1970 par W. Lawvere et M. Tierney et l'instrument de rapprochement a été la théorie des catégories, plus particulièrement la théorie des faisceaux. Depuis ce moment, une dialectique incessante imprime un mouvement dynamique à toute une série de recherches qui visent à rapprocher les méthodes suivantes:

(1) Mathématique intuitionniste.

(2) Forcing de Cohen et Robinson.

(3) Logique algébrique.

(4) Géométrie algébrique.

(5) Géométrie différentielle et analytique.

(6) Topologie algébrique: cohomologie, homotopie.

(7) Théorie de Galois.

Certains rapprochements sont dans un stade avancé, d'autres encore embryonnaires: (6) ↔ (3).

La structure centrale qui joue le rôle d'élément provocateur et unificateur est celle de topos. Avant d'être axiomatisée par Lawvere, celle-ci a été étudiée systématiquement par l'école de Grothendieck (voir [1]) et c'est dans le contexte de la géométrie algébrique qu'elle fit son apparition. Dans cet article nous utiliserons cependant la définition de Lawvere telle qu'améliorée par Mikkelsen [12] et Kock [8].

Le but de ce travail est de présenter une version (au sens de la logique formelle) du concept de topos et d'examiner brièvement les rapports entre la théorie des topos, la logique et les mathématiques. Cette version a déjà été exposée par l'un des auteurs lors du Séminaire de Mathématiques Supérieures de l'Université de Montréal, à l'été 1974. Depuis elle a fait l'objet d'une thèse où elle a été améliorée et sa cohérence vérifiée [2]. Des systèmes différents ont été proposés simultanément par Fourman [4] et Coste [3].

It is shown that if and are sets of degrees uniformly recursive in 0′ with 0 ∈ then there is a degree b with b′ = 0′, b ∪ c = 0′ for every c ∈ , and a ≰ b for every a ∈ ˜ {0}. The proof is given as an oracle construction recursive in 0′. It follows that any nonrecursive degree below 0′ can be joined to 0′ by a degree strictly below 0′. Also, if a < 0′ and a″ = 0″ then there is a degree b such that a ∪ b = 0′ and a ∩ b = 0.

In this paper we show how some of the finite injury priority arguments can be simplified by making explicit use of the primitive notions of axiomatic computational complexity theory. Phrases such as “perform n steps in the enumeration of Wi” certainly bear witness to the fact that many of these complexity notions have been used implicitly from the early days of recursive function theory. However, other complexity notions such as that of an “honest” function are not so apparent, neither explicitly nor implicitly. Accordingly, one of the main factors in our simplification of these diagonalization arguments is the replacement of the characteristic function χA of a set A by the function νA, which is the next-element function of the set A. Another important factor is the use of busy beaver sets (see [3]) to provide the basis for the required diagonalizations thereby permitting rather simple and explicit descriptions of the sets constructed. Although the differences between the priority method and our method of construction are subtle, they are nonetheless real and noteworthy.

In preparation for the results which follow we devote the remainder of this section to the requisite definitions and notions as well as some preliminary lemmas. A more comprehensive discussion of many of the notions in this section can be found in [3]. Since we will be dealing extensively with relative computations most of our notions here have been correspondingly relativized.

R. M. Friedberg demonstrated the existence of a recursive functional that agrees with no Banach-Mazur functional on the class of recursive functions. In this paper Friedberg's result is generalized to both α-recursive functionals and weak α-recursive functionals for all admissible ordinals α such that λ < α*, where α* is the Σ1-projectum of α and λ is the Σ2-cofinality of α. The theorem is also established for the metarecursive case, α = ω1, where α* = λ = ω.

Consider those structures that consist of a countable universe and a finite number of predicates and functions. Let = ‹∣∣, P1, …, Pn, f1, …, fm› be such a structure. We will restrict our consideration to structures, , whose universe, ∣∣, is a set of natural numbers, and thus we will be able to apply the notions of recursion theory to structures. Using deg(S) to refer to the degree of unsolvability of a set S, we can assign a degree of unsolvability to the structure by defining deg() to be the least upper bound of the degrees of the universe, predicates, and functions of . If we view as a presentation of the class of all structures which are isomorphic to (in the usual sense), then the deg() can be called the degree of the presentation.

While deg() is a natural degree to assign to the structure , it is not the only possibility. Indeed since a structure may have isomorphic presentations with different degrees, deg() has the deficiency of not being isomorphically invariant. We can assign degrees to some (but not all) structures in an isomorphically invariant fashion by looking at the class of the degrees of all presentations isomorphic to . If this class of degrees has a least element, we define it to be the degree of the isomorphism class of which we write deg([]).

In [8] and [9] Urquhart presented the semilattice semantics for a relevance logic with conjunction and disjunction. These semantics combined the simplest known semantics for relevant implication, with minimal modification of the truth conditions for conjunction and disjunction. A slightly different approach leads to the distinct positive relevance logic of [7] and [5]. Sound and complete axiomatic logics for the semilattice semantics were readily available, so long as disjunction was left out.

The purpose of this paper is to report the remedy of this lack. In [1] the author developed work of Fine ([3], announced in [4]) and Prawitz [6] to show soundness and completeness of an axiomatic logic and two natural deduction logics, with respect to Urquhart's semantics. Thus Prawitz' positive relevance logic is equivalent to the semilattice logic, rather than the logic of [5]. We present here the axiomatic logic and show its equivalence to the semilattice semantics.

In §1 the languages and logic are given, along with a few proof-theoretic remarks. In §2 the semantics are defined, and the soundness proof is sketched. In §3, the completeness proof is given.

We exhibit a finite list of first-order axioms which may be used to define topological spaces. For most separation axioms we discover a first-order equivalent statement.

The purpose of the following is to give an ordinal analysis of bar recursion of type 0 for the cases in which the bar recursion operator has type level 3 or 4. We show that the associated ordinals are the ε0th epsilon number and the first ε0-critical number, respectively. Also we analyze a restricted bar recursion operator of level 3 which provides the Gödel functional interpretation of an intuitionistic form of König's lemma. The ordinal in this case is ε0.

Let + BR0 be Gödel's theory of primitive recursive functional of finite type extended by functors Φ for bar recursion of type zero. To make bar recursion resemble transfinite recursion more closely, and thereby facilitate the ordinal analysis, we extend + BR0 to a system of terms . By Theorem 1.1a term of + BR0 which is computable by the rules of is already computable by the rules of + BR0, so it is sufficient to give an ordinal analysis of the terms of .

A term H of is said to be semi-closed if its free variables have level not exceeding 1. If, in addition, H has level not exceeding 2, then an ordinal measure for H is given by a length for one of its computation trees. We call this a computation size for H. Let F(X) be a term whose free variables have level not exceeding 2, and suppose the variable X of type 2 is the only free variable of level 2.

In classical arithmetic a natural measure for the complexity of relations is provided by the number of quantifier alternations in an equivalent prenex normal form. However, the proof of the Prenex Normal Form Theorem uses the following intuitionistically invalid rules for permuting quantifiers with propositional constants.

Each one of these schemas, when added to Intuitionistic (Heyting's) Arithmetic IA, generates full Classical (Peano's) Arithmetic. Schema (3) is of little interest here, since one can obtain a formula intuitionistically equivalent to A ∨ ∀xBx, which is prenex if A and B are:

For the two conjuncts on the r.h.s. (1) may be successively applied, since y = 0 is decidable.

We shall readily verify that there is no way of similarly going around (1) or (2). This fact calls for counting implication (though not conjunction or disjunction) in measuring in IA the complexity of arithmetic relations. The natural implicational measure for our purpose is the depth of negative nestings of implication, defined as follows. I(F): = 0 if F is atomic; I(F ∧ G) = I(F ∨ G): = max[I(F), I(G)]; I(∀xF) = I(∃xF): = I(F); I(F → G):= max[I(F) + 1, I(G)].

We discuss the problem of defining the collection of first-order elementary classes in terms of the natural topological space of countable models.

The consistency of the Axiom of Determinateness (AD) poses a somewhat problematic question for set theorists. On the one hand, many mathematicians have studied AD, and none has yet derived a contradiction. Moreover, the consequences of AD which have been proven form an extensive and beautiful theory. (See [5] and [6], for example.) On the other hand, many extremely weird propositions follow from AD; these results indicate that AD is not an axiom which we can justify as intuitively true, a priori or by reason of its consequences, and we thus cannot add it to our set theory (as an accepted axiom, evidently true in the cumulative hierarchy of sets). Moreover, these results place doubt on the very consistency of AD. The failure of set theorists to show AD inconsistent over as short a time period as fifteen years can only be regarded as inconclusive, although encouraging, evidence.

On the contrary, there is a great deal of rather convincing evidence that the existence of various large cardinals is not only consistent but actually true in the universe of all sets. Thus it becomes of interest to see which consequences of AD can be proven consistent relative to the consistency of ZFC + the existence of some large cardinal. Earlier theorems with this motivation are those of Bull and Kleinberg [2] and Spector ([14]; see also [12], [13]).

Adjoin, to a countable standard model M of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZF), a countable set A of independent Cohen generic reals. If one attempts to construct the model generated over M by these reals (not necessarily containing A as an element) as the intersection of all standard models that include M ∪ A, the resulting model fails to satisfy the power set axiom, although it does satisfy all the other ZF axioms. Thus, there is no smallest ZF model including M ∪ A, but there are minimal such models. These are classified by their sets of reals, and there is one minimal model whose set of reals is the smallest possible. We give several characterizations of this model, we determine which weak axioms of choice it satisfies, and we show that some better known models are forcing extensions of it.

A pointclass is a class of subsets of the Baire space (ωω) closed under inverse images by continuous functions. The dual of a pointclass Γ, denoted is {~A∣ A ∈ Γ}. (Complements are relative to ωω.) If Γ is nonselfdual, i.e. , then let . We say a nonselfdual pointclass Γ has the first separation property, and write Sep(Γ), iff (∀A, B ∈ Γ)(A ⋂ B = ∅ ⇒ (∃C ∈ Δ)(A ⊆ C ∧ B ⋂ = ∅)). The set C is said to separate A and B.

Descriptive set theory abounds in nonselfdual pointclasses Γ, and for the more natural examples of such Γ one can always show by assuming enough determinateness that exactly one of Sep(Γ) and Sep() holds. Van Wesep [2] provides a partial explanation of this fact by showing that, assuming the full axiom of determinateness, one of Sep(Γ) and Sep() must fail for all nonselfdual pointclasses Γ. We shall complete the explanation by showing that one of Sep(Γ) and Sep() must hold.

The axiom of determinateness has other interesting consequences in the general theory of pointclasses. See e.g. [3].

We prove, relative to suitable hypotheses, that it is consistent for there to be unboundedly many measurable cardinals each of which possesses a large degree of strong compactness, and that it is consistent to assume that the least measurable is partially strongly compact and that the second measurable is strongly compact. These results partially answer questions of Magidor on the relationship of strong compactness to measurability.

Where AR is the set of arithmetic Turing degrees, 0(ω) is the least member of {a(2) ∣ a is an upper bound on AR}. This situation is quite different if we examine HYP, the set of hyperarithmetic degrees. We shall prove (Corollary 1) that there is an a, an upper bound on HYP, whose hyperjump is the degree of Kleene's . This paper generalizes this example, using an iteration of the jump operation into the transfinite which is based on results of Jensen and is detailed in [3] and [4]. In § 1 we review the basic definitions from [3] which are needed to state the general results.

This paper is a contribution to the growing literature on the model theory of nilpotent groups. (See Baumslag and Levin [2]; Eršov [5]; Hodges [9], [10]; Mal′cev [14]; Olin [16] and Saracino [19], [20].) In it we investigate the conditions under which the free product in the variety of all nilpotent of class 2 (nil-2) groups preserves saturation and stability.

It is well known that the direct product preserves both saturation (see Waszkiewicz and Wȩglorz [23]) and stability (see Wierzejewski [24]; Macintyre [13]; Eklof and Fisher [4]). On the other hand it is easy to show that the full free product of groups preserves neither property; indeed, in the case of saturation this failure is extremely bad since no free product of nontrivial groups is even 2-saturated. Our results show that the nil-2 free product falls between these two extremes.

Our proofs are mainly model-theoretic with a smattering of elementary algebra and rely heavily upon the unique normal form for the elements of a nil-2 free product given by MacHenry in [12]. (This normal form and some of its consequences are discussed in §1.) We assume familiarity with the basic ideas of saturation (see Chapter 5 of [3]) and Shelah's treatment of stability in [22].

We prove two main theorems in §3 each giving a necessary and sufficient condition in separate situations for the preservation of saturation. In the first (Theorem 3.1) we allow one finite factor, while in the second (Theorem 3.10) we deal solely with torsion groups. Our motivation for the proof of sufficiency was the paper of Waszkiewicz and Wȩglorz [23] and the principal tool is a “Feferman-Vaught” Theorem for the nil-2 free product which we prove in §2. We also show that if both factors in a nil-2 free product are nontorsion and one factor has a nil-2 basis, then the group is not even 3-saturated. We leave open the case where both factors are infinite but only one is torsion.