We give some lectures on the work on formal logic of Jacques Herbrand, and sketch his life and his influence on automated theorem proving. The intended audience ranges from students interested in logic over historians to logicians. Besides the well-known correction of Herbrand’s False Lemma by Goedel and Dreben, we also present the hardly known unpublished correction of Heijenoort and its consequences on Herbrand’s Modus Ponens Elimination. Besides Herbrand’s Fundamental Theorem and its relation to the Loewenheim-Skolem-Theorem, we (...) carefully investigate Herbrand’s notion of intuitionism in connection with his notion of falsehood in an infinite domain. We sketch Herbrand’s two proofs of the consistency of arithmetic and his notion of a recursive function, and last but not least, present the correct original text of his unification algorithm with a new translation. (shrink)

Continuing, we study the Strong Downward Löwenheim–Skolem Theorems of the stationary logic and their variations. In Fuchino et al. it has been shown that the SDLS for the ordinary stationary logic with weak second-order parameters \. This SDLS is shown to be equivalent to an internal version of the Diagonal Reflection Principle down to an internally stationary set of size \. We also consider a version of the stationary logic and show that the SDLS for this logic in internal (...) interpretation \\) for reflection down to \ is consistent under the assumption of the consistency of ZFC \ “the existence of a supercompact cardinal” and this SDLS implies that the continuum is weakly Mahlo. These three “axioms” in terms of SDLS are consequences of three instances of a strengthening of generic supercompactness which we call Laver-generic supercompactness. Existence of a Laver-generic supercompact cardinal in each of these three instances also fixes the cardinality of the continuum to be \ or \ or very large respectively. We also show that the existence of one of these generic large cardinals implies the “\” version of the corresponding forcing axiom. (shrink)

The dream of a community of philosophers engaged in inquiry with shared standards of evidence and justification has long been with us. It has led some thinkers puzzled by our mathematical experience to look to mathematics for adjudication between competing views. I am skeptical of this approach and consider Skolem's philosophical uses of the Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem to exemplify it. I argue that these uses invariably beg the questions at issue. I say ?uses?, because I claim further that Skolem shifted (...) his position on the philosophical significance of the theorem as a result of a shift in his background beliefs. The nature of this shift and possible explanations for it are investigated. Ironically, Skolem's own case provides a historical example of the philosophical flexibility of his theorem. Our suspicion ought always to be aroused when a proof proves more than its means allow it. Something of this sort might be called ?a puffed-up proof?. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Remarks on the foundations of mathematics (revised edition), vol. 2, 21. (shrink)

We present a downward Löwenheim-Skolem theorem which transfers downward formulas from L ∞,ω to L κ +, ω . The simplest instance is: Theorem 1. Let $\lambda > \kappa$ be infinite cardinals, and let L be a similarity type of cardinality κ at most. For every L-structure M of cardinality λ and every $X \subseteq M$ there exists a model $N \prec M$ containing the set X of power |X| · κ such that for every pair of finite (...) sequences a, b ∈ N $\langle N, \mathbf{a}\rangle \equiv_{\| N \|^+,\omega} \langle N, \mathbf{b}\rangle \Leftrightarrow \langle M, \mathbf{a}\rangle \equiv_{\infty,\omega} \langle M, \mathbf{b}\rangle.$ The following theorem is an application: Theorem 2. Let $\lambda , and suppose χ is a Ramsey cardinal greater than λ. If T has the (χ, L κ +, ω -unsuperstability property, then T has the (χ, L λ +, ω )-unsuperstability property. (shrink)

This note concerns the model theoretic properties of logics extending the first-order logic with monadic second-order variables equipped with the stationarity quantifier. The eight variations of the strong downward Löwenheim–Skolem Theorem down to <ℵ2\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$<\aleph _2$$\end{document} for this logic with the interpretation of second-order variables as countable subsets of the structures are classified into four principles. The strongest of these four is shown to be equivalent to the conjunction of CH (...) and the Diagonal Reflection Principle for internally clubness of S. Cox. We show that a further strengthening of this SDLS and its variations follow from the Game Reflection Principle of B. König and its generalizations. (shrink)

The articles in this volume represent a part of the philosophical literature on higher-order logic and the Skolem paradox. They ask the question what is second-order logic? and examine various interpretations of the Lowenheim-Skolem theorem.

