Israel Journal of Mathematics

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 248–256 | Cite as

Definibility in normal theories

  • J. Richard Buchi
  • Kenneth J. Danhof


This paper initiates an investigation which seeks to explain elementary definability as the classical results of mathematicallogic (the completeness, compactness and Löwenheim-Skolem theorems) explain elementary logical consequence. The theorems of Beth and Svenonius are basic in this approach and introduce automorphism groups as a means of studying these problems. It is shown that for a complete theoryT, the definability relation of Beth (or Svenonius) yields an upper semi-lattice whose elements (concepts) are interdefinable formulas ofT (formulas having equal automorphism groups in all models ofT). It is shown that there are countable modelsA ofT such that two formulae are distinct (not interdefinable) inT if and only if they are distinct (have different automorphism groups) inA. The notion of a concepth being normal in a theoryT is introduced. Here the upper semi-lattice of all concepts which defineh is proved to be a finite lattice—anti-isomorphic to the lattice of subgroups of the corresponding automorphism group. Connections with the Galois theory of fields are discussed.


Automorphism Group Galois Group Normal Theory Elementary Theory Galois Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    E. W. Beth,On Padoa’s method in the theory of definitions, Indag. Math.15 (1953).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. R. Buchi,Relatively Categorical and Normal Theories, in The Theory of Models, Amsterdam, 1965.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. R. Buchi and K. J. Danhof,Model Theoretic Approaches to Definability, Z. Math. Logik Grundlagen Math.18 (1972), 61–70.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. R. Buchi and J. B. Wright,The theory of proportionality as an abstraction of group theory, Math. Ann.130 (1955).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. R. Buchi and J. B. Wright,Invariants of the anti-automorphisms of a group, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.8 (1957).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    W. Craig,Linear reasoning. A new form of the Herbrand-Gentzen theorem, J. Symbolic Logic22 (1957).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    W. Craig,Tree uses of the Herband-Gentzen theorem in relating model theorey and proof theory, J. Symbolic Logic22 (1957).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    K.J. Danhof,Concepts in normal theories, Notices Amer. Math. Soc.71 T-E26 (1971).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Hilbert and P. Bernays,Grundlagen der Mathematik, Vol. 1, Berlin, 1934.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    F. Klein,Vergleichende Betrachutngen über neuere geometrische Forschungen, Verlag A. Deicher, Erlangen, 1872.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Robinson,A result on consistency and its application to the theory of definition, Indag. Math.18 (1956), 47–58.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    L. Svenonius,A theorem on permutations in models, Theoria (Lund)25 (1959).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Tarski,Der Wahrheitsbegriff in den formalisierten Sprachen, Studia Philosophica1, (1936).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Tarski,Einige Methodologische Untersuchungen über die Definierbarkeit der Begriffe Erkenntnis5 (1935).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J.B. Wright,Quasi-projective geometry of two dimensions, Michigan Math. J.2 (1953–4).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Hebrew University 1973

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Richard Buchi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kenneth J. Danhof
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Southern Illinois UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations