Introduction to Mathematical Logic

FOURTH EDITION

Elliott Mendelson
Queens College of the City University of New York

CHAPMAN
London' Vveinheim . New York·

& HAll
Tokyo· Melbourne' Madras

1'11111,,,111"1111\
( 11.1/ 'III III ,\

(IUplllall 1 1.111
\ r,

~\. 'lall,:! I~, 1\111\

1.1 1 \

h BOlilldar~ 1<t l\\ I

Ililll,

WO\\. 11111111111 ."'-.11 XII'\,

III

lh

S I I ~ II"\,

I l-...

To Arlene
S\

t t

1','1'"','''

,\ 11,11 I S \. II'

liuh Avenue,
Kyowu

New Y"t~.~)

1111111:.

11.'1"" '" ,\ 11.,11 1.'1""" lllt-Jnp.m, II" ,>.",." II" I IlI\,,,b·ku, Tokyo
\

l3uildill~ .. ,1:. 2·2·1

102, Japan

1,.11',,1.\11 ,\ I I. til Aust ruliu. 102 Dodds Street. South Mclhourm-. I, 1,1)1.1 \.'()"'I .. -vustr.rlin R. Seshadri,

( 1"'1',\1,,11 & l Iall India. ~1.,t1I'" WI) 1)35, India

.,2 Second Main Road, CIT fast.

Second edition Third edition Fourth edition

1979 19~7 1997

~) 1997 Chapman

& I-Iall Services (P) Lid .. Madras. Cornwall.

Typeset in 10;12 Times by Scientific Publishing India

Printed in Great Britain hy l lu rtnolls Ltd, Bodmin. ISBN () 412 XOX30 7

Apart [rom any rail' dealing lor the purposes "I' research or private study. or criticism or review, as permitted under the UK Copyright Designs and Patents Act, 1988, this publicution may not be reproduced, stored. or transmitted. in any form or by any means, without thc prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of rcprographic reproduction only in accordance with the terms 1'1' the licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK, or in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the appropriate Reproduction Rights Organization outside the UK. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the terms stated here should be sent to the publishers at the London address printed on this page. The publisher makes no representation, express or implied, with regard to the accuracy of the information contained in this book and cannot accept any legal responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions that may be made, A Catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

,00; Printed on permanent acid-free text paper, manufactured in OILl'Ilnl,nll'l' with 1\ NSf N ISO I.W.4X-1 t)l)2 and i\ NSI !NISO 1..1'I4X·1 'IX"' (I','rn""ll'lll'l' "I Paper)

Contents

Preface Introduction The propositional calculus 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Propositional connectives. Truth tables Tautologies Adequate sets of connectives An axiom system for the propositional calculus Independence. Many-valued logics Other axiomatizations theory

IX

II

II 15 27 33 43 45 50 50 56 69 71 76 81 84 94 103 106 III 113 123 129 141 147

2 Quantification 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 . 2.14 2.15 2.16

Quantifiers First-order languages and their interpretations. Satisfiability and truth. Models First-order theories Properties of first-order theories Additional metatheorems and derived rules Rule C Completeness theorems First-order theories with equality Definitions of new [unction letters and individual constants Prenex normal forms Isomorphism of interpretations. Categoricity of theories Generalized first-order theories. Completeness and decidability Elementary equivalence. Elementary extensions Ultrapowers, Non-standard analysis Semantic trees Quantification theory allowing empty domains

VIII

( ()'\, II -, I" -' I, nrrunl 1IIl'on

',\

1lIIIIIhn

\ II

,I \ I, 'III

'kill

I ~4
17t)

"

,"

'\.11111\1"1 lir""I,'lll luucuons and rcl.uiou1'11111111\,' 1l'l'UI'SI\C and recursive luncrious \lllirlll,'ll/dll,)II, (iiidcl numbers III,' 11\"d pouu theorem, Giidcl's incompleteness I~"'III 'In' undecidability. Church's theorem

In
1')1)

Preface

thC'''I,'111

20,1 21 (, 225

-I

h inmut ic set theory

,I I 4,2

-1..1
4.4

4,5
4.6

An axiom system Ordinal numbers Equinumerosity. Finite and denumerable sets Hurtogs' theorem. Initial ordinals. Ordinal arithmetic The axiom of choice. The axiom or regularity Other axiomatizations of set theory

225 240 253

263

275
287

5 Computability 5.1

305
305

5,2
5.3 5,4 5.5

5,6

Algorithms. Turing machines Diagrams Partial recursive functions. U nsolvahlc The Klcene-Most ovski hierarchy, Recursively enumerable sets Other notions of computability Decision problems Second-order to selected logic

311
problems. 317

333 345
361
368 383 412 424 427

Appendix Answers

exercises

Bibliography Notation Index

This is a compact introduction to some 01' the pri ncipu l topics of mathematical logic. In the belief that beginners should he exposed to the easiest and most natural proofs, I have used frcc-swinuing set-theoretic methods. The significance of a demand 1'01' constructive prool's can he evaluated only after a certain amount 01' experience with mut hcmutical logic has been obtained. If we arc to he expelled from 'Cantor's paradise' (:IS 110nconstructive set theory was called hy Hilbert). at least we should know what we are nussing. The major changes in this new edition are the following. I. In Chapter 2, a section has heen added on logic with empty domains, that I~, on what happens when we allow interpretations with an empty domain. 2, In Chapter 4, Section 4.6 has heen extended to include an outline of an .ixiomatic set theory with urelements. ;, The subjects of register machines and random access machines have been dropped from Section 5.5 Chapter 5. ~, An appendix on second-order logic will give the reader an idea of the .idvantages and limitations of the systems of first-order logic used in ( 'hapters 2-4, and will provide an introduction to an area of much current Interest. <. The exposition has been further streamlined, more exercises have been .ulded, and the bibliography has been revised and brought up to date. The material of the book can be covered in two semesters, but, for a one-cmcster course, Chapters 1-3 are quite adequate (omitting, if hurried, "c'L,tions 1.5, 1.6 and 2.10-2.16). I have adopted the convention of prefixing ,I J) to any section or exercise that will probably be difficult for a beginner, .i nr] an A to any section or exercise that presupposes familiarity with a topic I hat has not been carefully explained in the text. Bihliographic references are vivcn to the best source of information, which is not always the earliest paper: hence these references give no indication as to priority. I believe that the essential parts of the book can be read with ease by .uiyonc with some experience in abstract mathematical thinking. There is, however, no specific prerequisite, This hook owes an obvious debt to the standard works or Hilbert and

I' I{ I I \( I

IkIILI\' \I'! ,I_ 1<),'I) K,,"'·II,·II'))2). R"~~l'l 11'1\,) ;llld ( luu, 1111'1'(,1 1.1111 l'I;Iil'Ilill" 111.111\ )""1\1,' lor their help and \\Plild l'~I""'I,i1" II~' \" IIJ.III~ Iill' 1 1,,11"1\111" 1)""1\1,' I'll lill'!r v.rluublc sUggcstl"ll~ ;llld ,1111,1'111 1{1,ILlrd 1111111, 1.1111",1111\\')11.I rank Carmonito. John (·O('U)(.111. ;-"','1\1"11( \ cia k (,"1.1 I{,>I\,'I\ ('(\1\('11. Anil Gupta, Eric Hammer. IIdl ILIII Sil'I,ill'll 1I.-,i1l.-l \IIIl>ld K,,~Ill\v, Bycong-deok Lee, Alex Orenstein. 1),'\ " i{,)\. \hlllill Sillllll)lllll:1 and Frank Vlach.

Introduction

Elliott Ml'n,kl~(l\l August I')')()

One of the popular

definitions of logic is that it IS till' ;111;d~'~isof methods of reasoning. In studying these methods, I()gic is inll'I'c~tl'd in the Iorm rather than the content ofthe argument. Fnr example, considl'l' the two arguillents: I. All men are mortal. Socrates is ~I m.in. I Icncc. S,'crall's , All cats like fish. Silvy is a cat. Hence, Silvy likes lish. is rnorrul.

1I0th have the same form: All A are B. S is an A. Hence, S is a B. The truth or lulsity of the particular premisses and conclusions is of no concern to 10,.icians. They want to know only whether the premisses imply the conclu-ron. The systematic formalization and cataloguing of valid methods of reasoning are a main task of logicians. If the work uses mathematical icchniques or if it is primarily devoted to the study of mathematical rea-oning, then it may be called mathematical logic. We can narrow the domain ,d' mathematical logic if we define its principal aim to be a precise and .ulequate understanding of the notion of mathematical proof. Impeccable definitions have little value at the beginning of the study of a -ubject. The best way to find out what mathematical logic is about is to start doing it, and students are advised to begin reading the book even though (or ,'~pecially if) they have qualms about the meaning and purpose of the 'II bject. Although logic is basic to all other studies, its fundamental and appar"1I1Iy self-evident character discouraged any deep logical investigations until I he la te 19th century. Then, under the impetus of the discovery of nonI uclidean geometry and the desire to provide a rigorous foundation for ,;dculus and higher analysis, interest in logic revived. This new interest, however. was still rather unenthusiastic until, around the turn of the cent ury, the mathematical world was shocked by the discovery of the paradoxes that is, arguments that lead to contradictions. The most important 1\,1 radoxcs arc descri bed here.
RII.I'.I'l'ff's paradox (1902). By a set, we mean any collection of objects - for example. the sci of all even integers or the set of all saxophone players in Brooklyn. The ohjects that make lip a set arc (ailed its members or

I'" II{OIlI ( III)'\, Or'l''', 1,,1 "\,11111''''. III,' ,,'lor !\:Ilhl ;11,' lilll III,'III(,L'I', Ill' Iil"llh,'II"'. III,' ,,'I 11Il·~I1s. 1'01' example, is not ~l mcmlur "11,,,,11 hl'L';luse t hv ,,'1,>1,';1" I' 1101a cat. However. there may be 'l'" 111.11ill hl'lllll!..! to t Iil,'IIIS,'II ," 1,,1'example. the set of all sets. Now. consitln t hc 'vii ,11'all III'h" "'" \ <uch that X is not a member olA'. Clearly. h~ (kliIlIIIlHl,:1 is ;lllIl'IIII'VI 01'.1 itand only if A is not a member ofA. So. ir.II';1 member ill I. lill'll.lls also not a member of A: and if A is not a member or I. then I I' ~Imember orA. In any case, A is a member orA and A is nut ~I member ,>1.1. _., Cantor'» paradox (1899). This paradox involves the theory or cardinal numbers and may he skipped by those readers having no previous acquaintance with that theory. The cardinal number Y of a set Y is a measure of the size of the set; Y = 2 if and only if Y is equinumerous with I (that is, there is a one one correspondence between Y and Z). We define Y";2 t.2 mean th'!.!. Y is equinumerous with a suhset of Z; by Y < Z we mean Y,,;2 and If 2. Cantor proved that, if ;1'( Y) is the set of all suhsets of y, then Y < .Jf'(Y). Let II he the universal set - that is, the set of all sets. Now .. 1'( II) is a subset of V: so it h)llows easily that .:!J(V) ";11. On the other hand. by Cantor's theorem. V < .Jf'(II). Bernstein's theorem asserts that, if Y";2 and Z,,; y, then Y -- Z. Hence, 11= .1'( V). contradicting V < .t( V). 3. Burali-Fortis parae/ox (1897). This paradox is the analogue in the theory of ordinal numbers of Cantor's paradox and requires familiarity with ordinal number theory. Given any ordinal number, there is a still larger ordinal number. Hut the ordinal number determined by the set of all ordinal numbers is the largest ordinal number. 4. The liar paradox. A man says, 'I am lying', If he is lying, then what he says is true and so he is not lying. If he is not lying, then what he says is true, and so he is lying. In any case, he is lying and he is not lying.! 5. Richard's paradox (1905). Some phrases of the English language denote real numbers; for example, 'the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle' denotes the num ber n, All the phrases of the English language can be enumerated in a standard way: order all phrases that have k letters lexicographically (as in a dictionary) and then plaee all phrases with k letters before all phrases with a larger number of letters. Hence, all phrases or the English language that denote real numbers can l'k'lIll'lll' """ 111.11 Iil,'lllSL'IIL', he rucmbcr, ,iii",,, "I 1I11L"','I' Ii;" ,,'Is as its members.

.-.------~-

---.'

--

--------------,
__
I

INTRODUCTION

"C'"

he enumerated merely by omitting ,!II other phrases in the given standard enumeration. Call the nth real number in this enumeration the 11th Richard number. Consider the phrase: 'the real number whose 11th decimal place is I if the nth decimal place of the 11th Richard number is not I. and whose nth decimal place is 2 if the nth decimal place of the »th Richard number is I.' This phrase defines a Richard number say, the kth Richard number; hut. by its definition. II dill'n, Irom the kth Richard number in the kth decimal place. 6. Berry's paradox (1906). There are only a lini tc number of symbols (let ters, punctuation signs. etc.) in the English language. IIcncc. there are only a finite number of English expressions that coutuin Icwc:' than 200 occurrences of symbols (allowing repetitions). There arc. therefore, only a finite number of positive integers that are denoted hy an l.nghsh expression containing fewer than 200 occurrences or symbols. Let Ii he tlu: leas! positive integer tha: is nOI denoted hI' Oil 1:'lIglish cxprcssion containing fewer than 200 occurrences svntbols. The italicized English phrase contains fewer than 200 occurrences of symbols and denotes thc ill tcgcr k. 7 Grelling's paradox (1908). An adjective is called autological if the property denoted by the adjective holds for the adjective itself. An adjective is called heterological if the property denoted by the adjective does not apply to the adjective itself. For example, 'polysyllabic' and 'English' are autological, whereas 'monosyllabic' and 'French' are heterological. Consider the adjective 'heterological'. If 'heterological' is heterological, then it is not heterological. If 'heterological' is not heterological, then it is heterological. In either case, 'heterological' is both heterological and 1I0t heterological. '\ LIJ'h 's paradox (1955). Let A be any sentence. Let B be the sentence: 'If this sentence is true, then A'. So, B asserts: 'I f B is true, then A'. Now consider the following argument: Assume B is true; then, by B. since B is true, A holds. This argument shows that, if B is true, then A. But this is exactly what B asserts, Hence, B is true, Therefore, by B, since B is true, A is true. Thus, every sentence is true.

or

tThe Cretan 'paradox', known in antiquity, is similar to the liar paradox, The Cretan philosopher Epimenides said, 'All Cretans arc liars'. If what he said is true, then, since Epirnenidcs is a Cretan, it must he false. Hence, what he said is false Thus. there must he some Cretan who ISnot a liar This is not Itlgically impossible: so we do not have a genuine paradox. However, the fact that the utterance by Fpimcnidcs of that false sentence could imply the ex rvtcncc "I' vomr Cretan wh» is not a hal' is rather 1Illscltlill~

All of these paradoxes are genuine in the sense that they contain no ,>iwiOllS logical flaws. The logical paradoxes (1-3) involve only notions from IIll' t henry of sets, whereas the semantic paradoxes (4-8) also make use of "lIlcCpts like 'denote', 'true' and 'adjective', which need not occur within 'I\I( standard mathematical language. For this reason, the logical paradoxes .ur a much greater threat to a mathematician's peace of mind than the «m.mtic paradoxes. A nulysis of the paradoxes has led to various proposals for avoiding them. \11 of these proposals are restrictive in one way or another of the 'naive' 'PIlU:pts that enter into the derivation of the paradoxes. Russell noted the -clf-rcfcrcncc present in all the paradoxes and suggested that every object

I" I I, ( )I)I ( I I( r-, mu-.t 11,1\" ,I ",'111111e' 11<111 11"~.lli\c II1Il',L~crI' u-, 1\ 1'" 111,'11 , ;111,'\1'1','''1(111 " I' ;1 111"111""1 III,' "'I I I' I" he considered "I 1I/('(/lIiu':/Ii/11 dllli !llih If the 1\1'" ell 1 I' ,1]1,' .,'1,"llc'l 11I;ln the type of " 1111, ;1J'1'1",I, II. "11(\\\11 ~I' the theory or Iypes and ",ll'111;111/,'d ;111dde\"1"1"'" III /'11111// 1(/ ,\lIII/WI/WliI'O Whitehead and Rus.";c'lI (I'JIII 1.1). IS ' '11"",,1111 III l'llllllllallllg the known paradoxes.' but It is cluiu-,v III practice .uul ILl' 'l'll;llll other drawbacks as well. A different criticism 01 the lugical I',II';](I()\,', I' .iimcd nt their assumption that. for every property /'(,). there ,'\I'ls ;1 corresponding set of all objects x that satisfy P(x), II we reject this ;ISSlllliptilln. then the logical paradoxes arc no longer derivable. It is ncl'CS\;IIY, however. to provide new postulates that will enable LIS to prove the existence of those sets that are needed by the practising mathematician, The lirst such axiomatic set theory was invented by Zerrnelo (1908). l n Chapter 4 we shall present an axiomatic theory of sets that is a descendant or Zermelos system (with some new twists given to it by von Neumann, R, Robinson, Bcrnays, and Godel), There arc also various hybrid theories combining some aspects of type theory and axiomatic set theory - for example, Quine's system NF. A more radical interpretation of the paradoxes has been advocated by Brouwer and his intuitionist school (see Hcyiing, 1(56). They refuse to accept the universality of certain basic logical laws, such as the law of excluded middle: P or not-P. Such a law, they claim, is true for finite sets, but it is invalid to extend it on a wholesale basis to all sets. Likewise, they say it is invalid to conclude that There exists an object x such that not-P(x), follows from the negation of 'For all .r , P(x)': we are justified in asserting the existence of an object ha ving a certa in property only if we know an effective method for constructing (or finding) such an object. The paradoxes are not derivable (or even meaningful) if we obey the intuitionist strictures, but so are many important theorems of everyday mathematics, and, for this reason, intuitionism has found few converts among mathematicians. Whatever approach one takes to the paradoxes, it is necessary first to examine the language of logic and mathematics to see what symbols may be used, to determine the ways in which these symbols are put together to form terms, formulas, sentences and proofs, and to find out what can and cannot be proved if certain axioms and rules of inference are assumed. This is one of the tasks of mathematical logic, and, until it is done, there is no basis for IRussells's paradox, for example, depends on the existence of the set A of all sets thai are not members of themselves. Because, according to the theory of types, it is meaningless to say that a set belongs 10 itself, there is IHl such set A, I Russell's paradox then proves that there is no set II of all sets that do not belong to themselves, The parudoxe: of Cantor and Huruli-Forti SlH1W th;lt there is no universal set and Ill) set Ihat contains all ordinal numbcrv The Sl'llIantll' paradoxcs ca nuut even he formulated. since they involve IlI,tl"lh nnt ex I)!'l'" I hll' wit lun the systcrn

INTRODUC

liON

comparing rival foundations or logic and mathematics. The deep and devastating results of Godcl, Turski, Church, Rosser. Kleene, and many others have been ample reward for the labour invested and have earned for mathematical logic its status as an independent branch of mathematics. FDr the absolute novice a summary will be glvcn here of some of the basic notation, ideas, and results used in the text. The reader is urged to skip these explanations now and, if necessary, to refer to them later on. A set is a collection or objects.' The objects ill t hc collection are called rlcmcnts or members of the set. We shall write " ( [" for the statement that r is a member ofv. (Synonymous expressions ~Ire "v belongs to v' and 'y contains x'.) The negation of 'x E y' will be writtcn 'XV [,', By 'x <;:; y' we mean that every member of, is also ~l member of y (synonymously, that x is a subset ofv, or that x is IlIellli/eli in i-). We shall write 'I = s' to mean that t and s denote the same object. As usual, 'I fc,l" is the negation of 't = s', For sets x and v, we assume thu t Xl' if a III I (lilly if .r ~ .1' and y <;:; x - that is, if and only if x and v have the same members. ;\ set x IS called a proper subset of a set v, written 'x c: y' if .r ~ I' but x Ie v, (The notation x ~ y is often used instead of xC y,) The union x U y of sets x and y is defined to be the set of all objects that are members of x or y or both. Hence, x U x = x, x U y = y Ux, and (x U y) U z = , u (y u z). The intersection x n y is the set of objects that x and y have in common. Therefore, xnx-=x, xny=ynx, and (xny)nz~xn(ynz). Moreover, xn(yuz) =(xrly)U(xnz) and xu(ynz)=(xUy)rl(xUz). lhe relative complement x - y is the set of members of x that are not members of y. We also postulate the existence of the empty set (or null .I'ct) vi that is, a set that has no members at all. Then x n f/J = 0, xU 0 = .r, , f/J = x, 0 - x = 0, and x - x = 0. Sets x and yare called disjoint if
IiIV=0.

Given mcm hers ,IS its only ,d {x,x}

any objects bv, ,hk, the set that contains hi, ... , hk as its only is denoted {hl, , hd, In particular, {x, y} is a set having x and y members and, if x =I y, is called the unordered pair of x and y. The is identical with {x} and is called the unit set of x. Notice that : LV} = {y, .r}. By (hi, . , " hk) we mean the ordered k-tuple of bi , ... ,hk· The b.rsic property of ordered k-tuples is that (bl, .. " hk) = (CI",., Ck) if and "Illy if hi =CI, b: =c2, ... .b, =Ck. Thus, (hl,h2) = (b2,bl) if and only if /'1 b». Ordered 2-tuples are called ordered pairs. The ordered I-tuple (b) is r.ikcn to be b itself. If X is a set and k is a positive integer, we denote by Xk lite set of all ordered k-tuples (hi, .. " bk) of elements hi, ... , bk of X. In IWhich collections of objects form sets will not be specified here. Care will be using any ideas or procedures that may lead to the paradoxes; ali formalized in the axiomatic set theory of Chapter 4. The term ,I;,ss' is sometimes used as a synonym for 'set", but it will be avoided here because it 11.1\ different meaning in Chapter 4, ICa property P{x) does determine a sel, that set a I' often denoted 11 I !'(x)},

«vcrcixcd 10 avoid Ih,' results can he

l'-<II{OIH(

II()'\J

INTRODUCTION

Pi'

.uu] 1 arc sc:l\, IhL'1l b\ ) I \\ tkll' >lL' 111L' L' <ct slicii that 1" ) .md _' 1 1 1\ L';ilk'" the ('{/rlnlllli I'Fodl/( I "I' ) .md I. ,\11 11-1'/(/«' r ..l.uu», (or a rrlctt trn: with /I IIrgllll/l'III.\) Oil ;1 sl'I .1 I, ;1 subset (11.1'" Ih;11 I,. d .,ct 01' ordered »-tunles of clements or .1', lo! cx.uuplc, the '-plan' 1\'1;111<111 betweenness (II' for points on a line is the sci (Ii .rll -'-tuples ",.1. <uch 111,11 the point x lies between the points rand:.;\ ~-placc rl'LIII(l1l IS called a binarv relation: for example, the binary rcl.uion or Iat hcrho od Oil the set of human beings is the set of all ordered pairs (1',1') such

p.uticul.u
.i

.. 1" 1,1

lI>l'll. II )
L

ll "ltiL'll'd

P;III,

th.uv and r arc human beings and .r is the rather ofy. A l-placc relation on X IS ;1 subset of X and is called a propertr on X. Given a binary relation R on a set X, the domain of R is defined to he the set of all y such that (y,z) E R for some z; the range of R is the set or all z such that (y,z) E R for some y: and thefie/d of R is the union of the domain and range of R. The inverse relation R I of R is the set of all ordered pairs (y,z) such that (z,y) E R, For example, the domain ofthe relation < on the set (I) of non-negative integers! is (I), its range is (I) - {O}. and the inverse of < is >, Notation: Very often xRy is written instead of (x,y) E R, Thus, in the example just given, we usually write x <)' instead of (x.y) E <. A binary relation R is said to be rcflcvivt: ifxRx for all .r in the field ofR: R is SI'II/II/Clrie if xRv implies vk»: and R is transitive if xR.v and yRz imply xkz . Lxumplcs: The relation .~ on the set of integers is reflexive and transitive hut not symmetric. The relation 'having at least one parent in common' on the set of human beings is reflexive and symmetric. but not transitive. A binary relation that is reflexive, symmetric and transitive is called an equivalence relation. Examples of equivalence relations are: (I) the identity relation Iv on a set X. consisting of all pairs (x,x), where x EO (2) given a X; fixed positive integer n, the relation x == y (mod n), which holds when x and y are integers and x - y is divisible by n; (3) the congruence relation on the set of triangles in a plane; (4) the similarity relation on the set of triangles in a plane. Given an equivalence relation R whose field is X, and given any y E X, define [yJ as the set of all z in X such that yRz. Then [yJ is called the R- equivalence class of y. Clearly, [u] = [v] if and only if uRI', Moreover, if [u] f: [v], then [u] n [v] = 0; that is, different R-equivalence classes have no elements in common. Hence, the set X is completely partitioned into the R-equivalence classes. In example (I) above, the equivalence classes are just the unit sets {x}, where x E X. In example (2), there are n equivalence classes, the kth equivalence class (k = 0, I" , , .n - I) being the set of all integers that leave the remainder k upon division by n. A function I is a binary relation such tha t (x, y) E / and IX. z) E I imply v = z, Thus, for any element x of the domain of a function f, there is a unique y such that (x,.") E [: this unique _I' is denoted ((x) 11'.1 is in the

domain 01,/. thenj{x) is said to he de/il/ed.!\ function I with domainY and range Y is said to he a lunctiou from X OITlo l'. Iff is a function 1'1'0111 X onto " subset of Z. then f is said to be a function [rom X into Z. For example, if the domain off is the set of integers and I(x) ~.r for every integer x, then I is a function from the set of integers onto the set of even integers. and f is a function from the set of integers into the set ol integers, A function whose domain consists of II-tupleS is said to he a lntution oi n urgI/11Ii!IIIS. A total [unction (It'll argnmcnt« on a .1'('1 X is a function I whose domain is Y", It is customary to write /(-"1., , ... I'll) instead of II (.11·· \"i L and we refer to I(XI'" .. xlI) as the value oft' for the argWI/{'III.III,' 1'" ;\ 11I1I'Iio/function of 11 arguments on a set X is a function whose domain IS a subset of X"- For example, ordinary division is a partial, hut not t()\;i1. lu nrt io n of two ar~uments on the set of integers, since division hy () IS not defined. 1ft' is a lunction with domain X and range Y. then the f£'.\lriclinll/lllfr 10 a set Z is the function f (I (Z x Y). Then 1/(11) = r if and only illl ( 1 and / (11) I. Fhe image of t he set Z under the function f IS the rn ngc of /;- The ill rcl'sc linage of a set W under the function f is the set or all II in the domain of / such that flu) E W. We say that I mops X onto (into) Y if X is a subset or the domain off and the image of X under{ is (a subset of) y, By an n-plac« operation (or operation with n arguments) on a set X we mean a function trorn X" into X. For example, ordinary addition is a binary (i.e .. 2-place) operation on the set of natural numbers {a, 1,2,···}. But ordinary subnaction is not a binary operation on the set of natural numbers. The compositionf 0 y (sometimes denoted Ig) of functions f and y is the lunction such that U 0 (J)(x) = f(oCr)): (f 0 g)(x) is defined if and only if </ix) is defined and f(y(x)) is defined. For example, if q(x) = x2 and I (x) = x + I for every integer x, then U 0 g)(x) = x2 + I and (0 oI)(·x) = 1+ 1)2 Also, if h(x) = -x for every real number x andr (x] = jX for every lion-negative real number .r, then U 0 h)(x) is defined only for x~O, and, for -uch x, (f 0 h)(x) = 0. A functionf such that I(x) = fly) implies x = y is .ulled a /-1 (one-one) function, For example, the identity relation Ix on a set \ is a I-I function, since Ix(y) = y for every y E X; the function g with .I, imain lV, such that y(x) = 2x for every x E co, is I-I: but the function 11 whose domain is the set of integers and such that h(x) = x2 for every integer I I., not I-I, since h( -I) = h( I), Notice that a functionf is I-I if and only if lis inverse relation I-I is a function, If the domain and range of a I-I iunction f are X and Y, thenf is said to be a I - 1 (one-one) correspondence /'('III'C(,1I X and Y; then I-I is a I-I correspondence between Y and X, and ( I I 0 I) = lx and U 0 I-I) = ly. Iff is a I-I correspondence between X .uid Y and il is a I-I correspondence between Y and Z, then {}of is a I-I l' urcspondcncc hetween X and Z, Sets X and Yare said to be equinumerous (written X ~ Y) if and only if there is a I-I correspondence between X and r Clearly. X~X, X~Y implies Y~X. and X~Y and Y~Z implies I' I. It is somewhat harder to show that, if X ~ YI C;; Yand Y ~ XI <:;" X,
"y

-----1

1'-' 1 R( ll)l(

11<)"

