We define the concept of a logic frame , which extends the concept of an abstract logic by adding the concept of a syntax and an axiom system. In a recursive logic frame the syntax and the set of axioms are recursively coded. A recursive logic frame is called complete , if every finite consistent theory has a model. We show that for logic frames built from the cardinality quantifiers “there exists at least λ ” completeness always implies .0-compactness. On (...) the other hand we show that a recursively compact logic frame need not be ℵ0-compact. (shrink)

We give an axiomatization of first‐order logic enriched with the almost‐everywhere quantifier over finitely additive measures. Using an adapted version of the consistency property adequate for dealing with this generalized quantifier, we show that such a logic is both strongly complete and enjoys Craig interpolation, relying on a (countable) model existence theorem. We also discuss possible extensions of these results to the almost‐everywhere quantifier over countably additive measures.

By means of an Ehrenfeucht-Mostowski construction we obtain an automorphism theorem for a syntactically characterized class of Laa-theories comprising in particular the finitely determinate ones. Examples of Laa-theories with only rigid models show this result to be optimal with respect to a classification in terms of prenex quantifier type: Rigidity is seen to hinge on quantification of type $\ldots\forall\ldots\mathbf{\operatorname{stat}}\ldots$ permitting of the parametrization of families of disjoint stationary systems by the elements of the universe.

Given an abstract logic L = L(Q i ) i ∈ I generated by a set of quantifiers Q i , one can construct for each type τ a topological space S τ exactly as one constructs the Stone space for τ in first-order logic. Letting T be an arbitrary directed set of types, the set $S_T = \{(S_\tau, \pi^\tau_\sigma)\mid\sigma, \tau \in T, \sigma \subset \tau\}$ is an inverse topological system whose bonding mappings π τ σ are naturally determined by (...) the reduct operation on structures. We relate the compactness of L to the topological properties of S T . For example, if I is countable then L is compact iff for every τ each clopen subset of S τ is of finite type and S τ is homeomorphic to $\underset{lim}S_T$ , where T is the set of finite subtypes of τ. We finally apply our results to concrete logics. (shrink)

We prove the following algebraic characterization of elementary equivalence: $\equiv$ restricted to countable structures of finite type is minimal among the equivalence relations, other than isomorphism, which are preserved under reduct and renaming and which have the Robinson property; the latter is a faithful adaptation for equivalence relations of the familiar model theoretical notion. We apply this result to Friedman's fourth problem by proving that if L = L ωω (Q i ) i ∈ ω 1 is an (ω 1 (...) , ω)-compact logic satisfying both the Robinson consistency theorem on countable structures of finite type and the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem for some $\lambda for theories having ω 1 many sentences, then $\equiv_L = \equiv$ on such structures. (shrink)

The local homogeneity property is defined as in [Mak]. We show thatL ωω(Q1) and some related logics do not have the local homogeneity property, whereas cofinality logicL ωω(Q cfω) has the homogeneity property. Both proofs use forcing and absoluteness arguments.

We prove that compactness is equivalent to the amalgamation property, provided the occurrence number of the logic is smaller than the first uncountable measurable cardinal. We also relate compactness to the existence of certain regular ultrafilters related to the logic and develop a general theory of compactness and its consequences. We also prove some combinatorial results of independent interest.

A condition, in two variants, is given such that if a property P satisfies this condition, then every logic which is at least as strong as first-order logic and can express P fails to have the compactness property. The result is used to prove that for a number of natural properties P speaking about automorphism groups or connectivity, every logic which is at least as strong as first-order logic and can express P fails to have the compactness property. The basic (...) idea underlying the results and examples presented here is that it is possible to construct a countable first-order theory T such that every model of T has a very rich automorphism group, but every finite subset T′ of T has a model which is rigid. (shrink)

In this paper we isolate a notion that we call “formalism freeness” from Gödel's 1946 Princeton Bicentennial Lecture, which asks for a transfer of the Turing analysis of computability to the cases of definability and provability. We suggest an implementation of Gödel's idea in the case of definability, via versions of the constructible hierarchy based on fragments of second order logic. We also trace the notion of formalism freeness in the very wide context of developments in mathematical logic in the (...) 20th century. (shrink)

§0. Introduction. In [16], Barwise described his graduate study at Stanford. He told of his interactions with Kreisel and Scott, and said how he chose Feferman as his advisor. He began working on admissible fragments of infinitary logic after reading and giving seminar talks on two Ph.D. theses which had recently been completed: that of Lopez-Escobar, at Berkeley, on infinitary logic [46], and that of Platek [58], at Stanford, on admissible sets.Barwise's work on infinitary logic and admissible sets is described (...) in his thesis [4], the book [13], and papers [5]—[16]. We do not try to give a systematic review of these papers. Instead, our goal is to give a coherent introduction to infinitary logic and admissible sets. We describe results of Barwise, of course, because he did so much. In addition, we mention some more recent work, to indicate the current importance of Barwise's ideas. Many of the central results are stated without proof, but occasionally we sketch a proof, to indicate how the ideas fit together.Chapters 1 and 2 describe infinitary logic and admissible sets at the time Barwise began his work, circa 1965. From Chapter 3 on, we survey the developments that took place after Barwise appeared on the scene.§1. Background on infinitary logic. In this chapter, we describe the situation in infinitary logic at the time that Barwise began his work. We need some terminology. By a vocabulary, we mean a set L of constant symbols, and relation and operation symbols with finitely many argument places. As usual, by an L-structureM, we mean a universe set M with an interpretation for each symbol of L. (shrink)

§1. Introduction. After the pioneering work of Mostowski [29] and Lindström [23] it was Jon Barwise's papers [2] and [3] that brought abstract model theory and generalized quantifiers to the attention of logicians in the early seventies. These papers were greeted with enthusiasm at the prospect that model theory could be developed by introducing a multitude of extensions of first order logic, and by proving abstract results about relationships holding between properties of these logics. Examples of such properties areκ-compactness.Any set (...) of sentences of cardinality ≤ κ, every finite subset of which has a model, has itself a model.Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem down toκ.If a sentence of the logic has a model, it has a model of cardinality at most κ.Interpolation Property.If ϕ and ψ are sentences such that ⊨ ϕ → Ψ, then there is θ such that ⊨ ϕ → θ, ⊨ θ → Ψ and the vocabulary of θ is the intersection of the vocabularies of ϕ and Ψ.Lindstrom's famous theorem characterized first order logic as the maximal ℵ0-compact logic with Downward Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem down to ℵ0. With his new concept of absolute logics Barwise was able to get similar characterizations of infinitary languagesLκω. But hopes were quickly frustrated by difficulties arising left and right, and other areas of model theory came into focus, mainly stability theory. No new characterizations of logics comparable to the early characterization of first order logic given by Lindström and of infinitary logic by Barwise emerged. What was first called soft model theory turned out to be as hard as hard model theory. (shrink)

We relate the classifiability of a complete finitary first-order theory in the sense of S. SHELAH to the determinacy of the class of -saturated models in the sense of stationary logic.

We show how sequent calculi for some generalized quantifiers can be obtained by generalizing the Herbrand approach to ordinary first order proof theory. Typical of the Herbrand approach, as compared to plain sequent calculus, is increased control over relations of dependence between variables. In the case of generalized quantifiers, explicit attention to relations of dependence becomes indispensible for setting up proof systems. It is shown that this can be done by turning variables into structured objects, governed by various types of (...) structural rules. These structured variables are interpreted semantically by means of a dependence relation. This relation is an analogue of the accessibility relation in modal logic. We then isolate a class of axioms for generalized quantifiers which correspond to first-order conditions on the dependence relation. (shrink)