Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. The Journal of Symbolic Logic
  4. Volume 28
Journal Home
Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Publication date:

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×
< Back to all issues

Volume 28 - December 1963

Contents

Page 2 of 6

Reviews

Research Article

  • Descriptive completeness and inductive methods

  • Keith Lehrer
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    12 March 2014, pp. 157-160

  • In a recent paper Professor Wesley Salmon1 has shown that a certain class of c-functions, including the c-function c*. described by Rudolph Carnap2 yield incompatible results when applied to the same sentences in two languages systems which, though they have the same individual constants, do not have the same predicates. Each c-function of the class in question is characterized by a parameter λ which is a function of the number of Q-predicates in the language system in which the c-function is used.3 Taking c* as representative of this class of c-functions, I shall argue that Professor Salmon's results do not provide a reasonable basis for rejecting such c-functions in favor of others. More specifically, I shall argue (i) that such c-functions yield incompatible results in two languages because not both of the languages are sufficiently complete, (ii) that for any two languages in which such c-functions yield incompatible results there is a rule that will select either the more complete of the two languages or a language that is more complete than either of the two languages, and (iii) that it is impossible for such c-functions to yield incompatible results in two languages that are equally complete.

  • On the solvability of a subclass of the surányi reduction class1

  • Richard Goldberg
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    12 March 2014, pp. 237-244

  • In [1] Dreben showed that the subclass K′ (described below) of the Suranyi reduction class is recursively solvable by showing that the subclass is finitely controllable; that is, by showing that any member S of K′ is satisfiable only if it is finitely satisfiable. Dreben's argument is very complex, but much of the complexity is due to his proving not merely solvability, but the deeper property of finite controllability. In the present note, by exploiting certain features of Dreben's technique, a simpler, direct proof of the solvability of K′ is obtained — that is, a proof in which the question of satisfiability in a finite domain plays no role.

  • A weak completeness theorem for infinite valued first-order logic

  • L. P. Belluce, C. C. Chang
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    12 March 2014, pp. 43-50

  • This paper contains some results concerning the completeness of a first-order system of infinite valued logic

    There are under consideration two distinct notions of completeness corresponding to the two notions of validity (see Definition 3) and strong validity (see Definition 4). Both notions of validity, whether based on the unit interval [0, 1] or based on linearly ordered MV-algebras, use the element 1 as the designated truth value. Originally, it was thought by many investigators in the field that one should be able to prove that the set of valid sentences is recursively enumerable. It was first proved by Rutledge in [9] that the set of valid sentences in the monadic first-order infinite valued logic is recursively enumerable.

  • On n-adic representation of numbers1

  • Thomas E. Patton
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    12 March 2014, pp. 161-163

  • In Smullyan [1], where recursive enumerability is defined in terms of elementary dyadic arithmetics (dyadic EA's), it is shown that for any number n, the parallel definition in terms of n-adic EA′s is equivalent. This proof at one stage uses the deep result of Godei that plus and times form a sub-basis for the recursively enumerable attributes (sets and relations)2. The aim of this note is to prove this equivalence in more pedestrian fashion.

Reviews

Research Article

  • What is strict implication?

  • Ian Hacking
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    12 March 2014, pp. 51-71

  • C. I. Lewis intended his systems S1–S5 as contributions to the study of “strict implication”, but in his formulation, strict implication is so thoroughly intertwined with other notions, such as possibility and negation, that it remains a problem, to separate out the properties of strict implication itself. I shall solve this problem for S2–5 and von Wright's M. The results for S3–5 are given below, while the implicative parts of S2 and M, which are rather more complicated, are given in §5.

    In this presentation, ‘⊃’ stands for strict implication, and missing brackets for ‘⊃’ are restored by association to the right. A strict formula is one of the form A ⊃ B. Axiom schemes are used throughout.

Reviews

Research Article

  • Some remarks concerning theories with recursively enumerable complements1

  • Alan Cobham
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    12 March 2014, pp. 72-74

  • A system formalized within the first order predicate calculus either with or without the identity but without predicate or function variables we call simply a theory. We say that a theory T has a recursively enumerable complement (r.e. Comp.) if the set of all sentences of T not valid in T is recursively enumerable. This is equivalent to saying that there exists an effective, purely mechanical procedure for establishing the non-validity in T of precisely those sentences of T which are in fact not theorems of T. If in addition T is recursively enumerable, that is, if there is an effective procedure for establishing the validity in T of its theorems, then T is decidable. It will be shown here that several well-known results concerning decidable theories can be extended to cover theories with r.e. comps. In this respect it should be observed that there exist theories having r.e. comps. which are not decidable. An example is the theory which has as valid sentences just those which contain a given two-place predicate and which are valid in all non-void finite universes [3], [4].

Reviews

Research Article

  • Remark on a system of bernays

  • John Myhill
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    12 March 2014, pp. 75-76

  • In [1], Bemays gives an axiomatization of set-theory which represents the furthest development to date of the Zermelo-Frankel-Gödel tradition. The purpose of this note is to show that one of his axioms is redundant.

    Primitives are ∈, set-abstraction (denoted [x/A(x)]) and the Hilbert selector (denoted σ). Different styles are used for free variables (a, b,c, …) and bound variables (x, y, z, …); both kinds of variables range over both sets and classes. Quantifiers and connectives are classical.

Reviews

Research Article

  • Axiomatization of the infinite-valued predicate calculus1

  • Louise Schmir Hay
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    12 March 2014, pp. 77-86

  • The infinite-valued statement calculus to which this paper refers is that of Łukasiewicz [10], whose axiomatization was proved complete in [5]. In [9], Rutledge extended this system to include predicates and quantifiers2 and presented a deductively complete set of axioms for the monadic predicate calculus. This paper represents an attempt to axiomatize the full predicate calculus; for the proposed axiomatization, a property akin to but weaker than completeness is proved. An attempt to prove full completeness along similar lines failed; it has since been shown [11] that the set of valid formulas of the infinite-valued predicate calculus is not recursively enumerable. The method of this paper was suggested by Professor J. Barkley Rosser.

Reviews

Page 2 of 6