No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
INTERPRETATIONS BETWEEN ω-LOGIC AND SECOND-ORDER ARITHMETIC
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 August 2014
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.
This paper addresses the structures (M, ω) and (ω, SSy(M)), where M is a nonstandard model of PA and ω is the standard cut. It is known that (ω, SSy(M)) is interpretable in (M, ω). Our main technical result is that there is an reverse interpretation of (M, ω) in (ω, SSy(M)) which is ‘local’ in the sense of Visser [11]. We also relate the model theory of (M, ω) to the study of transplendent models of PA [2].
This yields a number of model theoretic results concerning the ω-models (M, ω) and their standard systems SSy(M, ω), including the following.
• 
$\left( {M,\omega } \right) \prec \left( {K,\omega } \right)$ if and only if 
$M \prec K$ and 
$\left( {\omega ,{\rm{SSy}}\left( M \right)} \right) \prec \left( {\omega ,{\rm{SSy}}\left( K \right)} \right)$.
• 
$\left( {\omega ,{\rm{SSy}}\left( M \right)} \right) \prec \left( {\omega ,{\cal P}\left( \omega \right)} \right)$ if and only if 
$\left( {M,\omega } \right) \prec \left( {{M^{\rm{*}}},\omega } \right)$ for some ω-saturated M*.
• 
$M{ \prec _{\rm{e}}}K$ implies SSy(M, ω) = SSy(K, ω), but cofinal extensions do not necessarily preserve standard system in this sense.
• SSy(M, ω)=SSy(M) if and only if (ω, SSy(M)) satisfies the full comprehension scheme.
• If SSy(M, ω) is uniformly defined by a single formula (analogous to a β function), then (ω, SSy(M, ω)) satisfies the full comprehension scheme; and there are models M for which SSy(M, ω) is not uniformly defined in this sense.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Association for Symbolic Logic 2014
References
REFERENCES
Barwise, Jon and Schlipf, John, An introduction to recursively saturated and resplendent models, this Journal, vol. 41 (1976), no. 2, pp. 531–536.Google Scholar
Engström, Fredrik and Kaye, Richard, Transplendent models: Expansions omitting a type. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 53 (2012), no. 3, pp. 413–428.Google Scholar
Kanovei, Vladimir, On external Scott algebras in nonstandard models of Peano arithmetic, this Journal, vol. 61 (1996), no. 2, pp. 586–607.Google Scholar
Kossak, Roman and Schmerl, James H., The structure of models of Peano arithmetic, Oxford Logic Guides, vol. 50, The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006, Oxford Science Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ressayre, J. P., Models with compactness properties relative to an admissible language. Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 11 (1977), no. 1, pp. 31–55.Google Scholar
Kaye, Richard, Kossak, Roman, and Wong, Tin Lok, Adding standardness to nonstandard arithmetic. New studies in weak arithmetics (Cégielski, P., Cornaros, Ch., and Dimitracopoulos, C., editors), CSLI Lecture notes number 211, CSLI Publications, Stanford, 2014, pp. 179–197.Google Scholar
Schmerl, James H., A reflection principle and its applications to nonstandard models, this Journal, vol. 60 (1995), no. 4, pp. 1137–1152.Google Scholar
Simpson, Stephen G., Subsystems of second order arithmetic, second ed., Perspectives in Logic, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009.Google Scholar
Smith, Stuart T., Extendible sets in Peano arithmetic. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 316 (1989), no. 1, pp. 337–367.Google Scholar
Visser, Albert, Categories of theories and interpretations, Logic in Tehran, Lecture notes in logic, vol. 26, The Association for Symbolic Logic, La Jolla, CA, 2006, pp. 284–341.Google Scholar
You have
Access