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

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

. 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)

Working in a fixed Grothendieck topos Sh(C, J C ) we generalize \({\mathcal{L}_{{\infty},\omega}}\) to allow our languages and formulas to make explicit reference to Sh(C, J C ). We likewise generalize the notion of model. We then show how to encode these generalized structures by models of a related sentence of \({\mathcal{L}_{{\infty},\omega}}\) in the category of sets and functions. Using this encoding we prove analogs of several results concerning \({\mathcal{L}_{{\infty},\omega}}\) , such as the downward Löwenheim–Skolem theorem, the completeness (...) theorem and Barwise compactness. (shrink)

THEOREM 1. (⋄ ℵ 1 ) If B is an infinite Boolean algebra (BA), then there is B 1 such that $|\operatorname{Aut} (B_1)| \leq B_1| = \aleph_1$ and $\langle B_1, \operatorname{Aut} (B_1)\rangle \equiv \langle B, \operatorname{Aut}(B)\rangle$ . THEOREM 2. (⋄ ℵ 1 ) There is a countably compact logic stronger than first-order logic even on finite models. This partially answers a question of H. Friedman. These theorems appear in §§ 1 and 2. THEOREM 3. (a) (⋄ ℵ (...) 1 ) If B is an atomic ℵ 1 -saturated infinite BA, ψ ε L ω 1ω and $\langle B, \operatorname{Aut} (B)\rangle \models\psi$ then there is B 1 such that $|\operatorname{Aut}(B_1)| \leq |B_1| = \aleph_1$ and $\langle B_1, \operatorname{Aut}(B_1)\rangle\models\psi$ . In particular if B is 1-homogeneous so is B 1 . (b) (a) holds for B = P(ω) even if we assume only CH. (shrink)

Logic is traditionally considered to be a purely syntactic discipline, at least in principle. However, prof. David Isles has shown that this ideal is not yet met in traditional logic. Semantic residue is present in the assumption that the domain of a variable should be fixed in advance of a derivation, and also in the notion that a numerical notation must refer to a number rather than be considered a mathematical object in and of itself. Based on his work, the (...) central question of this thesis is what kind of logic, if any, results from removing this semantic residue from traditional logic.We differ from traditional logic in two significant ways. The first is that the assumption that a numerical notation must refer to a number is denied. Numerical notations are considered as mathematical objects in their own right, related to each other by means of rewrite rules. The traditional notion of reference is then replaced by the notion of reduction (by means of the rewrite rules) to a normal form. Two numerical notations that reduce to the same normal form would traditionally be considered identical, as they would refer to the same number, and hence they would be interchangeable salva veritate. In the new system, called Buridan-Volpin (BV), the numerical notations themselves are the elements of the domains of variables, and two numerical notations that reduce to the same normal form need not be interchangeable salva veritate, except when they are syntactically identical (i.e., have the same Gödel number).The second is that we do away with the assumption that the domains of variables need to be fixed in advance of a derivation. Instead we focus on what is needed to guarantee preservation of truth in every step of a derivation. These conditions on the domains of the variables, accumulated in the course of a derivation, are combined in a reference grammar. Whereas traditionally a derivation is considered valid when the conclusion follows from the premisses by way of the derivation rules (and possibly axioms), in the BV system a derivation must meet the extra condition that no inconsistency occurs within the reference grammar. For if the reference grammar were to give rise to inconsistency (i.e., it would be impossible to assign domains to all the variables without breaking at least one of the conditions placed on them in the reference grammar), there is no longer a guarantee that truth has been preserved in every step of the derivation, and hence the truth of the conclusion is not guaranteed by the derivation.In Chapter 2 the BV system is introduced in some formal detail. Chapter 3 gives some examples of derivations, notably totality of addition, multiplication and exponentiation, as well as a lemma needed for the proof of Euclid’s Theorem. These examples, taken from prof. Isles’ First-Order Reasoning and Primitive Recursive Natural Number Notations, show that there is a real proof-theoretical difference between traditional logic and the BV system. Here we also find the first major point of departure between myself and prof. Isles, centered on the notion of inheritance of conditions in the reference grammar by way of lemmata. These different points of view are best illustrated in the sections on the totality of exponentiation and on Euclid’s Lemma: prof. Isles maintains that the proof of totality of exponentiation is not BV valid, while I maintain that it is. But I do agree with him that the traditional proof of Euclid’s Lemma is not BV valid. Chapter 6 also expands the arguments for my choice in this matter.Now that it has been shown that there is a difference between traditional logic and BV, the properties of BV need to be examined. In Chapter 4 we give a proof of Cut-elimination for BV minus induction and the subformula property for BV, which allows us to prove the consistency of BV minus induction. We also expand on the reasons for excluding induction. In Chapter 5 we consider in detail the proof of a finite analog to the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem given by prof. Isles in his article with the same title. He proves that under certain conditions it is always possible, given the existence of a (possibly uncountable) model for a derivation, to give a finite model for this derivation. The system he considers deviates from BV as considered in this thesis in two significant ways: it does not contain the induction rule and the domains contain numbers instead of numerical notations. We then go on to show that it is possible to extend the result to include induction, in the sense that the existence of a possibly uncountable model for a derivation guarantees the existence of a model that is at most countable. We also consider the complications that arise from taking numerical expressions instead of numbers as the elements of domains.Finally, in Chapter 6 we consider the philosophical consequences of the BV system, informed by the formal results from the previous chapters. In particular we discuss the relation between reduction and reference, the status of reference grammars, the notion of induction and its function within BV, and some brief considerations on the consequences of the BV system for the discussion regarding nominalism and realism with regard to mathematical objects. The object of the chapter is twofold. On the one hand applying the formal results to philosophical questions, on the other hand arguing that BV is not just a theoretically acceptable alternative to traditional logic, but is in fact deserving of further development and research into its properties. The latter will probably appeal most to those of a nominalist and/or finitist bent.Abstract prepared by Harrie de Swart and Sven Storms.E-mail:[email protected]:https://research.tilburguniversity.edu/files/6170 1294/Storms_The_Buridan_Volpin_04_05_2022.pdf. (shrink)

