Advertisement

Infinitary Logics

  • Jon Barwise
Chapter
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 149)

Abstract

We begin with two examples. The sentence “No one has more than a finite number of ancestors” might be written symbolically as
$$forall x[{A_0}(x)\nu {A_1}(x)\nu {A_2}(x)\nu \ldots etc.]$$
which would be read: for every person x (∀x) either x has no ancestors (A0(x)) or (v) he has one ancestor (A 1(x)), or he has two ancestors etc. Even if we interpret ‘person’ to mean past, present or future person, most of us would consider this sentence as being true. On the other hand, if one were to try to put an a priori upper bound n on the number of possible ancestors a person might have, and assert
$$forall x[{A_0}(x)\nu {A_1}(x)\nu {A_2}(x)\nu \ldots \nu {A_n}(x)]$$
then we could no longer agree, for one could always conceive of man some show surviving for another n=1 generations. Thus what we have is an infinitary sentence which is not logically equivalent to any of its finite approximations.

Keywords

Test Sentence Negation Normal Form Provable Formula Abstract Model Theory Regular Formula 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. For ease of referencing, we have referred to all papers by their author and year of publication. This differs slightly from the dating system used in [15] below.Google Scholar
  2. [1]
    J. Barwise, Inflnitary Logic and Admissible Sets, Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford Univ., 1967. (Part of this appeared in J. Symbolic Logic 34 (1969), 226–252 ).Google Scholar
  3. [2]
    J. Barwise, ‘Axioms for Abstract Model Theory’, Annals of Math. Logic 1 (1974), 221–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [3]
    J J. Barwise, Admissible sets and structures, Springer-Verlag, 1975.Google Scholar
  5. [4]
    J. Barwise (ed.), Handbook of Math. Logic, North-Holland, 1977.Google Scholar
  6. [5]
    J. Barwise, M. Kaufmann, and M. Makkai, ‘Stationary Logic’, Annals of Math. Logic 13 (1978), 171–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [6]
    D. A. Bochvar, ‘Über einen Aussagenkalkül mit abzahlbaren logischen Summen und Produkten’, Matematiceskij sbornik, n. s. VoL 7, 1940, pp. 65–100. (Reviewed by H. Curry in Math. Reviews 11 (1940); and A. Church in J. Symbolic Logic 5 (1940), 119).Google Scholar
  8. [7]
    Rudolf Carnap, ‘Ein Gültigkeitskriterium für die Sätze der Klassischen Mathematik’, Monatshefte für Mathematik undPhysik 42 (1935), 163–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [8]
    Rudolf Carnap, The Logical Syntax of Language, (Orig., Vienna, 1934) London, 1937.Google Scholar
  10. [9]
    Rudolf Carnap, Formalisation of Semantics, Cambridge, Mass., 1943.Google Scholar
  11. [10]
    Rudolf Carnap, Meaning and Necessity, Second edition, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1956.Google Scholar
  12. [11]
    M. A. Dickmann, Large Infinitary Languages, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1975.Google Scholar
  13. [12]
    E. Fisher, ‘Vopenka’s Principle, Category Theory and Universal Algebra’, Notices A.M.S. (742-08-4) 24 (1977), A-44.Google Scholar
  14. [13]
    A. Grzegorczyk, A. Mostowski, and C. Ryll-Nardzewski, ‘Definability of Sets in Models of Axiomatic Theories’, Bull. Acad. Polon. Sci 9 (1961), 163–167.Google Scholar
  15. [14]
    W. Hanf, ‘Incompactness in Languages With Infinitely Long Expressions’, Fund. Math. 53 (1964), 309–324.Google Scholar
  16. [15]
    I. van Heijenoort (ed.), From Frege to Gödel, Harvard, 1967.Google Scholar
  17. [16]
    L. Henkin, ‘A Generalization of the Concept of ω-Consistency’, J. Symbolic Logic 19 (1954), 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [17]
    L. Henkin, ‘Some Remarks on Infinitely Long Formulas’, Infinitistic Methods, Warsaw, 1961.Google Scholar
  19. [18]
    D. Hilbert, ‘On the Infinite’, Math. Annalen 95 (1926), 161–190. Translated in [15].Google Scholar
  20. [19]
    P. Jordan, ‘Zur Axiomatik der Verkniipfungsbereiche’, Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg 16 (1949), 54–70. (Reviewed by T. Frayne, J. Symbolic Logic 23 (1958), 361; and by G. Birkhoff, Math. Reviews 11 (1950), 75 ).Google Scholar
