Skip to main content
Log in

The many faces of interpolation

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We present a number of, somewhat unusual, ways of describing what Craig’s interpolation theorem achieves, and use them to identify some open problems and further directions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alechina, N., & Gurevich, Y. (1997). Syntax vs. semantics on finite structures. Structures in Logic and Computer Science, 1997, 14–33.

  • Andréka H., Németi I. and van Benthem J. (1998). Modal logics and bounded fragments of predicate logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 27(3): 217–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barwise J. (1975). Admissible sets and structures. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Barwise, J., Feferman, S. (Eds.). (1985). Model-theoretic logics. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barwise J. and Perry J. (1983). Situations and attitudes. Bradford Books/The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass

    Google Scholar 

  • Barwise J. and van Benthem J. (1999). Interpolation, preservation pebble games. Journal of Symbolic Logic 64: 881–903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beth E.W. (1953). On Padoa’s method in the theory of definition. Indagationes Mathematicae 15: 330–339

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolzano, B. (1837). Wissenschaftslehre, Seidelsche Buchhandlung, Sulzbach. English translation, 1973. In J. Berg & B. Terrell (Eds.), Theory of science. Dordrecht: Reidel.

  • Bradfield J. and Stirling C. (2006). Modal μ-calculi. In: Blackburn, P. and Wolter, F. (eds) Handbook of modal logic, pp 721–756. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig W. (1957). Linear reasoning. A new form of the Herbrand-Gentzen theorem. Journal of Symbolic Logic 22(3): 250–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • d’Agostino, G. (1998). Modal logic and non-well founded set theory: Bisimulation, translation, and interpolation. Dissertation, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam.

  • d’Agostino G. and Hollenberg M. (2000). Logical questions concerning the μ-calculus. Journal of Symbolic Logic 65: 310–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • d’Agostino G. and Lenzi G. (2005). An axiomatization of bisimulation quantifiers via the μ-calculus. Theoretical Computer Science 338(1–3): 64–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebbinghaus H.-D. and Flum J. (1995). Finite model theory. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagin R. (1976). Probabilities on finite models. Journal of Symbolic Logic 41: 50–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feferman S. and Kreisel G. (1968). Persistent and invariant formulas for outer extensions. Compositio Mathematicae 20: 29–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Glebskii Y.V., Kogan D.I., Liogonkii M.I. and Talanov V.A. (1969). Range and degree of realizability of formulas in the restricted predicate calculus. Cybernetics 5: 142–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, L. (1996).Computations in propositional logic. Dissertation DS-1996-01, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam.

  • Hollenberg, M. (1998).Logic and bisimulation. Ph.D. thesis, University of Utrecht.

  • Hoogland, E., Marx, M., & Otto, M. (1999). Beth definability for the guarded fragment. In Proceedings of LPA R’99 (pp. 273–285). Berlin: Springer.

  • Lindström P. (1966). First-order predicate logic with generalized quantifiers. Theoria 32: 165–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindström P. (1969). On extensions of elementary logic. Theoria 35: 1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason I. (1985). Undecidability of the meta-theory of the propositional calculus. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50: 451–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitts A. (1992). On an interpretation of second order quantification in first-order intuitionistic propositional logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic 57: 33–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwichtenberg H. and Troelstra A. (1996). Basic proof theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • ten Cate, B. (2005).Model theory for extended modal languages. Ph.D. thesis, ILLC, Amsterdam.

  • Benthem J. (1985). The variety of logical consequence, according to Bolzano. Studia Logica 44(4): 389–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Benthem, J. (1997). Dynamic bits and pieces. Report LP-97-01, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam.

  • van Benthem, J. (2003). Is there still logic in Bolzano’s key? In E. Morscher (Ed.), Bernard Bolzano’s Leistungen in Logik, Mathematik und Physik (pp. 11–34). Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag.

  • Benthem J. (2005). Minimal predicates, fixed-points and definability. Journal of Symbolic Logic 70(3): 696–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benthem J. (2007). Inference in action. Publications de l’Institut Mathématique 82(96): 3–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Benthem, J., ten Cate, B., & Väänänen, J. (2007). Lindström theorems for fragments of first-order logic. In Proceedings LICS 2007.

  • Visser, A. (1996). Uniform interpolation and layered bisimulation. In Gödel ’96 Brno (pp. 139–164). Berlin: Springer.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johan van Benthem.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Benthem, J. The many faces of interpolation. Synthese 164, 451–460 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-008-9351-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-008-9351-5

Keywords

Navigation