The Löwenheim-Skolem theorem was published in Skolem's long paper of 1920, with the first section dedicated to the theorem. The second section of the paper contains a proof-theoretical analysis of derivations in lattice theory. The main result, otherwise believed to have been established in the late 1980s, was a polynomial-time decision algorithm for these derivations. Skolem did not develop any notation for the representation of derivations, which makes the proofs of his results hard to follow. Such a formal (...) notation is given here by which these proofs become transparent. A third section of Skolem's paper gives an analysis for derivations in plane projective geometry. To clear a gap in Skolem's result, a new conservativity property is shown for projective geometry, to the effect that a proper use of the axiom that gives the uniqueness of connecting lines and intersection points requires a conclusion with proper cases (logically, a disjunction in a positive part) to be proved. The forgotten parts of Skolem's first paper on the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem are the perhaps earliest combinatorial analyses of formal mathematical proofs, and at least the earliest analyses with profound results. (shrink)

We discuss several possible extensions of the classical Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem to finite structures and give a counterexample refuting almost all of them.

Boolean-valued models for first-order languages generalize two-valued models, in that the value range is allowed to be any complete Boolean algebra instead of just the Boolean algebra 2. Boolean-valued models are interesting in multiple aspects: philosophical, logical, and mathematical. The primary goal of this paper is to extend a number of critical model-theoretic notions and to generalize a number of important model-theoretic results based on these notions to Boolean-valued models. For instance, we will investigate (first-order) Boolean valuations, which are natural (...) generalizations of (first-order) theories, and prove that Boolean-valued models are sound and complete with respect to Boolean valuations. With the help of Boolean valuations, we will also discuss the Löwenheim-Skolem theorems on Boolean-valued models. (shrink)

In “Models and Reality”, H. Putnam formulated his model-theoretic argument against “metaphysical realism”. The article proposes a meta-reconstruction of Putnam’s model-theoretic argument in the light of two mutually compatible interpretations of it–elaborated by Manuel Garcia-Carpintero and Igor van Douven. A critical reflection on these interpretations and their adequacy for Putnam’s argument allows us to expose new theses coherent with Putnam’s reasoning and indicate new paths to improve this argument for our reconstruction task. In particular, we show that Putnam’s position may (...) be coherent with van Douven’s versions of Global Descriptivism under some conditions, but Putnam cannot reject realism as quickly as Carpintero suggests. We show that Suszko’s canonic axiomatic system and Sneed’s concept of theory may provide valuable support for Putnam’s argument. Finally, we critically evaluate Carpintero’s theses about the genesis of unintended interpretations of our languages, adopting the machinery of the Upward Skolem–Loewenheim Theorem and Knight’s Theorem. (shrink)

The traditional model theory of first-order logic assumes that the interpretation of a formula can be given without reference to its deductive context. This paper investigates an interpretation which depends on a formula's location within a derivation. The key step is to drop the assumption that all quantified variables must have the same range and to require only that the ranges of variables in a derivation must be related in such way as to preserve the soundness of the inference rules. (...) With each (consistent) derivation there is associated a Buridan-Volpin (orBV) structure [M, {r(x)}] which is simply a Tarski structureM for the language and a map giving the ranger(x) of each variablex in the derivation. IfLK* is (approximately) the classical sequent calculusLK of Gentzen from which the structural contraction rules have been dropped, then our main result reads: If a set of first-ordered formulas has a Tarski modelM, then from any normal derivationD inLK* of can be constructed aBV modelM D=[M, {r(x)}] of where each ranger(x) is finite. (shrink)

The topos theory gives tools for unified proofs of theorems for model theory for various semantics and logics. We introduce the notion of power and the notion of generalized quantifier in topos and we formulate sufficient condition for such quantifiers in order that they fulfil downward Skolem-Löwenheim theorem when added to the language. In the next paper, in print, we will show that this sufficient condition is fulfilled in a vast class of Grothendieck toposes for the general and the (...) existential quantifiers. (shrink)

This paper is a continuation of the investigation from [13]. The main theorem states that the general and the existential quantifiers are (, -reducible in some Grothendieck toposes. Using this result and Theorems 4.1, 4.2 [13] we get the downward Skolem-Löwenheim theorem for semantics in these toposes.

In the context of proliferation of many logical systems in the area of mathematical logic and computer science, we present a generalization of forcing in institution-independent model theory which is used to prove two abstract results: Downward Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem and Omitting Types Theorem . We instantiate these general results to many first-order logics, which are, roughly speaking, logics whose sentences can be constructed from atomic formulas by means of Boolean connectives and classical first-order quantifiers. These include first-order logic (...) , logic of order-sorted algebras , preorder algebras , as well as their infinitary variants \ , \ , \ . In addition to the first technique for proving OTT, we develop another one, in the spirit of institution-independent model theory, which consists of borrowing the Omitting Types Property from a simpler institution across an institution comorphism. As a result we export the OTP from FOL to partial algebras and higher-order logic with Henkin semantics , and from the institution of \ to \ and \ . The second technique successfully extends the domain of application of OTT to non conventional logical systems for which the standard methods may fail. (shrink)

. Remarkably, despite the tremendous success of axiomatic set-theory in mathematics, logic and meta-mathematics, e.g., model-theory, two philosophical worries about axiomatic set-theory as the adequate catch of the set-concept keep haunting it. Having dealt with one worry in a previous paper in this journal, we now fulfil a promise made there, namely to deal with the second worry. The second worry is the Skolem Paradox and its ensuing Skolemite skepticism. We present a comparatively novel and simple analysis of the argument (...) of the Skolemite skeptic, which will reveal a general assumption concerning the meaning of the set-concept (we call it Connexion M). We argue that the Skolemite skeptics argument is a petitio principii and that consequently we find ourselves in a dialectical situation of stalemate.Few (if any) working set-theoreticians feel a tension – let alone see a paradox – between, on the one hand, what the Löwenheim–Skolem theorems and related results seem to be telling us about the set-concept, and, on the other hand, their uncompromising and successful use of the set-concept and their continuing enthusiasm about it, in other words: their lack of skepticism about the set-concept. Further, most (if not all) working settheoreticians have a relaxed attitude towards the ubiquitous undecidability phenomenon in set-theory, rather than a worrying one. We argue these are genuine philosophical problems about the practice of set-theory. We propound solutions, which crucially involve a renunciation of Connexion M. This breaks the dialectical situation of stalemate against the Skolemite skeptic. (shrink)

Skolem's Paradox involves a seeming conflict between two theorems from classical logic. The Löwenheim Skolem theorem says that if a first order theory has infinite models, then it has models whose domains are only countable. Cantor's theorem says that some sets are uncountable. Skolem's Paradox arises when we notice that the basic principles of Cantorian set theory—i.e., the very principles used to prove Cantor's theorem on the existence of uncountable sets—can themselves be formulated as a collection of (...) first order sentences. How can the very principles which prove the existence of uncountable sets be satisfied by a model which is itself only countable? How can a countable model satisfy the first order sentence which says that there are uncountably many mathematical objects—e.g., uncountably many real numbers? (shrink)

The Lowenheim-Skolem theorems say that if a first-order theory has infinite models, then it has models which are only countably infinite. Cantor's theorem says that some sets are uncountable. Together, these theorems induce a puzzle known as Skolem's Paradox: the very axioms of set theory which prove the existence of uncountable sets can be satisfied by a merely countable model. ;This dissertation examines Skolem's Paradox from three perspectives. After a brief introduction, chapters two and three examine several formulations of (...) Skolem's Paradox in order to disentangle the roles which set theory, model theory, and philosophy play in these formulations. In these chapters, I accomplish three things. First, I clear up some of the mathematical ambiguities which have all too often infected discussions of Skolem's Paradox. Second, I isolate a key assumption upon which Skolem's Paradox rests, and I show why this assumption has to be false. Finally, I argue that there is no single explanation as to how a countable model can satisfy the axioms of set theory ;In chapter four, I turn to a second puzzle. Why, even though philosophers have known since the early 1920's that Skolem's Paradox has a relatively simple technical solution, have they continued to find this paradox so troubling? I argue that philosophers' attitudes towards Skolem's Paradox have been shaped by the acceptance of certain, fairly specific, claims in the philosophy of language. I then tackle these philosophical claims head on. In some cases, I argue that the claims depend on an incoherent account of mathematical language. In other cases, I argue that the claims are so powerful that they render Skolem's Paradox trivial. In either case, though, examination of the philosophical underpinnings of Skolem's Paradox renders that paradox decidedly unparadoxical. ;Finally, in chapter five, I turn away from "generic" formulations of Skolem's Paradox to examine Hilary Putnam's "model-theoretic argument against realism." I show that Putnam's argument involves mistakes of both the mathematical and the philosophical variety, and that these two types of mistake are closely related. Along the way, I clear up some of the mutual charges of question begging which have characterized discussions between Putnam and his critics. (shrink)

We show that, assuming the consistency of a supercompact cardinal, the first inaccessible cardinal can satisfy a strong form of a Löwenheim–Skolem–Tarski theorem for the equicardinality logic L, a logic introduced in [5] strictly between first order logic and second order logic. On the other hand we show that in the light of present day inner model technology, nothing short of a supercompact cardinal suffices for this result. In particular, we show that the Löwenheim–Skolem–Tarski theorem for (...) the equicardinality logic at κ implies the Singular Cardinals Hypothesis above κ as well as Projective Determinacy. (shrink)