  21. [20]
    Carol Karp, Languages With Expressions of Infinite Length, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1964.Google Scholar
  22. [21]
    H. J. Keisler, ‘Logic With the Quantifier “there exist uncountably many”’, Annals of Math. Logic 1 (1970), 1–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [22]
    H.J. Keisler, Model Theory for Infinitary Logic, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1971.Google Scholar
  24. [23]
    G. Kreisel, ‘Choice of Infinitary Languages by Means of Definability Criteria; Generalized Recursion Theory’, in The Syntax and Semantics of Infinitary Languages, J. Barwise (ed.), Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Math. 72 (1968), 139–151.Google Scholar
  25. [24]
    L. Löwenheim, ‘On Possibilities in the Calculus of Relatives’, Math. Annalen 76 (1915), 447–470. Translated in [15].Google Scholar
  26. [25]
    J. Malitz, Problems in the Model Theory of Infinite Languages, Ph.D. Thesis, Berkeley, 1965.Google Scholar
  27. [26]
    P. S. Novikoff, ‘Sui quelques theorems d’existence’, Comptes rendus (Doklady) de l’Académie des Sciences de l’URSS 23 (1939), 438–440. (Reviewed by Church in J. Symbolic Logic V (1940), 69 ).Google Scholar
  28. [27]
    P. S. Novikoff, ‘On the Consistency of Certain Logical Calculus’, Matematiceskij sbornik 12 (54), No. 2 (1943), 231–261. (This is an expanded version of [26]. It is reviewed by Church in J. Symbolic Logic 11 (1946), 129; and by McKinsey in Math. Reviews 5 (1944), 197.)Google Scholar
  29. [28]
    S. Orey, ‘On ω-Consistency and Related Properties’, J. Symbolic Logic 21 (1956), 246–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [29]
    C. S. Peirce, Collected Papers, Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  31. [30]
    Walker Percy, The Message in the Bottle, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, N.Y., 1975.Google Scholar
  32. [31]
    Frank P. Ramsey, The Foundations of Mathematics, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, Ser. 2, Vol. 25, Part 5, 1925, pp. 338–384.Google Scholar
  33. [32]
    A. Robinson, On the Metamathematics of Algebra, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1951.Google Scholar
  34. [33]
    Barkley Rosser, ‘Gödel Theorems for Non-Constructive Logics’, J. Symbolic Logic 2 (1937), 129–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [34]
    Dana Scott, ‘Logic With Denumerably Long Formulas and Finite Strings of Quantifiers’, in The Theory of Models, Addison, Henkin, and Tarski (eds.), 1965.Google Scholar
  36. [35]
    D. S. Scott and A. Tarski, The Sentential Calculus With Infinitely Long Expressions, Colloq. Math. 6 (1958), 165–170.Google Scholar
  37. [36]
    W. W. Tait, ‘Normal Derivability in Classical Logic’, in The Syntax and Semantics of Infinitary Languages, Springer Lecture Notes in Math., No. 72, 1968, pp. 204–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. [37]
    A. Tarski, ‘Some Observations on the Concepts of (ω -Consistency and ω-Completeness’, Monatshefte für Mathematik 40 (1933), 97 ω 112; reprinted in translation in Tarski’s book Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, Oxford, 1956, pp. 279–295.Google Scholar
  39. [38]
    A. Tarski, ‘Remarks on Predicate Logic With Infinitely Long Expressions’, Colloq. Math. 6 (1958), 171–176.Google Scholar

Added in Proof

  1. 1.
    Wilfred Seig has drawn my attention to a little known anti-formalist paper of Zermelo which studies the propositional part of Lω, ω: ‘Grundlagen einer allgemeinen Theorie der mathematischen Satzsysteme’, Fundamenta Mathematica 25 (1935), 136–146.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A technical version of this paper will appear as ‘The Role of the Omitting Types Theorem in Infinitory Logic’, in Arch. f. math. Logik u. Grundl. Forschung.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jon Barwise
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.University of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Stanford UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations