Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userFinite relation algebras and omitting types in modal fragments of first order logic
248
0
0.0
(
0
)
Authors
Tarek Sayed Ahmed
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Let 2<nleq l<m< omega. Let L_n denote first order logic restricted to the first n variables. We show that the omitting types theorem fails dramatically for the n--variable fragments of first order logic with respect to clique guarded semantics, and for its packed n--variable fragments. Both are modal fragments of L_n. As a sample, we show that if there exists a finite relation algebra with a so--called strong l--blur, and no m--dimensional relational basis, then there exists a countable, atomic and complete L_n theory T and type Gamma, such that Gamma is realizable in every so--called m--square model of T, but any witness isolating Gamma cannot use less than $l$ variables. An $m$--square model M of T gives a form of clique guarded semantics, where the parameter m, measures how locally well behaved M is. Every ordinary model is k--square for any n<k<omega, but the converse is not true. Any model M is omega--square, and the two notions are equivalent if M is countable. Such relation algebras are shown to exist for certain values of l and m like for nleq l<omega and m=omega, and for l=n and mgeq n+3. The case l=n and m=omega gives that the omitting types theorem fails for L_n with respect to (usual) Tarskian semantics: There is an atomic countable L_n theory T for which the single non--principal type consisting of co--atoms cannot be omitted in any model M of T. For n<omega, positive results on omitting types are obained for L_n by imposing extra conditions on the theories and/or the types omitted. Positive and negative results on omitting types are obtained for infinitary variants and extensions of L_{omega, omega}.
rate research
Read More
Fix 2<n<omega. Let L_n denote first order logic restricted to the first n variables. CA_n denotes the class of cylindric algebras of dimension n and for m>n, Nr_nCA_m(subseteq CA_n) denotes the class of n-neat reducts of CA_ms. The existence of certain finite relation algebras and finite CA_ns lacking relativized complete representations is shown to imply that the omitting types theorem (OTT) fails for L_n with respect to clique guarded semantics (which is an equivalent formalism of its packed fragments), and for the multi-dimensional modal logic S5^n. Several such relation and cylindric algebras are explicitly exhibited using rainbow constructions and Monk-like algebras. Certain CA_n constructed to show non-atom canonicity of the variety SNr_nCA_{n+3} are used to show that Vaughts theorem (VT) for L_{omega, omega}, looked upon as a special case of OTT for L_{omega, omega}, fails almost everywhere (a notion to be defined below) when restricted to L_n. That VT fails everywhere for L_n, which is stronger than failing almost everywhere as the name suggests, is reduced to the existence, for each n<m<omega, of a finite relation algebra R_m having a so-called m-1 strong blur, but R_m has no m-dimensional relational basis. VT for other modal fragments and expansions of L_n, like its guarded fragments, n-products of uni-modal logics like K^n, and first order definable expansions, is approached. It is shown that any multi-modal canonical logic L, such that $K^nsubseteq Lsubseteq S5^n$, L cannot be axiomatized by canonical equations. In particular, L is not Sahlqvist. Elementary generation and di-completeness for L_n and its clique guarded fragments are proved. Positive omitting types theorems are proved for L_n with respect to standard semantics.
We describe an infinitary logic for metric structures which is analogous to $L_{omega_1, omega}$. We show that this logic is capable of expressing several concepts from analysis that cannot be expressed in finitary continuous logic. Using topological methods, we prove an omitting types theorem for countable fragments of our infinitary logic. We use omitting types to prove a two-cardinal theorem, which yields a strengthening of a result of Ben Yaacov and Iovino concerning separable quotients of Banach spaces.
Quantified modal logic provides a natural logical language for reasoning about modal attitudes even while retaining the richness of quantification for referring to predicates over domains. But then most fragments of the logic are undecidable, over many model classes. Over the years, only a few fragments (such as the monodic) have been shown to be decidable. In this paper, we study fragments that bundle quantifiers and modalities together, inspired by earlier work on epistemic logics of know-how/why/what. As always with quantified modal logics, it makes a significant difference whether the domain stays the same across worlds, or not. In particular, we show that the bundle $forall Box$ is undecidable over constant domain interpretations, even with only monadic predicates, whereas $exists Box$ bundle is decidable. On the other hand, over increasing domain interpretations, we get decidability with both $forall Box$ and $exists Box$ bundles with unrestricted predicates. In these cases, we also obtain tableau based procedures that run in PSPACE. We further show that the $exists Box$ bundle cannot distinguish between constant domain and increasing domain interpretations.
The Omitting Types Theorem in model theory and the Baire Category Theorem in topology are known to be closely linked. We examine the precise relation between these two theorems. Working with a general notion of logic we show that the classical Omitting Types Theorem holds for a logic if a certain associated topological space has all closed subspaces Baire. We also consider stronger Baire category conditions, and hence stronger Omitting Types Theorems, including a game version. We use examples of spaces previously studied in set-theoretic topology to produce abstract logics showing that the game Omitting Types statement is consistently not equivalent to the classical one.
We introduce a proper display calculus for first-order logic, of which we prove soundness, completeness, conservativity, subformula property and cut elimination via a Belnap-style metatheorem. All inference rules are closed under uniform substitution and are without side conditions.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
