A logic is said to admit an equational completeness theorem when it can be interpreted into the equational consequence relative to some class of algebras. We characterize logics admitting an equational completeness theorem that are either locally tabular or have some tautology. In particular, it is shown that a protoalgebraic logic admits an equational completeness theorem precisely when it has two distinct logically equivalent formulas. While the problem of determining whether a logic admits an equational completeness theorem is shown to be decidable both for logics presented by a finite set of finite matrices and for locally tabular logics presented by a finite Hilbert calculus, it becomes undecidable for arbitrary logics presented by finite Hilbert calculi.

We add Most X are Y to the syllogistic logic of All X are Y and Some X are Y. We prove soundness, completeness, and decidability in polynomial time. Our logic has infinitely many rules, and we prove that this is unavoidable.

This article enlarges classical syllogistic logic with assertions having to do with comparisons between the sizes of sets. So it concerns a logical system whose sentences are of the following forms: All x are y and Some x are y, There are at least as many x as y, and There are more x than y. Here x and y range over subsets (not elements) of a given infinite set. Moreover, x and y may appear complemented (i.e., as $\bar{x}$ and $\bar{y}$), with the natural meaning. We formulate a logic for our language that is based on the classical syllogistic. The main result is a soundness/completeness theorem. There are efficient algorithms for proof search and model construction.

This paper considers Henkin’s proof of completeness of classical first-order logic and extends its scope to the realm of algebraizable logics in the sense of Blok and Pigozzi. Given a propositional logic L (for which we only need to assume that it has an algebraic semantics and a suitable disjunction) we axiomatize two natural first-order extensions L∀m and L∀ and prove that the former is complete with respect to all models over algebras from , while the latter is complete with respect to all models over relatively finitely subdirectly irreducible algebras. While the first completeness result is relatively straightforward, the second requires non-trivial modifications of Henkin’s proof by making use of the disjunction connective. As a byproduct, we also obtain a form of Skolemization provided that the algebraic semantics admits regular completions. The relatively modest assumptions on the propositional side allow for a wide generalization of previous approaches by Rasiowa, Sikorski, Hájek, Horn, and others and help to illuminate the “essentially first-order” steps in the classical Henkin’s proof.