The central contention of this book is that second-order logic has a central role to play in laying the foundations of mathematics. In order to develop the argument fully, the author presents a detailed description of higher-order logic, including a comprehensive discussion of its semantics. He goes on to demonstrate the prevalence of second-order concepts in mathematics and the extent to which mathematical ideas can be formulated in higher-order logic. He also shows how first-order languages are often insufficient to codify (...) many concepts in contemporary mathematics, and thus that both first- and higher-order logics are needed to fully reflect current work. Throughout, the emphasis is on discussing the associated philosophical and historical issues and the implications they have for foundational studies. For the most part, the author assumes little more than a familiarity with logic comparable to that provided in a beginning graduate course which includes the incompleteness of arithmetic and the Lowenheim-Skolem theorems. All those concerned with the foundations of mathematics will find this a thought-provoking discussion of some of the central issues in the field today. (shrink)

We study some large cardinals in terms of reflection, establishing new connections between the model-theoretic and the set-theoretic approaches.

Stemming from the works of Petr Hájek on mathematical fuzzy logic, graded model theory has been developed by several authors in the last two decades as an extension of classical model theory that studies the semantics of many-valued predicate logics. In this paper we take the first steps towards an abstract formulation of this model theory. We give a general notion of abstract logic based on many-valued models and prove six Lindström-style characterizations of maximality of first-order logics in terms of (...) metalogical properties such as compactness, abstract completeness, the Löwenheim–Skolem property, the Tarski union property, and the Robinson property, among others. As necessary technical restrictions, we assume that the models are valued on finite MTL-chains and the language has a constant for each truth-value. (shrink)

Lindström’s theorem obviously fails as a characterization of first-order logic without identity ( $\mathcal {L}_{\omega \omega }^{-} $ ). In this note, we provide a fix: we show that $\mathcal {L}_{\omega \omega }^{-} $ is a maximal abstract logic satisfying a weak form of the isomorphism property (suitable for identity-free languages and studied in [11]), the Löwenheim–Skolem property, and compactness. Furthermore, we show that compactness can be replaced by being recursively enumerable for validity under certain conditions. In the (...) proofs, we use a form of strong upwards Löwenheim–Skolem theorem not available in the framework with identity. (shrink)

his paper presents a unified treatment of the propositional and first-order many-valued logics through the method of tableaux. It is shown that several important results on the proof theory and model theory of those logics can be obtained in a general way. We obtain, in this direction, abstract versions of the completeness theorem, model existence theorem (using a generalization of the classical analytic consistency properties), compactness theorem and Lowenheim-Skolem theorem. The paper is completely self-contained (...) and includes examples of application to particular many-valued formal systems. (shrink)

Boolean-valued models generalize classical two-valued models by allowing arbitrary complete Boolean algebras as value ranges. The goal of my dissertation is to study Boolean-valued models and explore their philosophical and mathematical applications.In Chapter 1, I build a robust theory of first-order Boolean-valued models that parallels the existing theory of two-valued models. I develop essential model-theoretic notions like “Boolean-valuation,” “diagram,” and “elementary diagram,” and prove a series of theorems on Boolean-valued models, including the (strengthened) Soundness and Completeness Theorem, the Löwenheim– (...) class='Hi'>Skolem Theorems, the Elementary Chain Theorem, and many more.Chapter 2 gives an example of a philosophical application of Boolean-valued models. I apply Boolean-valued models to the language of mereology to model indeterminacy in the parthood relation. I argue that Boolean-valued semantics is the best degree-theoretic semantics for the language of mereology. In particular, it trumps the well-known alternative—fuzzy-valued semantics. I also show that, contrary to what many have argued, indeterminacy in parthood entails neither indeterminacy in existence nor indeterminacy in identity, though being compatible with both.Chapter 3 (joint work with Bokai Yao) gives an example of a mathematical application of Boolean-valued models. Scott and Solovay famously used Boolean-valued models on set theory to obtain relative consistency results. In Chapter 3, I investigate two ways of extending the Scott–Solovay construction to set theory with urelements. I argue that the standard way of extending the construction faces a serious problem, and offer a new way that is free from the problem.Abstract prepared by Xinhe Wu.E-mail: [email protected]. (shrink)