Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T22:38:55.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Partially ordered interpretations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Nobuyoshi Motohashi
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this paper, we shall define the “partially ordered interpretation” of a first order theory in another first order theory and state some recent results. Although an exact definition will be given in §4 below, we now give a brief outline. First of all, let us recall the “interpretations” defined by A. Tarski et al. in [17] and the “parametrical interpretations” defined by P. Hájek in [6], [7] and U. Felgner in [3]. Since “interpretations” can be considered as a special case of “parametrical interpretations”, we consider only the latter type of “interpretations”. A parametrical interpretation I of a first order language L in a consistent theory T′ (formulated in another first order language L′) consists of the following formulas:

(i) a unary formula C(p) (i.e. a formula with one designated free variable p), which is used to denote the range of parameters,

(ii) a binary formula U(p, x), which is intended to denote the pth universe for each parameter p,

(iii) an (n + 1)-ary formula Fp(p, x1 …, xn) for each n-ary predicate symbol P in L,

such that the formulas (∃p)C(p) and (∀p)(C(p)→(∃x)U(p, x)) are provable in T". Then, given a formula A in L and a parameter p, we define the interpretation Ip (A ) of A by I at p to be the formula which is obtained from A by replacing every atomic subformula P(*, …, *) in A by Fp(p, *,…,*), and relativizing every occurrence of quantifiers in A by U(p, * ). A sentence A in L is said to be I-provable in T′ if the sentence (∀p) (C(p)→ Ip(A)) is provable in T′. Then, it is obvious that every provable sentence in L is I-provable in T′. This is a basic result of “parametrical interpretations” and is used to prove the “consistency” of a theory T in L by showing that every axiom of T is I-provable in T′ when I is said to be a parametrical interpretation of T in T′. As is shown above, the word “interpretation” is used in the following three senses: interpretations of languages, interpretations of formulas and interpretations of theories. So, in this introduction we let the word “interpretation” denote “interpretation of languages”, for short.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , March 1977, pp. 83 - 93
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

[1]Cohen, P. J., Set theory and the continuum hypothesis, Benjamin, Amsterdam, 1966.Google Scholar
[2]Feferman, S., Arithmetization of metamathematics in a general setting, Fundamental Mathematicae, vol. 49 (1961), pp. 35–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Felgner, U., Models of ZF-set theory, Springer Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Springer, Berlin, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Fitting, M., Intuitionistic model theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1969.Google Scholar
[5]Fitting, M., Intuitionistic model theory and the Cohen independence proofs, Intuitionism and proof theory (Myhill, J.et al., Editors), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1970.Google Scholar
[6]Hájek, P., Syntactic models of axiomatic theories, Bulletin de l'Académie Polonaise des Sciences, vol. 71 (1951), pp. 273–278.Google Scholar
[7]Hájek, P., Generalized interpretability in terms of models, note to a paper of R. Montague, Casopis pro pěstaváni matematiki, vol. 91 (1966), pp. 352–357.Google Scholar
[8]Jech, T., Lectures on set theory, Springer Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Springer, Berlin, 1972.Google Scholar
[9]Kripke, S., Semantical analysis of intuitionistic logic. I, Formal systems and recursive functions, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1965.Google Scholar
[10]Mansfield, R., The theory of Boolean ultrapowers, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 2 (1971), pp. 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Motohashi, N., A faithful interpretation of intuitionistic predicate logic in classical predicate logic, Commentant Mathematics Universitatis Sancti Pauli, vol. 21 (1973), pp. 11–24.Google Scholar
[12]Motohashi, N., Partially ordered interpretations of set theory, (to appear).Google Scholar
[13]Motohashi, N., Partially ordered interpretations and formal consistency, (to appear).Google Scholar
[14]Motohashi, N., Partially ordered models, (to appear).Google Scholar
[15]Ressayre, J. P., Boolean models and infinitary first order language, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 6 (1973), pp. 41–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16]Shoenfield, J., Mathematical logic, Addison-Wesley, London, 1967.Google Scholar
[17]Tarski, A. with Mostowski, A. and Robinson, R. M., Undecidable theories, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1953.Google Scholar