INTRODUCTION

_j

theorem III ('h;11'1L"1-11. II \ ) <>Ill'',II' Ihal cardinal 11/111//1('1'. .md Ii'\ I' l'qlllllllllll'lllll' wit h d qti',l'1()r) bUI Y is not equinumerous wit h u slIhsl'l (11.\. "Ill' ';1\, liI;11 t hc l,;tr\linal number of X is smaller than the cardinal number "I ) i\ set ): is denumerahlr if it is equinumerous with IltL' 'l'l (11 1)(1sltive
\ .md ) lut v« tlu: same

lill'll \

(sec Bcrnstcins

integers, A denumerable set is said to have cardinal numhcr G". ,lllti ;1111 set equinumerous with the set of all subsets of a denumerable sci I' s;lld to have the cardinal number 21<0 (or to have the power ofth« continuum). 1\ srt X is finite if it is empty or if it is equinumerous with the set {I, 2, .. , II} or all positive integers that are less than or equal to some positive Integer II. A set that is not finite is said to be infinite. A set is countahlc if it is either li niic or denumerable, Clearly, any subset of a denumerable set is countublc. A denumerable sequence is a functions whose domain is the set or positive integers; one usually wriiesv, instead ofs(n), Afini/e sequence is a function whose domain is the empty set or {I, 2 .... ,/I} for some positive integer II. Let P(X,YI, ... ,Yk) be some relation on the set of non-negative integers. In particular, P may involve only the variable x and thus be a property, If P(O,)'I'", ,yd holds, and, if. for every n . P(n,YI, ... ,n) implies P(n -!- 1,.1'1., .. ,Yk), then PC>;,YI,'" ,vd is true for all non-negative integers x (principle ofniatlietnatical indurtian). In applying this principle. one usually proves that. for every II, Pincv«, .... vJ\.) implies P(n-!- I'YI"",Vk) by assuming P(n,YI,'" ,yd and then deducing P(n + Ly"", ,Yd; in the course of this deduction, P(n'YI,'" ,Yk) is called the inductive hypothesis, If the relation P actually involves variables YI, , , , ,Yk other than x, then the proof is said to proceed by indue/ion 011 .r. A similar induction principle holds for the set of integers greater than some fixed integer j. An example is: to prove by mathematical induction that the sum of the first f1 odd integers I -!-3+5+".-!-(2n-l) is f12, first show that 1= 12 (that is, P(I)), and then, that if I + 3 + 5 + ' ., + (211 - I) = n2, then I + 3 -!- 5 + ", + (2n - I) +(2n + I) = (n + 1)2 (that is, if P(n) then P(n + I)), From the principle of mathematical induction one can prove the principle ofcomplete induction: If, for every non-negative integer x the assumption that P(U,YI, . , , ,Yk) is true for all u < x implies that P(X,YI,'" ,Yk) holds, then, for all non-negative integers x, P(X,YI"" ..») is true, (Exercise: Show by complete induction that every integer greater than I is divisible by a prime number.) A partial order is a binary relation R such that R is transitive and, for every x in the field of R, xRx is false. If R is a partial order, then the relation R' that is the union of R and the set of all ordered pairs (x,x), where x is in the field of R, we shall call a reflexive partial order; in the literature, 'partial order' is used for either partial order or reflexive partial order. Notice that
'One call aucmpt to define thc curdinul numbcr "I a wi .I' ;1' Ihc'l'Illkcll"IlI.l'1 "I' ;dl 'c'I' cqumumcrous with.\' However, in ccrt.un a x n un.rt n ,,'I 111l'IIlIe', d"c" n,,1 C'.\I\I, whereas III other IX Ic'x"ts hut is Illli a St't

order, whereas ~ is a reflexive total order; (2) the relation c 011 the set subsets of the set of positive integers is a partial order but not a Iota I order, whereas the relation C;; is a reAexive partial order but not ,I reflexive total order. II' 8 is a subset of the field of a binary rcla t ion R, then ~111 elernen t I' of 8 is called an Rsleast element of B ifvRz for every clcmcnt r of 8 different lrom y, A well-order (or a well-ordering rclat ion) is a toLd order R such that every non-empty subset of the field of R has an R-Ieast clement. Examples: ( I) the relation < on the set of non-negative integers is a well-order: (2) the relation < on the set of non-negative rational numbers is a total order but not a well-order; (3) the relation < on the set 01' integers is a total order but not a well-order. Associated with every well-order R having licld X there is a contplct« induction 1'1' il/('I/I 1(': if P is a properly such that, for any 11 ill X. whenever all z in X such that zRII have the property P. then II has the property P, then it follows that all members of X have the property P. If the ,el X is infinite, a proof using this principle is called (I proof by transfinite induction. One says that a set X ('(/11 he well-ordered if there exists a wellorder whose field is X, An assumption that is useful in modern mathematics hut about the validity of which there has been considerable controversy is lite well-ordering principle: every set can be well-ordered, The well-ordering principle is equivalent (given the usual axioms of set theory) to the axiom of' choice: for any set X of non-empty pairwise disjoint sets, there is a set Y IL'alled a choice set ; that contains exactly one element in common with each -ct in X, Let 8 be a non-empty set, / a function from 8 into B, and q a function 110m 82 into B. Write x' for/(x) and x ny for y(x,y). Then (BJ, y) is called ,I Boolean algebra if B contains at least two elements and the following conditions are satisfied:

(xRv and vRx) is impossible if R is a partial order. whereas (xRy and IRx) implies x = y if R is a reflexive partial order. A (reflexive) total order is a (reflexive) partial order such ih.u. for any x and v in the field of R, either , = v or xkv or yRx. Examples: (I) the relation < on the set of integers is a
total

or all

.r ny = ynx for all x and yin 8 ) (xny)nz=xn(ynz) for all x,y,zin B , v ny' = zn z' if and only if x ny = x for all x,y, z in B,

lct .r U y stand for (x' n v')', and write x ~y for x n Y = .r. It is easily proved hut z n z' = wnw' for any wand z in 8; we denote the value of z nz' by 0, t.ct I stand for 0', Then z U z' = I for all z in B. Note also that ~ is a

'I':

reflexive partial order on 8, and (8J,LJ) is a Boolean algebra, (The symbols 1, I J, 0, I should not be confused with the corresponding symbols used in set theory and arithrnetic.) An ideal J in (B,/, g) is a non-empty subset of B -uch that (I) ifxEJ andyEJ, then r Uy e ;', and (2) ifxEJ andyEB, t hen .r 11 v c J, Clearly, {O} and B are ideals. An ideal different from 8 is called ,11'1'0/'('1' ideal. /\ maximal ideal is a proper ideal that is included in no other

10

I~ I R()IH( 'IIU"

propel ideal It Gill he ~1](1\\11t hat a proper ide;II./ I~ 111;1\IIILIlIr .md Pilly If. Ior ;111\ /I 11111.1/' .I PI II' ( J. lrom the ;IXIOI11pr c1111IL'L' L';11lhe proved II thn t C\LT\ Bp(lk;lll ;t!t!L'hra contains a maximal ideal. or. cq uivnlcnt lv. th.u L'\L'I\ proper ILk;1I IS included in some maximal idea]. lor n;lllll'lc, let Ii he t hc SL't(11;111 ~llh~cts of a set X; for Y E B.let Y' = X - Y. and Ior )' .ind /. in H. kt } I I/. hc' lite ordinary set-theoretic intersection of .md /: TIten If.'. I~;I Hoolcun algebra, The 0 of B is the empty set 0_ and I IS X. l-or c';lclt clement /I in X. the sev J; of all subsets of X that do not contain II is a 111;1\1111;11 ideal. For a detailed study of Boolean algebras. see Sikorski (1%0). I 1;1111 (lS (1')63) and Mendelson 1 (1970).

The Propositional Calculus

I.l

PROPOSITIONAL CONNECTIVES. TRUTH TAHLF,S

Sentences may be combined in various ways to form more complicated sentences. Wc shall consider only truth-functional combinations, in which the truth or falsity of the new sentence is determined by the truth or falsity of its component sentences, Negation is one of the simplest operations on sentences. Although a senrenee in a natural language may be negated in many ways, we shall adopt a uniform procedure: placing a sign for negation. the symbol" in front of the entire sentence. Thus, if A is a sentence, then ,A denotes the negation of A. The truth-functional character of negation is made apparent in the following {ruth whir: A T F FT When A is true, ,A is false; when A is false, ,A is true. We use T and F to denote the truth values true and false, Another common truth-functional operation is the conjunction: 'and', The conjunction of sentences A and B will be designated by A 1\ B and has the Iollowing truth table: A B AI\B

TT
F T T F

T
F F

FF

I 1\ B is true when and only when both A and B are true, A and B are called Ihe conjuncts of A 1\ B. Note that there are four rows in the table, corre<ponding to the number of possible assignments of truth values to A and B, In natural languages, there are two distinct uses of 'or': the inclusive and the exclusive, According to the inclusive usage, 'A or B' means 'A or B or both'. whereas according to the exclusive usage, the meaning is 'A or B, but not both', We shall introduce a special sign, v : for the inclusive connective, Its truth table is as follows:

I.?

I111 I'I~( H'I )SIIIONAI

.1 I B .'1
V

\1 (I

I IS

PROPOSITIONAL

CONNECTIVES,

TRUTH

TAHLLS

13

/I

I T
F

T T F F

T T F

lhus. l';illc'd

Ii I~ la l-,c when and only when both A and fJ arc Ltlsc. '.1 './ If is d .lisiun, 11011, with the disjuncts A and B, Another unporta nt truth-functional operation is the ctnulit ional: 'if A, then 1(. Ordinary usage is unclear here. Surely, 'if A, then B' is false when till' lII/I('(n/1'1l1 A is true and the consequent B is false. However, in other l';t'CS, there is no well-defined truth value, For example, the following sentences would be considered neither true nor false: I, If I _., If I 3, If I

+ I # 2, + I # 2,

I = 2, then then then

Paris is the capital of France. Paris is the capital of France. Rome is the capital of France,

1,t1~,,~nd B true, then (A and B) is false while If is true This corresponds a to the <ccond line ofthe truth table. Finally, if A is false ~11l(18 is talse. (A and B) is false .md B is false. This gives the fourth line of the tuhlc. Still more support for our definition comes from thc meaning ofsiatcmcnts such as 'for every or. if .r is an "dd positive integer, then is an odd positive integer'. This asserts that. for every .r, the stu tcrnen t 'if x is an odd posit ivc in tcgcr, thcn x" is an odd posit: vc .ntcgcr is true. Now we ceria inly do not wa n t to consider cases in which .r is not III odd positive integer as counterexamples to our gcneral assertion. This <upports the second and fourth lines of our truth t ahlc.Tn addition, any case in 1\ hich .r is an odd posi tive in teger and .1'2 is a n odd positive III tcger confirms our -cneral assertion, This corresponds to the first line of the table. Let us denote 'A ifand only if B' by 'A <=> /3', Such an expression is called I hiconditional. Clearly, A <=> B is true when and only when :1 a ncl B have the ,;lI11e truth value. Its truth table, therefore is:

x"

Their meaning is unclear, since we arc accustomed to the assertion of some sort of relationship (usually causal) between the antecedent and the consequent. We shall make the convention that 'if A, then B' is false when and only when A is true and B is false, Thus, sentences I 3 arc assumed to be true. Let us denote 'if A, then B' by 'A =} B'. An expression 'A =} B' is called a conditional. Then =} has the following truth table: A T F T F
B A=>B

T T F
F

T T F T

A Ii ;10/1 TT T I' T F TF F FF T l he symbols "A, V, =} and <=> will be called propositional connectives.' \11\ sentence built up by application of these connectives has a truth value ,1i,11 depends on the truth values of the constituent sentences. In order to I i.ikc this dependence apparent, let us apply the name suuemcntform to an , \ pression built up from the .1'/(111'1111'111 letters A, B, C, and so on by approl'll;lte applications of the propositional connectives.

This sharpening of the meaning of 'if A, then B' involves no conflict with ordinary usage, but rather only an extension of that usage.' A justification of the truth table for =} is the fact that we wish 'if A and B, then B' to be true in all cases. Thus, the case in which A and B are true justifies the first line of our truth table for =}, since (A and B) and B are both true. If A is ;Then: is a common non-truth-functional interpretation of'tif A, then B' connected 1111auxal laws. The sentence 'ifthis piece of iron is placed in water at time I, then the c """ "ill dissolve' is regarded as false even in the case that the piece of iron is not placed III w.u c: al IIIllC I that is, even when the antecedent is false, Another non-truthI uru 111111,11 ,,,age occurs in so-called counterfactual conditionals, such as "if Sir Walter S".II 11;,,11101 written .my novels, then there would have been no War Between the Stal,·,· I III" ";I, Mark Twain's contention in UIi' on the Mississippi: 'Sir Walter had ,"lalj.:".1 11;11,""'III;lklllg Southcrn character, as it existed before the war, that he is in )(Il'al IIl<'a\lIl" 1"'1'11,,\1111<- I Ill' war") This sentence migh t he asserted to be fa lsc even h'r tholl)(h Ih,' ,1I,1""'drI11 " .ulnuucdly false, However. callsal laws and countcrfuctual l'olulltloll' 'l'I'11I ,,"I III Il<.'IIl'I'lll-d in m.uhcmuucs and lo)(1l' lor a clear ucuuncnt or l'Oluirllonllis and 11111<'1 ,"nlll'l'II\'C'. Sl'l' Quine (11)~I) (lh« qllolallon 1'1'0111 /.1/" 0111111' ,\11\1/\\11'/" WiI' h'"IlVI11 I" 111\ .urcnnon hy Pn)k"ol ,1.(' OWIllj.:".I1 )
II I

/\11 statement letters (capital italic letters) and such letters with numerical subscripts! are statement forms, I I' ,11 and (fj are statement forms, then so are (,,;8). (YJ A «(,). ( Jl V (If), (:~ =} ~), and (::11 <=> (tin. Only those expressions are statement forms that are determined to be so hy means of conditions I and 2.* Some examples of statement ,HI) V B2) =} (AI A C2)), and (((,A) forms are <=> A) <=> (C

=}

B, (,C2), (D3 (B V C))),

(,B)),

I"

We have been avoiding and shall in the future avoid the use of quotation marks names whenever this is not likely to cause confusion, The given sentence I" '1(Id have quotation marks around each of the connectives, See Quine (1951, pp,
l orm ~7), '\

: 1'01' example, A I, A2,A 17, B31, C2,,· .. can he rephrased as follows: '(/ is a statement form if and only if there is a 111111,' sequence .19I, .. ,,:>1.(n21) such that J(Jn ='f! and, if l";;i";;n,.tJ!J, is either a 1.,I,·lIll'111 letter or a negation, conjunction, disjunction, conditional or biconditional ,,,,,,lllIeled 1'1'0111 previous expressions in the sequence. Notice that we use script klll'1s·,I. ,;II. 'I.. , .. to stand for arbitrary expressions, whereas italic leiters are used .1\ ,1;ltl'llIl'nl letters
'This

L_l4

IIII

I'R()I'()SITION,\I

( \It I II S

T/\L!TOLOliIIS

I:'

lor l'\l'r\ ;1~~I~llllll'lll olrnuh values T or I: Ip Iill' sl,IiL'llll'lll lct tcrs Ih;11 (ll'UII III :1 ~l.lll'llll'lll l orm , there corresponds. hy v rrtuc o l Iill' t rut h rubles I'(lr till' l)r(ll)"~III"Il;II connccuvcs, a truth value lor the sr.u cmcnt form, I hu-. c.uh ~t;ltl'llll'llt torm determines a 11'Ii/1! jiIllCI;(}II. which Gill hc era"llI(;IIh Il'l)rl'~l'IIIL'l1 hy a truth table for the statement lorin. 1'01' cx.unple, llil' <t.ucmcnt lorm (((~A) \j 8) => C) has the following irut h lahlc:
,I B C (,A) ((~A)
\j

Exercises 1.1 Write the truth table for the exclusive uS:lge of 'or', 1.2 Construct truth tables for the statement forms ((A .~ B) V (~,1)) and tA => (8 =? e)l =-~ ((A => B) => (A ~, C))). I.J Write abbreviated truth tables for ((A> 8) 11,1) and ((A \j (-,C)) -;cc> 8), 1.4 Wri te the following sentences as sta temcn t lorms. usi ng stutemcn t letters III stand for the atomic S(,III('lIces· that is. those sentences that are not built up out of other sentences,
1:1)

B)

(((,A)

\j

B)

'C)

~ T F T
T

T F F
T

rT
F F F

T T T F F F
F

T
f

T
F

T
T

T
f T F
T

T
T T F T

T
F
F

I h) Il')
Ill)

T
F

Each row represents an assignment of truth values to the statement letters A,8 and C and the corresponding truth values assumed by the statement forms that appear in the construction of (((~A) \j 8l => C), The truth tahle for ((A 9 8l => (( ,A 1 /\ 8)) is as follows:
A B (A<=:>B) (,A) ((,A) 118) ((A'~B)='>(('A)IIB))

Il-) II')
1:.'1

h) III
t

If Mr Jones is harpy. Mrs Jones is not huppy . .md it Mr Jones is not happy, Mrs Jones is not happy, Either Sam will come to the party and Max \\ ill not. or Sam will not come to the party and Max will enjoy himself. A sufficient condition for .r to hc odd is that .r IS prune A necessary condition for a sequence s to convcruc is thut s he bounded. A necessary and sutlicicnt condition for the sheikh to be happy is that he has wine. women and song. Fiorello goes to the movies only if a comedy is playing, The bribe will be paid if and only if the goods are delivered, If x is positive.Y' is positive, Karpov will win the chess tournament unless Kasparov wins today, TAUTOLOGIES

T F
T

T T
F

T F
F

F T
F

T
F

T
T

I.Z

If there are n distinct letters in a statement form, then there are 2" possible assignments of truth values to the statement letters and, hence, 2/1 rows in the truth table, A truth table can be abbreviated by writing only the full statement form, putting the truth values of the statement letters underneath all occurrences of these letters, and writing, step by step, the truth values of each component st.ucmcnt form under the principal connective of the forrnl. As an example, Ior (( A ¢c;> Bl => (( -,A) /\ 8l l, we obtain:
((A
<=:>

of 11 arguments is defined to be a function of n arguments. he arguments and values of which are the truth values T or F, As we have .ccn, any statement form containing n distinct statement letters determines a , orresponding truth function of 11 arguments. t \ truth function
I

ITo be precise, enumerate all statement letters as follows: A, B, - - . II, BI" •. ,21;A2., , '" If a statement form contains the ii'"'' , . ,i",,, statement letIns in this enumeration. where i, < ., , < in, then the corresponding truth function is 1" have Xi, ' , . ' , Xi"' in that order, as its arguments, where Xi! corresponds to the if'" .i.ucment letter. For example, (A =} B) generates the truth function
I,
Xl

B)

='>

((~A)

II

B))

TTTF F FT T FFT I T F

T F

FT TF FT TF

FT TT FF FF
1\

X2

f(XI,X2)

T F T
F
hcrca«

T T F F

T T F T

(B ='> A) generates the truth function

XI

X2

'I Ill'

I""" '1.,,1,.."",',
Ih,' "'1111

1' ..,'

"f a st.ucmcnt

form"

IIIl'

one that

I'

"ppl,,'d last in

T
F T

T
T

Y(XI,X2) T
F

("n'tll"'lIn~

,-

,-

T T

IIIL f'ROPOSIII()"-<"

( .\1 ( , I'

S
Examplc:;

TA l iTOLO(

II:S

17

!\ statement form that i~ always true'. no m.u t cr w h.u till' uu tl: \;!llll', (ll' Its st.ucmcnt letters may he, IS called a /{IiI/uln!',1. /\ ,1;lll'llll'111 Iorm IS .t tautology ifand only ifits corresponding truth Function 1:I~l" oul , t hc value T, or equivalently, if. in its truth table, the column under t hc ,t:ltl'llll'llt I.HIll contains only Ts. An example of a tautology is (A V ( ,:1)). thl' '''-l';tiiL'd 1(/11 o] th« ('Xc/lie/cd middle. Other simple examples nrc ( (.I:\! './! II. (4'~ (,(,A))). ((A /\8) => A) and (A~} (A V BI). ill is said to IOKical/I' implv «(, (or. synonymously. ((, is :1 lu"intl ((11/ sequcnc« or .)'])if and only if every truth assignment to the statclllL'111 letters of .%J and '(; that makes .-11 true also makes ((; true. For example. (//\ H) logically implies .1. A logically implies (A V B). and (A A (A => HI) logically implies B. -11 and ((; are said to be logicallv equivalent if and only ifYJ and '/, receive the same truth value under every assignment of truth values to the statement letters of::!J and (c. For example. A and (---(-,A)) are logically equivalent. as are (A A 8) and (B AA).

whether ((iI·~ ((~B) VC)) => ((--A) =/ B) is a tautology, Assume that the statement form sometimes is F (line I). Then (A ¢? «(A -= (( I 8) v e) = (( A) = B» I ((,B) V el) is Tancl ((,A) =/ B) is F F (line 2). Since ((-,A) => B) is F. F T I ,A) is T and B is F (line 3). Since F T (A) is T, A is F (line 4). Since A is F F 1 and (.1,** ((,B) \j C)) is T, F (l ,B) V C) is F (line 5). Since F F (( -,B) V e) is F, (,8) and e are F T (line 6). Since (,B) is F. B is T (line 7l. But B is both T and F (lines 7 and 3). Hence, it is impossible for t he form to be false,
2. Determine

I. Determine

1 2 3
4

5
6

Assume
PROPOSITION
(;1)

whether ((A ,~ (B V C)) that the form is F (line

\j

(II I).

; fJ)
«(A =(B

is

<l

tautology.
(A

1.1

(h)

iIJ logic:tih implies '(, if and onlv il' (.>1 -,> '(,) is a tautology. /j .md 'I, .uc lo)!ie;tily equivalent il' and only if (.iIJ·:=;, '(,) IS a tautology.

Proof

(a) (i) Assume .:!J logically implies «(;. Hence, every truth assignment that makes ::!J true also makes «(, true. Thus, no truth usssignment makes ,'!4 true and re false. Therefore, no truth assignment makes (:]8 => (&) raise, that is, every truth assignment makes (.'!d => (t) true. In other words, (.'Yl ~ (e) is a tautology, (ii) Assume (.CJ8 => (e) is a tautology. Then, for every truth assignment, (:Jd => (t) is true, and, therefore, it is not the case that .'18 is true and ((j raise. Hence, every truth assignment that makes :-:!J true makes re true, that is, :-:!J logically implies reo (b) (.rJ8 «i') is a tautology if and only if every truth assignment makes (28 (e) true, which is equivalent to saying that every truth assignment gives .@ and (f, the same truth value. that is, 28 and (f, are logically equivalent.

lhen (/4 ~ (B \j e)) and (A =? B) are F (line 2). Since (A => B) is F, A is T and B is I, (line 3). Since (A => (B \j e)) is F, A is T and (8 \j e) is F (line 4). Since (B \j e) is I'. Band e are F (line 5). Thus, when A is L B is F, and C is F, the form is F. lhcrefore, it is not a tautology,

v C» v F

= B)
F F 1 2 3
4

F
T

T F

F F

Exercises 15 Determine
(:1)

whether

the following

are tautologies,
(f) (A => (B (g) ((A A B)

(h)
Ie)

'** '**

Ill)
(e)

(((A => B) => B) => B) (((A => B) => B) => A) (((A => B) => A) => A) (((B =? e) => (A => B)) => (A => B)) ((A V (,(B A e))) => ((A e) \j B))

'**

A))) C)) (h) ((A B) (A (B (i) ((A => B) \j (B => A)) (j) ((,(A => B)) => A)
=? V

'**

=> (B => (A

'**

'**

'** A)))

1.6 Determine
(il)

whether

the following

pairs are logically

equivalent.

By means of a truth table, we have an effective procedure for determining whether a statement form is a tautology. Hence, by Proposition I, I, we have effective procedures for determining whether a given statement form logically implies another given statement form and whether two given statement forms arc logically equivalent. To see whether a statement form is a tautology, there is another method that is often shorter than the construction of a truth ruble

((A=>B)=>A)andA (A B) and ((A => B) A (B => A)) (c) ((,A) \j B) and ((,B) V A) Ill) (,(A B)) and (A (---B)) (r ) (A V (B e)) and ((A V B) (A ve)) If) (A => (B e)) and ((A => B) (A => e)) (g) (A A (lJ <-> e)) and ((A A B) (A A C))
(h)

'**

'**

'** '**

'**

'** '** '**

, L~

18

Till I.7 Prove:

PROPOSITION,"i

(AI(l

It'S

TAUTOLOGIES

_I

19

PROPOSITION
/I) II)

1.2 then so is
1(•.

LI) (,'
(h) (I

I' 1"!,IL';ill) equivalent tu (( -,A) V In I' 1"!,IL;illy equivalent to (-,(.4 1\ (,H))) I.X 1'1(\ll' Iklt 1] is logically equivalent to If, if and 0111) II' 1] lugiL';illy II11pl,," '(, ;111l1 logically implies;tJ, '(, 1.1) SI1<I\\ ih.u If] and If; are logically equivalent if and unly if. ill i hci r truth tnblc-. the columns under ,il and II; arc the same. 1.10 I'l'l)IC thatJJ and If, are logically equivalent if and only il' ( ,!IJ) and ( '(,) :II'C logically equivalent. 1.11 Which of the following statement forms are logically implied hy
(" ;\ /») '/

II'

IJ]

and

(,IJ]

==> It) are tautologies,

Proof

Assume that ,/}/and (.il ==> (f,) are tautologies, 11'1(, took the value F for some ;(ssignment of truth values to the statement letters or !IJ and (f,. then, since.!IJ IS a tautology .. 'YJ would take the value T and. therefore. (.JJ =? (t) would have the value F for that assignment. This coutradicts the assumption that , 1] =? ·t) is a tautology. Hence, It never takes the value F,

(a)

"I

(b) B (c) (.4 V B)

1.12 (,(A 1.13

1.14 (,(A

V B) (g) (A ==> B) ==> A) (h) ((,B) =? (,A)) (f) (A ¢? B) (i) (A 1\ ( ,B)) Repeat Exercise 1.11 with (A 1\ B) replaced by (A =? B) and =? B)), respectively. Repeat Exercise 1.11 with (A 1\ B) replaced by (.4 V B). Repeat Exercise 1.11 with (A (\ B) replaced by (A ¢? B) and ¢} B)). respectively.

(d) ((,A) (e) ((,B)

PROPOSITlO~ by
II I

1.3
1•

.uises by

'I.

r.rut

is a tautology containing as statement letters /1 Ac .. · .. il". andlfl fromY by substituting statement forms .'1'1 • .'12 •...• ,'I'" for ,12 •. · .• AII' respectively, then ,1jJ is a tautology; that is, substitution in a ology yields a tautology.

A statement form that is false for all possible truth values of its statement letters is said to be contradictory. Its truth table has only Fs in the column under the statement form. One example is (.4 ¢? (,A)):
A T F (~A) F T (A
¢=>

I sample 1.L'l ..1be ((A 1 1\ A2) ==> A I), let Y/I he (B ,,!((BVC)I\(CI\D)) ==> (BVC)).
I'roof

C) and let

,Y'2

be (C

1\

D). Then .YJ

(,A))

F
F

Another is (A /\ (,A)). Notice that a statement form £:4 IS a tautology if and only if (- ,3&) is con tradictory, and viee versa. A sentence (in some natural language like English or in a formal theory) t that arises from a tautology by the substitution of sentences for all the statement letters, with occurrences of the same statement letter being replaced by the same sentence, is said to be logically true (according to the propositional calculus). Such a sentence may be said to be true by virtue of its truth-functional structure alone. An example is the English sentence, 'If it is raining or it is snowing, and it is not snowing, then it is raining', which arises by substitution from the tautology (((A V B) /\ (,B)) ==> A). A sentence that comes from a contradictory statement form by means of substitution is said to be logically false (according to the propositional calculus). Now let us prove a few general facts about tautologies.
I

\ssume that .'.1 is a tautology. For any assignment of truth values to the <t.ucment letters in 28, the forms ·(JlI .... ,Y'1I have truth values XI,·",X" I II here each x; is T or F). If we assign the values XI, ...• XII to A I, ... , A,,, Il·spcctively. then the resulting truth value of.'Y is the truth value of.1I1 for I he given assignment of truth values. Since .Y is a tautology, this truth value iu uxt be T. Thus, e1J always takes the value T.

PROPOSITION

1.4

II If, 1 arises from '@I by substitution of (t,' for one or more occurrences of £:4, IhL'1l ((.JJ ¢} C) ==> (.<?81 {=} (Ill)) is a tautology. Hence, if e1J and ((j are logi,;illy equivalent, then so are .<fal and «il' I 1(/1111,/(' 1 L'I .(,11 be (CV
,( ,('))

By a formal theory
",prl'.I',I·;I/II.\'.

/lw(/II;lIgliil

(/I';I/III.\'

we mean an artificial lall~lIa~e in which the nutions of and rules IIOII/i'f!'lIte' arc precisclv described (sec pa~e

I(

'4)

D), let fJ1 be C, and let (1/ be (,(,C)). V D) Since C and (,(,C)) are logically equivalent, Ii ,( ,C)) V 1» arc also logically equivalent.

Then (6'1 is (C V D) and

l~
Proof

II"

1'1{()I'OSITIONAI

(AI<

I I IS

TAUTOLO(jIFS

21

·.cc;.

(-,(,A))
(,(,A))) c-;' A V B)

('PI1,llic'I' :111\:1"I).:I1II1Cl1t r truth values to the staklllL'1lI 1L'lln" II' !j ,llld 't, o h:l\l' (lPP(l,11l' t rut h values under this assignment. thcll 11/" '(,) Like, the v.rlu.. I,. .uul hence. ((fl 'i=? 't) ==> (:!Ill R '( I I) is l. II II :IIHI 'I, ruk c the ,:llllL' t ru+h \;11110. then so do ,flil and ((, I. since '(, I dlih_'I' 11()111 III (lilly in CIlIll:II11111gI. III some places where ,:Ill containsyj, ' Therefore. III 1111, case, I 'II '(,) ix T. (.fIJI R ((,!) is T, and, thus. ((.:Il ¢=> '(,) :. ( 111: : '( II j I' T

(If~·

" V -,(B

,(lJ => (A V 8)) ,4 V (, (B =o" (A \j R))) (A V (,( B=> (AJ B)))) .1

\j

I':1H'nthcscs

Not every form call he represented without the uxc <,I' parentheses, lor ,\.lmple. parentheses cannot he further eliminated 1')0111 ,I cco· (B ~c;, C). since I ~. 8 C stands for (A =-;. 8) =..;. C). Likewise. the rcm.uning parentheses «.umor be removed from -,(A V 8) or from II i\ (8 > C),
c~

II is profita ble at this point to agree on some conventions I(l :1void t hc usc of so many parentheses in writing formulas. This will make the reading of complicated expressions easier. First, we may omit the outer pair or parentheses of a statement I'm 111 , (In the case of statement letters, there is no outer pair of purcnthcscs.) Second, we arbitrarily establish the following decreasing order (ll' strength of the connectives: '. /\, V, =>, 4-?, Now we shall explain a step-by-step process for restoring parentheses to an expression obtained hy eliminating some or all parentheses from a statement form. Find the lclunost occurrence of the strongest connective that has not yet been processed,
(i)

lxcrcises
1,15 Eliminate
II)

as many parentheses
(c)
II C)
\j

as possible

from the Ipllllwing

V 1»)) 0
-rl

lorrns.

,I,) "I "II

((8=>(-d))AC) (A V (8 V C))
(((A;\

(A ~> 8) {} ( ,(C (f) ((,(-,(,(B V C))))

(g) (-,«(-,(,(BVC)))

("B))

D)

((B V (,C)) V (A /\ 8))

(h) ((((A ==> B) => (C ==> forms,

Dll /\ (,A))

(8 .~> e)) (B·~ e)l)

C)

1.1 (, Restore
'I)

parentheses

to the following

(ii)

(iii)

If the connective is ' and it precedes a statement form ,fIi. restore left and right parentheses 10 obtain (-df), If the connective is a binary connective C and it is preceded by a statement form ,"jIj and followed hy a statement form r.i, restore left and right parentheses to obtain (.IJ C r.i), If neither (i) nor (ii) holds, ignore the connective temporarily and find the leftmost occurrence of the strongest of the remaining unprocessed connectives and repeat (i)-(iii) for that connective.

,1'1

C \j ,A A B If => ",A A C

(c) c =-? ,(A A B => C) A ARB (d) C ==> A => A ¢=} ,A VB

1.17 Determine i.u crncnt forms

, I'

whether the following expressions and, if so, restore all parentheses, (d) A
R

are abbreviations
A

or

,1'1
"I

-"A R ARB VC ,(,A RA) RBVC ,(,4 cc? B) V C V D ==> B

(,A

8) ==> (A

(B

C)))

(e) ,A V B V CAD (f) (A ==> B A (CV

R A A -,A

D) A (A V D))

Examples Parentheses are restored to the expression following in the steps shown:
I. AR(,B)VC==>A

111

the first line of each of the

1llSll'ad

R R

((,B)

(((,B)

(A R (((,B) 2. A ==> ,R ==> C A ==> (,B) ==> C (A => (,B)) => C ((;Ie.;. (,B)) ==> C)
3. Il> /l > "A
,( '.")

C) ==> A C) ==> A) V C) ==> A))

,0/1 instead of (,.rJ8) , ==> .rJ8(,J" instead of (:ffI ==> Yf) , A:':!Jrt: of (.qIJ A (tf) , v:#Ni instead of (2a V (If), and R 2aC6' instead of (.14 R (ti), :1"'11 there is no need for parentheses. For example, «(,A) II (B ==> (,D))), .\ IIIL'h is ordinarily abbreviated as ,A A (B ==> ,D), becomes II ,A ==> B,D. I lu-; way of writing forms is called Polish notation. t.I X If we write

I Writc «(C ==> (,A)) V B) and (C V ((B A (-D)) ==> C)) in this notation, II) I f we count =e , A, V, and R eaeh as + I, each statement letter as -I and , as 0, prove that an expression ::dJ in this parenthesis-free notation is a ,ta tcmcnt form if and only if (i) the sum of the symbols of ~ is -I and (ii) the sum of the symbols in any proper initial segment of .tJA is nonnegative. (II' an expression .t)J can be written in the form {(fg;, where 'f. I ,;9, then '(, is called a proper initial segment of .J.d,) I, I Write the statement forms or Exercise 1,15 in Polish notation,
II

22

1111 PROPOSITIONAl

(.\1.('1

I liS

TAliTOLO(jIlS

(1I) J)l'ILTlllllll' \\ hcthcr the following cxprc"illll' ;11\' st.ucmcnt I'OIIllS in 1'<)II"h uot.u ro n. II' "u. write the statement Iorrns III the ,1;llllbld way. (I) III( .in (iii) \j A v ,.1 .uc /\ v.IC \. ·C 'il (11)18 liCe? ~AC (iv) v A /I A /1/1/1

:ill'

1.27 Show that each statement form in form next to it in column II.
.1)

COIUIllIl

I is logically equivalent

to

1.19
dll'llll\.
(:1)

IklLTlllllll'
1)1'

whether

each

of the following
(I)

I., a 1;llllllh)!!\.

IS

contra-

neither.
/1 I\. ( •(.'1
\j

Ii {(I
( '11)

. (II V /I) '. Ii) /\B)c}

Ii))

([))
Ie)

A C))

~>

(A /\8)

(1I)
(e)

(:I>

8) => ((8 ~ C) ~ (A ~ (Il B,B) ~ AV8

;. II) < : (( ·,1) V II) (h) (A c.. > /I):: (1/\ ( .8)) (i) (8 <."=> (Ii >.'1)) :.1 (j) A /\ -vI : u

(g) (A

I A~· (8 => C) Ih) /I/\(8VC) I,') A V (B i\ C) ill) (A /\ B) V--,B ,') (Av8)(\--,8 I') A ~ 8 ie') II q B 1!1) (A .;=;.8) q C II) A qB
'I)
I

II (A A B) ~ C (A /\ B) V (;I A C) (A V B) /\ (A V C) AV,B A /\ -,8

~8 ~.;. ,A

(Distributive law) (Distri huu vc law)

(Law

or

the

contrapositivc)

1.20 If A and 8 are true and C is false, what are the truth following statement forms? (a) A V C (h)A/\C (c) ~A /\ ~C (d) A B ~B V C 1.21 (e) BV ~C ~ A (f) (8VA) =? (B ~-,C) (g) (B => ~A) .;=;. (A ~c} C) (h) (8 ~ A) ~ ((A =? --,C) ~

values of the

,(A.;=;. B) k )-,(A V 8)

.n

(~C

=?

II))

',(A /\ B) 1111)/lV(A/\B) , 11) A /\ (/l V 8) ".) ,l A 8

8q A ¢=> (A /\ A.;=;. (,A) (--,A) A

A (Biconditional (8 q C) (Biconditional 8) V (~A /\ ~B) --,B /\ (--,8) (De Morgan's V (--,8) (Dr Morgan',

commutativity)

asslll'i;ltivily)

1,111')

law)

A
B/\A 8VA

If A ~. 8 is T. what

can he deduced

about

the truth

values of the

'11)

following?
(a) II V C =? B V C (b) 11/\ C =? B /\ C

"i)
'I

AvB (A/\B)/\C (A V B) V C

A /\ (B A C) A V (B V C)

(Commutativity of conjunction) (Commutativity of disjunction) (Associativity of conjunction) (Associativity of disjunction) of the following pairs.

I 2X Show the logical equivalence

I

(c) ~A /\ B
1.22

V8

:T /\ ,:JJ] and efIJ, where .'~ is a tautology, F V (!II and .'F, where .r is contradictory, 1-; v:;8 and :31, where .'1-- is contradictory.
'F V.'JIJ

What further F

truth values can be deduced

from those shown'?

~ ~C)
=}

,I,)
I

and .'T, where.r

is

[I

tautology.

(a) --,A V (A ~ B) (b) ~(A /\ B) .;=;. ~A 1.23

=?

(c) (-.A V B) =}(A

-,B

(d)(A

.;=;.B) .;=;.(C

,II

--,A)

T If A .;=;. B is F, what can be deduced following?

(a) A /\ B 1.24 1.25 (b) A V B (c) A=} B

about

F T the truth

values

of the

, II

1'1
I

(d) A i\ C.;=;. B /\ C

Repeat Exercise 1.23, but assume that A .;=;. B is T What further truth values can be deduced from those given?

Show the logical equivalence of --'(A ~ B) Show the logical equivalence of --'(A .;=;. 8) Ior each of the following statement forms, logically equivalent to its negation and in only to statement letters.

and A /\ ~8. and (A /\ ~B) V (,A /\ B). find a statement form that is which negation signs apply

(a) (A /\ B) .;=;.(A VB)

FF
(h) (A 1.26
.'/2 (h)
=?

"II·.? (8.;=;. --,C) "I V (B ~ C) 'I") 11\.(8V~C)

I II)

(a)

--,B) ~(C ~ B) F Apply Proposition

1.4

1.3 when .'1 is AI ~ AI V A2,.'I'1

is B /\ D, and
> C. and '(, is

I 10 (i>//(/Iill')
III

is·B. Apply Proposition

·Il V C.

when

,ldl

is (II

> C)

fl, ,Id is 1/

If '1/ is a statement form involving only --', /\, and v, and {iJ' results from '1/ hy replacing each A hy V and each V by A. show that ,;8 is a tautology If and only if >.111' is a tautology. Then prove that. if .Id =} (I, is a tall-

24

IIII

l'I{OI'{)SITION,\1 C\I(III:S

T i\ UTOLO(j

I tS

then ,(\ IS 'f,'>11'. and ii' 11 < > 'f, IS :1 t:llIt\lI()~\. then ,,0 IS IIIL'lL' 'r. I, also assumed 10 involve \lllh '. ,\ .md V,) (hl\III<lll~ i hr ILlgIL':iIequivalences in Exercise 1,27. dni\L' (c) lrom (h). (e) i'r(lll1ILiI. (I) 1'1(\111 (k ). (p) from (0). and (1') Irom 1'1)' IL') II 1/ I' ,I <i.ucmcut Iorrn involving only ,.1\ ,I1HI /. .md 'II' rL'SlIlh from 1/ h\ IlltL'Il'!l:lnging J\ and V and replacing every st.ucmcm kiter by its llL·g'111(l11. show that 11' is logically equivalent to ,11, lind :1 st.ucmcnt lorn: thai IS logically equivalent 10 the IlL'g,IIIOll pi' i.l.j II \j C) ,( ,./ v ,B \! D). in which ~ applies only 10 statement ktlL'l',
1/1.'

t(\I(\~\.

c\.
A ~-----

/1 ,II\_-·_

=r-

Figure. 1.2

I.JI

(,1) Prove that a statement form that contains ¢=} as its onlv couucci ivc is a tautology if and only if each statement letter occurs all even number of
t imcs.

Figure. I,J
A ..---C~'B\___

(h)

Prove that a statement form that contains ~ and ~, as ii, only connectives is a tautology if and only if, and each statement letter occur an even number of limes.

1.32 (Shannon. 1(38) An electric circuit containing only Oil oil' switches (when a switch is on. it passes current: otherwise it docs not) call be represented by a diagram in which. next to each switch. we put a letter representing a necessary and sullicicnt condition for the switch to be Oil (see Figure 1.1). The condition that a current Rows through this network can he given hy the suucment form (.4 r. B) V (C 1\ ~.4). A statement form representating the circuit shown in Figure 1.2 is (.4 /\ B) V (( C \j .4) /\ -,B), which is logically equivalent to each of the following forms by virtue or the indicated logical equivalence of Exercise 1.27.
((A B) v (C V A)) 1\ ((A 1\ B) v ~B) ((A /\ B) V (C V A)) 1\ (A V ~B) ((A 1\ B) V (A V C)) 1\ (A V ,B) (((A 1\ B) V A) V C) 1\ (A V ~B) (A V C) 1\ (A V ~B) A V (C 1\ ~B)
1\

c~
'B~

,C '---__

-----'

(e) (d) (p)

\__, -E
Figure. 1.4
B

CL------, C'-----_t____

B'--

,A \__,

B'----

C '---------'

(r)

Figure. 1.5

(p),(m)
(e)

Hence. the given circuit is equivalent to the simpler circuit shown in Figare said to be equivalent if current flows through one if and only if it flows through the other, and one circuit is simpler if it contains fewer switches.)
ure 1.3. (Two circuits
II)

Figure. 1.6

lind simpler
j().

equivalent

circuits

for those shown in Figures

1.4, 1.5 and

II,)

;\"lIll1e that each of the three members of a committee votes yes on a proposal hy pressing a button. Devise as simple a circuit as you can that will allow current to pass when and only when at least two of the members vole in the utlirrnutivc.

26
(c)

1111 I'ROI'OSITIO'\lA I (,\lUUS

.\1)1:<)\;1\11

SLTS 01 CO~:-.iICTIVES

We \\ 1,11;1 liuht tll he controlled by t\\O dille rent wall S\\ uchc-. ill ,I room III "lll:h:1 \Ia\ i hn t flicking either one or thesl: swu chc-. 1\111 turn the' light o n 11'11 IS oil .md l u rn It off if' it is on. COllstrllL·t :1 SllllplL' L'ilL'lllt tll do the Il''I 1I11L'l1 10 h

I __ Check '5
i .rcscnting .uncuon .: i to

each of the following sets or suucmcnts fur consistency hy rethe sentences as stutcment rOl'll1S .uid then testing their consee whether it is contradictory.

I,:n Ikl crru IIll' II het her the following urgumcn Is :IIL' II'!lIC:! llv correct by Il'P1L'SL'lltlll'_' c.rch sentence as a statement lorm :1III I cllL'd.JIl'_' wln-t hc:: the L'OIlL'IIISlllllIS logically implied by the conjunction 01' Ihl' :ISSlllllptioIlS. (To do this. assigll T to each assumption and F to the conclusion. .md .Ictcrminc whct ln-r a contradiction rcsults.)
(:I)

i,)

(0)

(c)

(d) (e)
(I)

(g)

(h) (i)

If JOIlCS is a communist, Jones is an atheist. .lo nc-, IS :111 atheist. Therefore, Jones is a communist. If the temperature and air pressure remained constant. there was no rain. The temperature did remain constant. Therefore. if there was rain. then the air pressure did not remain constant. If Gorton wins the election, then taxes will increase if the deficit will remain high. If Gorton wins the election. the deficit will remain high. Therefore, if Gorton wins the election, taxes will increase. If the number .r ends in O. it is divisible by 5. .r docs not end ill O. Hence, x is not divisible hy 5. If the number .r ends in (), it is divisible by 5. x is not divisible b) 5. Hence. .r docs not end in O. If a = 0 or h = O. then ab = O. But ah f O. Hence, a f () and h f O. A sufficient condition for f to be integra hie is that if he bounded. ;\ necessary condition for II to be continuous is that./ is integrable. Hence, if f) is hounded or II is continuous. then ./ is integrable. Smith cannot both be a running star and smoke cigarettes. Smith IS not a running star. Therefore, Smith smokes cigarettes. If Jones drove the car, Smith is innocent. If Brown fired the gun, then Smith is not innocent. Hence, if Brown fired the gun, then Jones did not drive the car.

Lither the witness was intimidated or. if Doherty committed suicide, a note was Iound. If the witness was intimidated. then Doherty did not commit suicide. If a note was found. then J)ohl'l'ty committed suicide. The contract is satisfied if and 0111y if the building IS completed by 30 November. The building is completed by 3() November if and only if the electrical subcontractor completes his work b~ 10 November. The bank loses money if and only if the contract is not s.ui-Iicd. Yet the electrical subcontractor completes his work hy 10 November if and only if the bank loses money.

U I

ADEQUATE

SETS OF CONNECTIVES

\cTy statement form containing n statement letters generates a corrc1l('llding truth function of 11 arguments. The arguments and values of the "llll·tion arc T or F. Logically equivalent forms generate the same truth urction. A natural question is whether all truth functions are so generated.

"ImpOSITION I \ ,'I'V truth

1.5 is generated by a statement form involving the con-

function

'1', lives " /\ and v.

1'1'4101'

1.34 Which or the following sets of statement forms are satisfiable, in the sense that there is an assignment or truth values to the statement letters that makes all the forms in the set true?
(a) A =? B B=?C
(b)

(c)

CV D ¢} ,B ,( ~'B V A) A V,C) B =? ,C f) -=} B

II v-,B
,(/)/\.-1)
/)

to Examples j and 2 below for clarification.) Let I(xl, ... , XII) be a function. Clearly can be represented by a truth table of 211 rows, , 11"ll' each row represents some assignment of truth values to the variables . ,X". followed by the corresponding value or I(xI, ... ,xn). If / .. 211. let C, be the conjunction Ui/\ U2 /\ . , . /\ Uj" where Ui is Ai if, in 1", /tli row of the truth table, Xi takes the value T. and Ui is ,Aj if Xj takes 1'1 I .iluc F in that row. Let D be the disjunction of all those C;s such that f 1.(', the value T for the ith row of the truth table. (I r there are no such rows, 1"'11 I always takes the value F, and we let D be A I /\ ,AI, which satisfies the Illl'<>rl'Ill.) Notice that D involves only" II, and V, To see that D has f as its . 'oJ I csponding truth function, let there be given an assignment of truth dill'S 10 the statement letters AI, ... , All' and assume that the corrreI" '11ll!Ilg ussignrncn t to the varia bles XI, . , , , XII is row k or the truth table for I hell (', has the value T for this assignment. whereas every other C, has I h,' \ .iluc I:. If I has the va luc T for row k , then C, is a disjunct of D. Hence.
,1\,'ln
'I

<1111

.r

1J)

IIII

I)R()I'OSITIO~AL

(\1(

"[il I.'S
11'( I he

ADE()UI\TE

SETS OF CO"JNUIIVLS

would

;11",
('j,

11;I\l'
",

til,' v.iluc 'I

f)

['01" Illi~ d"I~\llllLIII

11:"
I;I~"

111"\;1I11'~ IhL'

I: for
I Cor gcn-

"roof

I,l\\

A.lhl'll

Ill'!;1

dl~11I11L'1 ofDand

;IIIII1L'd"jIIlIL'h ~iI'll

vuluc

t hi»

;1"1~lll11l'llI, I Ill' IIIIII!

I'hn"i"lll"".

would

have

value

I:,

11111';. /)

',"I icc that/}

L'I';I""

l unvIion

t.

I.
\1

\j (f, is logically equivalent to ,( ,:/J .'\ -,f,), Helice. by the ,",,)nd pari ofPropositiori IA. any sta tcrncn I I'll I" III 111 V "nJ-, is logically .juivalcnt 10 a statement 1'01"111 in only /\ and 'lllh(;lil1L'J by replacing ,ill \pressions .!IiV(r, hy --.(-,,!jJI\. ~{r,)l, The other p.ut« of the corollary are .milar consequences of the following tuutolouic-: .(Ij /\ (('''''',( .}1
"t.

T
F F

Xc T

/(11,1.,)

;1 Y

if,)

T
F F

F T T T

V ((, <=> (

-,.}1

c_" '(, ) => -rr, )

}1 /\ ((,

<=>

~(,;1

We have just seen that there arc certain pairs 01' conucctrvcx for ex1\ and ~ - in terms of' which all truth functions nrc dclinublc. It turns 'III that there is a single connective, j (joint denial), i h.u will do the same ",I, Its truth table is:
1IIIplc,

XI

.\'1

X,

T
F

T T
I

T T

I/(XI.x2,xd T

T
T lI

F T T
F II II

T F T

8 T T F
F

AlB
F F F

T
I I I,

T T
I

F
I

T
I /\

Dis

(A

I /\

A 2 1\ A,) V (A

I /\

~A 2 1\ 141) V ( --A
1\

-,A 2 1\ A1 )

V (~AI

-vI2;\

~A,),

is true when and only when neither A nor 8 is true. Clearly, . (A J A) and (A /\ B) 8 ((A J A) 1 (81 8ll arc tautologies. Hence. the "qll;lCY of 1 for the construction of all truth functions follows from "1,,11,1 ry 1.6. vnother connective, (alternative denial), is also adequate for this pur" J Is truth tu ble is
If B T

Exercise 1.36 Find statement forms following truth functions.

XI Xl x,

in the connectives
q(XI,X2,X3)

~, /\ and
h(XI,x2,Xl) F

that have the

!(XI,X2,X,)

T F T F

AlB F
T

T
F

T T

T F T
F

T
T

T
T

T
T

T
T
T

T F T F

F F T
T

F
F

F F F F

T F F F F T

T F T F T F

T F F T
T

II" true when and only when not both A and B are true. The adequacy of J,dlolVs from the tautologies ~A R (A 1 A) and (A V B) \=? ((A 1 A) 1 , II) J,

"IH JPOSITION
1111' ,il

1.7

"Illy
II nt h

binary connectives that alone are adequate functions are 1 and I.

for the construction

of

COROLLARY

1.6 form t'(llllallllllg alld, as

1""01'
\ "Ilillt'
111\

lvcry truth function can he generated hy a st.ucmcn: connectives only /\ and ',or only Valid ',or onlv

that h(A, B) is an adequate connective. Now, if h(T,T) were T, then ,t;llt'lllcnl form huilt up using h alone would take the value T when all

I .'() _I

IIII

I)RUI'OSITION.\I

(;\1('[ U is '.1

i\D[QL~/\TL SETS OF CO'\i\iI(TIVES

i_

:11

rcrm-, 01 h. S\l.

its sl;lll'1l1l'lll kill'!, Llkl' Ihl' value T. Hence. Ii( I . I) I·. Likewise, Ii( 1.1-')
t.ibk:
A T F T IJ T 11(//.8I I

would not be definable

in

I. TIIII~. we have the partial

truth

T
llT

I-'

l l Ihl' 'l'c()lld and third entries in the last column are I". I; or T T. then II is 1 . Ilthcy arc F. T. then II(A. B) q ~B is a tautology; and if they are T F, then "(.'I,B) <=> ~A is a tautology. In both cases, II would be definable in tL'l'I1lS(JI',. But, is not adequate by itself because the only truth [unctions 01' one variable definable from it are the identity function and negation itself, whereas the truth function that is always T would not be definable.
"I

Exercises 1.37 Prove that each of the pairs express all truth functions.
-.='?

Vand"

<c;>

is not alone adequate

to

1.38 (a) Prove that A V B can he expressed in terms of => alone. (h) Prove that A /\ B cannot he expressed in terms or =? alone. (c) Prove that A <=> B cannot be expressed in terms of => alone. 1.39 Show that any two of the connectives {/\. =>. <=>} serve to define the remammg one. 1.40 With one variable .4, there arc four truth functions:
A ~A A

The proof or Proposition 1.5 shows thai every statement form .YJ is logically equivalent to one in disjunctive normal form. fly applying this result to -,.YJ. prove that .YJ is also logical" equivalent to ,I form in conjunctive normal form. ,I,) Find logically equivalent dnfs and cnls rnr(A ~~ B) V (,A /\ C) and 1 ~C;. «(B /\ ~A) V C). [Hilll: Instead of relying 011 Proposition 1.5, it is usually easier to use Exercise 1.27(h) and (c).1 ) A dnf (cnf) is called [ull if no disjunct (conjunct ) contains two occurrences of literals with the same letter and il ~I letter that occurs in one disjunct (conjunct) also occurs in all the ol hcr». For example, IA /\ ,A /\ B) V (A /\ il). (B /\ e /\ C) V (8 /\ C) and (/i /\ C) V B are not rcu. whereas (/I /\ B /\ ,C) V (A 1\ B /\ C) V (/I /\ ,15 /\ ,n and (A /\,B) v(B /\ A) are full dnfs. (i ) Find full dnfs and cnfs logically equivalent to (A r. B) V -,A and -.(A =? il) V (~A /\ e). I ii) Prove that every non-contradictory (non-tautologous) st.ucmcnt form:!IJ is logically equivalent to a full dnf'{cnf) (f,. and. if(f, contains exactly II letters. thcnYJ is a tautology (is contradictory) if and only if (f, has 2" disjuncts (conjuncts). II lor each of the following, find a logically equivalent dnf (cnf), and then iind a logically equivalent full dnf (cnf), II) (A V B) /\ (,B V C) (iii) (A /\ ~il) V (A /\ C) (II) ~A V (B => ~C) (iv) (A V B) B ,e I Corrstruct statement forms in ' and /\ (respectively. in ' and Vor in ' .uu] =}) logically equivalent to the statement forms in (d).
.1)

v
T T

~A

A /\'14

T F

F T

F F

(a) With two variable A and B, how many truth functions (b) How many truth functions of 11 variables are there?

are there?

II A statement form is said to be satisfiable if it is true for some as'1IIIIl'llt of truth values to its statement letters. The problem ofdetermining «uisfiubility of an arbitrary cnf plays an important role in the theory of . "III)lItational complexity; it is an example of a so-called (·.1'-c(}J1/plcIC . "hie-ill (see Garey and Johnson, 1978). ,I Show that ."j{J is satisfiable if and only if ,."j{J is not a tautology . . , I klermine whether the following are satisfiable: II) (A V B) /\ (,A V B V C) 1\ (,A V ,B V ,C) III) ((A =} B) V C) <=> (,B /\ (A V C)) I ( irvcn a disjunction (J; of four or more literals: LI V L2 V ... V L,,, let ( ', ..... ell 2 be statement letters that do not occur in rz, and construct I Ill' cnf Ii:
(/'1

1.41 Show that the truth function h determined by (A V B) =} ~C generates all truth functions. 1.42 By a literal we mean a statement letter or a negation of a statement letter. A statement form is said to be in disjunctive normalform (dnf) if it is a disjunction consisting of one or more disjuncts, each of which is a conjunction of one or more literals - for example, (A /\ B) V (~A /\ C), (A/\B/\~A)V(C/\'B)V(A/\'C). A,A/\B, and AV(BVC). A form is in conjunctive normalform (en I) if it is a conjunction of one or more conjuncts. each of which is a disjunction of one or more literals for example. (B V C)/\(A V B), (8 V -Ie) /\ (A V D). 11/\ (lJ v .. ) /\ ( ,n v,., ).. ·f v ,/I . .'1/\ 1 8.1\. Note that our terminology considers a literal 10 be a t dcgcncr.uc) COIljunction and a (dcgcncrurc) disjunction.

V L2 V CI) II /\ (~CII.1

(~e, v Lo v C2)
V Ln-I

r. (~C2 V L4 v Co) !\
V LII V ~CI)

v c,,-2) /\ (~c,,-2

Show that any truth assignment satisfyingv' can be extended .1~'lglllllcnl satisfyill!! Ii and. conversely, uny truth assignment

to a truth satisfying

]2

IIII

I'ROI'()SITIONi\1

(";\IClTLS

AN

AXIOM

SYSTEM

101< THL

PROP()SITIONAL

(:\LCLLl:S

,1.1

(1I)

/, IS ,III L'\IL'IISI(l1l 01'.1 truth assignment salisl\ing '/, (Thi« permits the i"l'tiIICti(lll 01 i hr problem of satisfyillg clll'" 10 the corresponding problcm I(l] L'liI" \\ ii h c.u.h conjunct contuining at Ilw"t three li tcr.ils.) lor ,I dl"llincti(ln '/ of three literals 1.1 V 1.2 V l., ,;J]()\\ til;lt ,I form that 11:1"IIiL' properties of;; in (c) cannot be const ructcd. with /, a cnf in \\ lu.h c.uh conjunct contains at 1110st two literals (R, COWCIl),

Il') Prove that ,:;] is unsatisfiublc diction,

if and only ii'fI .. (,JjJ is a blatant > '/ is

,I

contra-

I.4S Let ,11 and '/ be sta temen t forms such 111<11Jj

ta u tology,

IA-I (I<,'W/III/UII) Let:;] be a cnf LInd let C be a st.ucmcnt letter II' (' is a <l1"IIIIIL'1 <I disjunction PI' (/1 in ,:;] and --,(' is a disjunct 01' another disjunction / ' ill Jj, then a non-empty disjunction obtained by cluuin.uing r : trorn ~/I .md ,(' lrorn (/"2 and forming the disjunction 01' the rcn r.un ing literals (dropping repetitions) IS said to be obtained Iromzr by r(',\(//lIliuli Oil C For cx.uupk'. if .s is
(il V{'

1;1) If'IJ and r.t have no statement letters in conuuon. show that either ,'IJ is contradictory or'/' is a tautology, I h) tCraig's intcrpolcuion 1//{'01'1'1II) If ,:;] and '/ hu vc the statement letters 81 •• ," 8/1 in common, prove that there is a st.ucmcnt form ((, having 81. " " 8/1 as its only statement letters such th.u Jj ;. '(, and ((, => '/ arc tautologies, u,) Solve the special case of (b) in which ,11 is (III I! I., (1.;,82) and '/ is
(81 i\ C)
=?

(821\

C),

-,8) 1\ (~A V D V ~B) 1\ (C

v /)

II II),

the first and third conjuncis yield A v --,8 V D by resolution on (', In addition, the first and second conjuncts yield --,C V --,8 V f) by resolution Oil A, and the second and third conjuncts yield D V --,8 V C by resolution on A, If we conjoin to ,'IJ any new disjunctions obtained by resolution on all variables, and if we apply the same procedure to the new cnf and keep on iterating this operation, the process must eventually stop, and the linal result is denoted II , ,('11) , In the t'xalllrkil ,{11) is:
(/I

,(''1

'H)!\(-vlVf)V~H)I\(CVf)VA)/\( V (') 1\ (/1

c:v v
.8)

-s v t»

!\ ([)

v./j

v ~lJ v

D) II (D

conjuncts

that we have not been careful about specifying the order in which or disjuncts arc written, since any two arrangements will he logically equivalent.)

(Notice

(a) Find"ll(.{~) when oj] is each of the following: (i) (A v --,8) 1\ 8 (ii) (A II 8 v C) 1\ (A V --,8 V C)

(iii) (A

C)

1\

(--,A

B)

1\

(A

--,C) (\ (--,A

--,8)

1.-16 I,ll A certain country is inhabited only by trnth-t cl lcr» (pe(lpic who always tell the truth) and liars (people who always lie), Moreover. the inhabitants will respond only to .1'1'.1' or /10 questions. 1\ tourist comes to a fork in a road where one branch leads to the capital and the other docs not. There is no sign indicating which branch to take, hut there is a native standing at the fork. What yes or no question should the tourist ask in order to determine which branch to take'? [Him: Let A stand for 'Y ou a re a truth-teller' and let 8 stand for 'The left-hand branch leads to the capital'. Construct, hy 111C,1nsof a suitable truth t able. a statement form involving A and 8 such that the native's answer to the question as 10 whether this statement form is true will he ycs when and only when R h truc.] ,"1 In a certain country, there are three kinds of people: workers (who always tell the truth), businessmen (who always lie), ,1I1d students (who -ometimes tell the truth and sometimes lie), At a fork in the road, one branch leads to the capital. A worker, a businessman and a student are standing at the side of the road but are not identifiable in any obvious way, By asking two yes or no questions, find out which fork leads to the capital (Each question may be addressed to any of the three.) \·1ore puzzles of this kind may be found in Srnullyan 1I.II's 2, 48) 1.-1 AN AXIOM SYSTEM (1978, chap, 3; 1985,

(b) Show that gil logically implies 9j"J(28), (c) If M is a cnf, let 38c be the cnf obtained from @ by deleting those conjuncts that contain C or --,c. Let rc(28) be the cnf that is the conjunction of 21Jc and all those disjunctions obtained from ,04 by resolution on C. For example, if .fJ4 is the cnf in the example above, then rd,11) is (--,A V D V oB) 1\ (A V --,8 V D), Prove that, if rc(Yl) is satisfiable, then so is :'11, (R, Cowen) (d) A cnf ,'11 is said to be a blatant contradiction if it contains some letter C and its negation --,C an conjuncts. An example of ,I blatant contradiction is (A V B) 1\ 8 1\ (C V 0) 1\ -,8, Prove that if .'IJ is uns.uisfiablc. then ,11,;(,'11) is a blatant contradiction, 111;1": l JSl' iI1lhll"1I111011 till' number " of letters Ihat occur ill ,'/I, In the inducnon sll'p, 1I'l' te) I

FOR THE PROPOSITIONAL

CALCULUS

,"IIIIIl)!

1IIIIh tables enable us to answer many of the significant questions conthe truth-functional connectives, such as whether a given statement I. >1111 is .1 tautology, is contradictory, or neither, and whether it logically 1IIIpltes or is logically equivalent to some other given statement form, The Ilillll' complex parts or logic we shall treat later cannot be handled by truth 1,lhll',\ or by any other similar effective procedure. Consequently, another

r
34

Till

I'ROI'()SITIONI\I.

(ALClIL.llS

---,,,:\ ;\XIOM

-_.. ---- ------~-.-.----------l

SYSTI'1vl FOR TIIF PROPOSITIOI\u\L CALCULUS

L___~

:IS

.ipprouch. hI 11Il',II]\ (II I·ollllal axiom.uic theories, will have to he tried. Altil(lll~it. ,1\ Ill' have -ccu. the propositional calculus <urrcndcrs completely to till' uurh Llhle- method. It will he instructive to illustrate the axiomatic lllL'tit(ld III this simple brunch of logic. A 1,11111,11 t hcory .'/ is defined when the following conditions arc s~ltislied: ;\ l·(lIIIlI'lhlc' sL'l of symbols is given as the symbols ol' '/' A finite scqucncc (If symbols 01'.'/" is called all e.cprcssion of' !/. ~ lhcrc IS a subset of the set of expressions of .'/ called the set \)1' IITI/fu,."wi/ lii/wIIIIIS (wfs) of y, There is usually an effective procedure to dl'll'lmine whether a given expression is a wf. .v. There is a set or wfs called the set of axioms of 9'. Most often. one can cllccrively decide whether a given wf is an axiom: in such a case . .'/ is called an axiomatic theory. 4. There is a finite set HI, .... RII of relations among wls, called rules oj inference. For each R there is a unique positive integer j such that. for every set of j wfs and each wf i!l. one can effectively decide whether the given j wfs are in the relation R, to .!l. and, if so,:jJ is said uifollowfrom or to be a direct consequence 01 the given wfs by virtue of Ri.
I,

"I" inference of some or the preceding wt's in the sequence. SUCh;1 sequence is .ulled a pru(}f(or deduction) oj 'I, [rom 1". lhc members 01" I are called the iJII)(Jt/ICS(,S or premisses 01' the proof'. We usc 1'1 'f, ~ISan abbreviation for .,1, I~ a consequence of I'. In order to avoid confusion when dealing with more .hu n one theory, we write r f-'J «(, adding the subscript ..1' to indicate the ' I hcory in question. If l' is a linirc set {j( I, ... , f( In}- we write If I. . I( '" l- (I, instead of : If I. "', Y( "'} ~- ((,. I I' r is the empty set 0. t hcn lIll 'f. II' and only if 'I, is ~l theorem. It is customary to omit the sign ,\'). and Silllph wru c . 'f,. Thus, l- 'f, i\ another way of asserting that '(; is a theorem. The following are simple pro pert ies or t he not ion "Il'onseq ucnce: I. If

r c;: A and r r '(,. then , r f- «(, if and only if there

If L\ f(I"

L\ f- '{,. is a finite subset A of I such th.u L\ I· '6. and for each .!IJ in .0.. I ~ then r I 'f, .'II.

is a seq uencc .ffl, .... ·;;h of wfs such that. for each i, ci thcr is a direct consequence of some or the preceding wfs in the sequence hy virtue of one of the rules of Inference of_'I'. A theorem of .'/ is a wf /11 of' .'1' such that .!l is the last wf of some proof in //'. Such a proof is called a pro oj or.YJ ill .(1'. Even if Y is axiomatic - that is. if there is an effective procedure for checking any given wf to see whether it is an axiom the notion of 'theorem' is not necessarily effective since, in general, there is no effective procedure for determining, given any wf .!fl, whether there is a proof of .:jJ. A theory for which there is such an effective procedure is said to he decidable; otherwise, the theory is said to be undecidable. From an intuitive standpoint, a decidable theory is one for which a machine can be devised to test wfs for theorem hood, whereas, for an undecidable theory, ingenuity is required to determine whether wfs are theorems. A wf (t is said to be a consequence in.Cf of a set of r of wfs if and only if there is a sequence .c?4I, ... , .o/h of wfs such that 1(/ is 2.(h and, for each i . either 'Jli is an axiom or:fai is in r, or .?iJ; is a direct consequence by some rule A
proo]'

in

(j'

ill, is an axiom of r/' or.!l,

\ssertion I represents thc fact that il' Z is provable trom a sci I of prenusses, then, if we add still more premisses, 'I, is still provable. Half of 2 1"lIows from I. The other halfis obvious when we notice that any proof 01"(; 11(11llr uses only a finite number of premisses from r. Proposition :\ is also .iuitc simple: if ({; is provable from premisses in L\, and each premiss in L\ is rrovable from premisses in F, then ({; is provable from premisses in r. We now introduce a formal axiomatic theory L for the propositional
, .rlculus.

The symbols of L are" =>, (,), and the letters Ai with positive integers as subscripts: AI, A2, A3, .... The symbols >- and => are called pritnitive connectives, and the letters Ai are called statement letters. (a) All statement letters are wfs. (h) If.YJ and (f; are wfs, then so are (,f!l) and (::jJ => «(/),t Thus, a wf of L is just a statement form built up from the statement letters Ai hy means of the connectives, and =>, I j'!l, 'e and ,U;i are wfs of L, then the following are axioms of L: (A I) (.'YJ => ('tf => ij(j)) (A2) ((:!l => (e => .@)) => ((fff => 1(/) => (.f(] => <'Jtl))) (A:I) (((,(t) => (,:18)) =? (((,(t) => M) => (t)) lhc only rule of inference of L is modus ponens: (fj is a direct consequence of .;1] and (:i& =? (e). We shall abbreviate applications of this rille hy MP.)
i

conslslill~ of all ordered

Ill"

I An example of a rule of inference will be the rule 1II11c1I1.1/)OI/,·1/1 (M 1') 't. I"IIo\\s Irorn .~ and.YJ > 'f,. According to our precise definition. IIIIS rule IS t hc rcl.uion

"These 'symbols' may be thought of as arbitrary guistic objects. This will become absolutely necessary With uncountably many symbols in Section 2.12.

objects rather when we deal

ih.m just 1111wit h theories

We shall usc our conventions

for eliminating

parentheses,

triples

( '19.

19

:' 'f"

't. ). where

19 and 't.

;11','

.ubur.u-,

"fs

, II

the [o r 111 a I system.

..

III br precise. we should add the so called extremal clause: (c) An expression is t II ;I lid only if il call he shown to he a wf on the basis of clauses (a) and (b). This '11 hl' made ngol"'lIls uxing as a model the definition in footnote on page 13. : 1\ conuuon hlghsh vvnouym for modus poneux I' the ""IW/III1"1/1 fII/"

1111 I'I~( )I'()SITIO"-J'I I\(llll'l'

( \I.Cl:U'S

AN '\XIOM

SYSTEM

I(}R THL PROI'(}SIIIO:'oJ!\L

(/\LCI

'Ll!S

111;11Iill' Ilil11111l' set or a xioms Ill' I. I~ given by means of three (.\ I) t :\_;). w it h each SChL'Ill~1st~llldin~ for an infinite number ;I\i(llll, (}lll' l',lll e;I~lh check for any ~I\l:n wl \\ hcihcr or 110t it is an ;1\1"111. I ilL'J'l'l(lll·. I. I" axiomatic. In setting up the syslL'1l1 I.. it is our 1111L'1111(l11 " "hl;llll ;1" theorems 1 precisely the class of' <III tautnlugics. Wl' 11111"dlll'l' other connectives hy definition:

lrom .\ and 4 by M!' Fxcrcise 1.47 Prow:

(a) C""L (,.;&

ux iom 'l·ill'IIl.I'

or

~YJ)

=>1&

( I ) I)
(I)

(1J

i)

(11

\j ,(,)

(.! for -(J/J for (,.J/J)

=;. ~«(,)

(h)

=;, ((,
«(,) /\ ((,

(1):\)

1.110

'(,) for (ill =>

=> .J/J)
is that, for any wfsJ/J and «(" '(iIl!\ «(>)' is

ill => «(>. «(> => '/ f- 11& cc.;. (/ (c) 1&=;C. ((> =;c. (/) i- I. '(; => (J/J => (/) (d) I-L (~«(> =? ,.1&) => (J/J => «(,)

Ihe meaning of (DI). for example. an abhrcvi.uion for '-(ill => -,r(,)'.

In mathematical arguments, one often rro\c~ d ,1;ltclllL'nt «(> 011 the as.umption of some other statement .J/J and then concludc-, th.n 'ifill, thcn «(,' ", true. This procedure is justified for the system I. h\ till' I,,"owing theorem.

LEMMA
Proor We shall

1.8 1-, .J/J =;,J/J

for all wfs .YJ.

1)I~OPOSrrION

1.9 (DEDUCTION

THEOREM)

construct

a proof

in L of .YJ =;,J/J. Instance of axiom schema (A2)

Ii I' is a set of wfs and .iJ and «(>are wfs, and 11.llticular, if.J/J f- «(f, then f- .J/J => '(> (Herbrund.
I 'roof

r..YJ 1-

«(,. then 1l)30).

f' l- ;/] ~ '(,. In

(J/J =;c. ((.J/J => JI1) =;, .iIl») , ((.J/J ~? (J/J =>iIl)) ~;. (iIle> . ill) ) 2. .J/J => ((1&e=> .J/J) =;, .1&) 3. (.J/J.~ (.1& =>J/J)) => (1& =;, .1&) 4.J/J ...;. (.J/J =>YJ) I.

Axiom schema (A I) From I and 2 by MP Axiom schema (A I)

tThe word 'proof' is used in two distinct senses. First, it has a precise meaning defined above as a certain kind of tinite seq ucnce of wfs of L However, in another sense, it also designates certain sequences of the English language (supplemented by various technical terms) that are supposed to serve as an argument justifying some assertion about the language L (or other formal theories). In general, the language we are studying (in this case, L) is called the object language, while the language in which we formulate and prove statements about the object language is called the metalanguage. The metalanguage might also be formalized and made the subject of study, which we would carry out in a meta metalanguage. and so on. However, we shall use the English language as our (unforrnalized) metalanguage, although, for a substantial part of this book, we use only a mathematically weak portion of the English language. The contrast between object language and metalanguage is also present in the study of a foreign language; for example, in a Sanskrit class, Sanskrit is the object language, while the metalanguage, the language we me, is English. The distinction hetween proofeiu) met aproofii.e., a proof in the metalanguage) leads to a distinction between theorems of the object language and mctathcorcms of the metalanguage. To avoid confusion, we generally usc 'proposition' instead of 'met.uhcorcm'. The word 'metamathematics' refers to the study or i<l~lcal and mathematical object languages; sometimes the word is restricted to tI1ll\l' In\'l'sti~a· tlons that lise what appear 10 the mctam.uhcm.uu-ian to bl' convtrucuv« IIlI ""l';i1led tinuury) Illl,tholb

1,'1 '('I .... , «('" be a proof of {(, form L{1&}. where v., is«(>. Lei us prove, hy .u.luctio n on i. that I" f- /11 =? «(,j for I ~j <n. First of all. «(,I must be either ,;; I' or an axiom of Lor M itself. By axiom schema (A I), «(>1=? (?11 => {(>I) is ," axiom, Hence, in the first two cases, by MP, r ~ YJ =? {(>I. For the third .. .. N'. when {(;'I is1lJ, we have f-:!/J =? {t, by Lemma I.~, and. therefore. 'IJ =? (41. This takes care of the case j = I. Assume now Iha t 1&=> «(f, for all k < j. Either «(/1 is an axiom, or «(', is in F. or «(', is .1&,or Iollows by modus ponens from some «(;, and (4111, where (I < j. /11 < j, and has the form !(j, =? (t"j. In the first three cases, f-YJ =? «(', as in the case i "have. In the last case, we have, by inductive hypothesis, r 1- :;{j =? {&, III" I' f-;YJ (e, =? 't/j). But, by axiom schema (A2), f- (;J/J =? ('6( ~? (l?J) i iill =;, (t,) =? (i?8 =? <h )). Hence, by M P, r f- (.18 =? (fIr) =? (WJ =? (h'j) , J ",,1. again by MP, r f- ;J/J =? 't/j. Thus, the proof by induction is complete. II,c' l'asej= /I is the desired result. [Notice that, given a deduction 01'«(; from I .IIHliIl, the proof just given enables us to construct a deduction of:dJ =? «(j

'*

lhc reader should not be discouraged by the apparently unmotivated step I of I'I''')!'. !\s in most proofs, we actually begin with the desired result,::J4 '* 311.and '1"'11 Iuok for an appropriate axiom that may lead by MP to that result. A mixture of '"I'C'lIll1ty ami experimentation leads to a suitable instance of axiom (A2). : lor the remainder of the chapter, unless something is said to the contrary, we .h.i ll omit the subscript L in fl. In addition, we shall use r. ;iIl ~ '(, to stand for I i >111 -r. In ~l·nl'ral. we let 1', .111.' .. 11" I '(, stand for r ,1.111 11,,11 't.,
'I,,'

riu:

PROPOSITIONAL

(;\LCULUS

AN AXIOM

SYSTEM

FOR THE

PROPOSITIONAL

CALCULUS

39

1'1\)111 I. A/sll IJ()\L' th:lt axiom deduction thcorcm.]

schema

(:\3)

\vas

not used in proving

the

(b) ~- JjJ

=> -".!IJ I, (-,-,-,!IJ =,",JjJ) ~-> (( -,-".!IJ => .JjJ) => ~-,JjJ) 2. -,-,-,.!IJ =? -,.jJ

Axiom Part (a)

(A3)

COROLLARY
(a)

1.11)
'f, =)- (/

.Jfi '-;

't.,

l- .Jfi
(f,

=;> (/
c.=} (/

(h)Jfi

=? ('f,

=} (f).

I-!IJ

(c)

3. (-,-,,!IJ =-? .YJ) => -,-,.JjJ 4.!IJ => (-,---,.!IJ ~ .. !IJ) 5, .YJ =)- -,-,!IJ f- -,.!IJ =;. (.JjJ => ((, ) l. -,.!IJ

I. 2, MP
Axiom (AI) .\, 4, Corollary

1.1O(a)

Proof l-or part

(a):

2. .!IJ 3. .}II =>

4. -,.11

Ilyp 11)[1
Axiom Axiom Ii\ I) (A I)

(-,(f,

I.!IJ => ((; 2. (f, => (/

3.YJ 4. ((,

S. (./

I-Iyp (abbrevi.uion Hyp I-Iyp 1,3, MP 2,4, MP

Ior 'hypothesis')

S.

-1((:

=>

=> (-,((, =>

.JjJ

=> .!IJ)
-,!IJ)

6. -/r, 7, (-,'(;

=> -, ..l/J => -,;;1/) => ((-,((; => 8. (-,0(; => YJ) => «(;

.JjJ)

( =~.f, )

Thlls,.!IJ => ((', ((; =;> «r . .!IJ~. '_/_ So, hy the deduction .!IJ => ((;, ((, ~-} (/ f-!IJ =~ 'r . To prove (h), lise the deduction theorem. LEMMA 1.11 wfs are theorems

theorem,

For any wfs /YJ and '(;, the following

(a) ( b) (e) (d)

of L.

-,--.:Y1 => 1&

'3$=} -;---,;J{J

-,:!IJ => (.@ => (e) (-,C(; => -':3$) => (1& =>

ce)

(e) (1& => (Ii) => (-,(f; => -,3$) (f) M => (-,(ti => -,(:3$ => (Ii)) (g) (.:f8 => Cf;) => (( -,;3$ => (e)

=>

(6)

Proof l. (-,.UJJ => -,-,@j) => (( -,3& => -,/18) => 28) Axiom (A3) 2. -,;?/J => -,f:8 Lemma 1.8 t I, 2, Corollary 3. (-,.t!IJ => -,-,:?4) => .OJ] 4. -,-,2,& => (-,:18 => -,-,.OJ]) Axiom (AI) 3, 4, Corollary S. -,-,!!IJ => @j

((; 12. f- -,.;1 => (;3$ => '(;) Id) ~. (-,((, => -,3&) => (.11 => ((,) I. -,Yj => -,!IJ 2. (-,(f; => -,.;1/) => ((-,(6 => ;;1) => ((;) 3. .11 => (-,(e => ;f4) 4. (-,(6 => .;1) => '(; 5. ;11 => ((; 6. -,(f? => -,(!IJ f- .11 => '8 7. l- (-,(8 => -,/?8) => (28 => ((;') Il') f-- (:1J => (6) => (-,((j => -,.~) I .. ;1 => (8 2. -,-,;"}8 => ;"1J ). -,-,.-J& => (r:; 4. «(, => -,-,(tf 5. -,-,;:!/J => -,-,(6' fl. (-n.YJ => -,-,(8) => (-,(j' => -,f:8)
7. -,((, => -,!!1J X. . JjJ => '(; f- -,(t

'I. '(, 10. -,.!IJ, .YJf-((' I I. -', YJ f- ;11 =>

2,3, MP 1.4,MI' Axiom (;\1) 6,7. MP 5,8, MP

1-'1

10, Ded uction theorem II, Deduction theorem Hyp Axiom (A3) Axiom (AI) 1,2, MP 3,4, Corollary

1.IO(a)

1-5
6, ded uction theorem Hyp Part 1,2, Part 3, 4, Part 5,6,

(a) Corollary
(b)

1.10(a) 1.10(a)

Corollary (d) MP

1.10(b) 1.10(a)

=>

-,;'J&

I Instead of writing a complete proof Ill' ,./1 > './1, we simply cite I.l·II1111a I.X, this way, we indicate how the proof of ".111 :·.111 could Ill' wnttcn ,I' l\l' wixhcd to take the umc and space to do so. This is. of courw. 11I'11111l~1110'" than tlrl' ''''<llIIary orpplicatioll "I' prCl'ilHl,ly proved theorem,

In

8, deduction theorem 9. f- (.11 => (16) => (-/8 => -,:'!-&) Ii') I .!IJ => (-,((, => -,(.'38 => ce)). Clearly, .:8, ;?(j => (t f- ce by MP. Hence, f- ,OJ] => ((88 => (e) => '(5)) by two lISCS or the deduction theorem. Now, by (e), f- ((:!Il => 'fi) :. '(,)-} (-,((, => -,(.;1 => ((,')). Hence, by Corollary 1.10(a), I .119 > ( ,f(,-> ,(.:.1 => ((;)). Ig) i (.19 } '(,) .> (( '.:.1 > ff,) .. :. f(,)

1-7

()

Till; 1/ 1/
'(,

PROPOSITIONAL

CALCULUS

AN AXIOM

SYSTEM

lOR THI PROPOSITIONAL

(;\10

U'S

-1-1

')

'I,
'(,

i 1/
if, i

if,

~ -,./1)
=?

~. -;

1/

,11
'(,
C(,

'(,)
".1]

'> (~If,

~~.JJ)
=?

(,. 7.

4'-'.
l). '(,

/I,.:_;.

>. ,~YJ) ---,.!IJ)

«(;. «(; =?

=? ((,(f,
=--}

~.YJ)

=? f(,)

'fj

I ()YJ => I I.YJ =? 12. I-- (/1

~.YJ !-- (~.YJ

!(;)

f(;

=?

I-- (f, (6) =?

(f,

=?

((~.i!

=? (f,)

=>

(f,)

Hyp Hyp Part (e) I. 3. MP Part (e) 2,5. MP Axiom (A3) 6,7, MP 4. K. MP 1-9 10. deduction II, deduction

LEMMA

1.13

Let .YJ be a wf and let 81 ••••. B, be the statement letters that occur inYJ. For a given assignment (If truth values to BI ••.•• t~!. let 8; he B, if 8; takes . the value T: and let B; be,B! if 13/ takes thc value I . Let fJ' be.YJ if.YJ takes the value T under the assignment. and let .YJ he,.'!/ Ii' YJ takes the value l. Then B~..... B; I-- /1/. For example. let .}Ij be ~(-.;42 =~.1,). Then for each row or the truth table ;
I

theorem

theorem

I
I
Proof

/12

A,

~(-'/l2 F F F

=> 1/, )

T
F T

T T
F F

F Exercises 1.48 Show that the following (a) .YJ (."jIj V (f,) (b) .j/] =? ({, VYJ) (c) (f, V .YJ =?YJ V!f, (d) .j/] (\ (f,~ .YJ

wfs arc theorems

(."jIj =? (/)

of L.

Lemma 1.13 asserts a corresponding deducibility corresponding to the third row there is A 2. ->/I, I fourth row. -.14 2. -Aj f- -,(-.,42 =;. A,).

relation
.( d,

" A,).

1'01' instance. a nd to the

(e) :i!A(C=?«(/ (I)

(g)

=>

«(.YJ =;. f(,) .YJ) =>.YJ (h)YJ =? (ff, => (.YJ r. If, J)

(((f,

=>

'i") => (.YJ V

If, -,

(/))

1.49 Exhibit ~I complete proof in L of Lemma 1.11 (c). [Hill/: Apply the procedure used in the proof of the deduction theorem to the demonstration given earlier of Lemma 1.11 (c).] Greater fondness for the ded uction theorem will result if the reader tries to prove all of Lemma 1.11 without using the deduction theorem.

It is our purpose to show that a wf of L is a theorem is a tautology. Half of this is very easy.

of L if and only if it

PROPOSITION Every theorem Proof

1.12 of L is a tautology.

As an exercise, verify that all the axioms of L are tautologies. By Proposition 1.2, modus ponens leads from tautologies to other tautologies. Hence, every theorem of L is a ta u tology. The following of I.. lemma is to be used in the proof that l'vny tallt"I,,!!y I~ a

The proof is hy induction on the number n of occurrences of~ and =? in .YJ. (We assume es written without abbreviations.) If n = O,YJ is just a statement letter B,. and then the lemma reduces to BI I-- BI and ~BI f- -,B,. Assume !lOW that the lemma holds [or all j < n. Case t .. )1] is -.({,. Then «(/ has fewer than n occurrences of~ and =? Subcase l a. Let (f,' take the value T under the given truth value assignmerit. Then ,;8 takes the value F. So, ((I' is «(/ and ,YJ' is ~YJ. By the inductive hypothesis applied to (t, we have B~.... , B~ l- «(;. Then, hy Lemma 1.11(b) .md MP, B'" ... , B~ I-- ~~«(;. But ~-lt is ::4'. Subcuse lb. Let «(f take the value F. Theni! takes the value T. So, ((;' is -,!(, .uid .;a' is :YJ, By inductive hypothesis, B'" ...• B~ ~. --/(,. But -,(f, is ,"jIj'. Case 2. :-!Ii is '(; =? ,Cj;. Then 1(; and (:Jj have fewer occurrences of ~ and =? I han .;a. So, by inductive hypothesis, B'" ... , B~ I-- «(;' and B'" ... , /3~ f-rj;'. Subcase 2a. 1(;' takes the value F. Then ;"jIj takes the value T. So, ((t is -, ({,C ,lnd:4' is 91]. Hence, B'" ... , B~ f- ~I(I. By Lemma I.II(c) and MP, 11'1' ...• B~ f- 't => Pi. But ((/ =? q; is e, SII!JcaS(' 2h. Cj; takes the value T. Then :~ takes the value T. So, 9' isCj; .md .YJ' is ;!tJ. Hence, B'" ... , B~ f- UJ. Then, by axiom (AI) and MP, 11'1.... , B~ l- (f: =>Cj;. But If; =? ,Cj) is SB'. Subcase Zc, «(/ takes the value T andCj; takes the value F. Then fYJ takes t he value F. So, (tf is If" Cjj' is -,':0, and :!tJ' is ~!YJ. Therefore, B;, ... , B~ 1- If; .uid //~ ..... B~ I-- -.'1. Hence, by Lemma 1.11(1) and MP, /31" ... , B~ ,(If, ~ (/). But ,(!f, => 'i") is .YJ'.

t hcorcm

42
PHOPOSIIIO~ I I' ;t
\\

HII'

PROPOSITIONAL

(.I\ICliLlJS TIIEOHEM)

INDEPENDENCE.

iV!,\NY-Vi\LUED

LOGICS

1.14 (COMPLETENESS

I 1/ PI' I. I~ a la urology. then it is a theorem

or L.

Proof 1,):\5) Assume.YJ is a tautology. and let HI ..... Hi he the statemcnt letters in .Yl. For any truth value assignment to HI.. Hi. we have. by l.cmmn 1.1.\. B'I' .... B~ l- .11. (.Yl' is.!JJ becauscz' alway» takes the value T) l Icncc, when B~ is given the value T, we obtain B'I' .... I' Ii; i !JJ. and. when Hi is given the value F, we obtain B'I' ... , B~ I' ,Hi I 11. So. by the deduction theorem. B;, " .. B~_I r- B, ~Yl and B; ..... I~ ,Ii, =>!JJ. Then by Lemma 1.11 (g) and M P, B'I' ... ,B~ I f- .Yl. Simi la rly. Hi I may be chosen to he T or F and, again applying the deduction theorem. Lemma 1.11 (g) and MP, we can eliminate B~.I just as we eliminated 8;. After k such steps, we finally obtain I .YJ.
(K;JlIlI;·Ir.

its negation,yj were provable, then by MP any wf (f, would be provable. (This equivalence holds for any theory that has modus poncns as a rule of inference and in which Lemma 1.II(c) is prova hlc.) A theory in which not all wfs are theorems is said to be absolutelv cOI/SiS/CIII. and this definition IS applicable even to theories that do not contain a negation sign.
Exercise 1.50 Let.!JJ be a statement form that is not a tautology. Let L f be the formal theory obtained from L by adding as new axioms all wfs obtainable from .Yl by substituting arbitrary statement forms for the statement letters in .Yl, with the same form being substituted for all occurrences of a statement letter. Show that L I is inconsistent.

8;

8;

1.5

INDEPENDENCE.

MANY-VALUED

LOGICS

COROLLARY

1.15

If 1(; is an expression involving the signs,. =~'. /\. V and ¢=> that is an abbreviation for a wl'Yl 01' L. then (f, is a tautology if und only if .M is a theorem of L
Proof

A subset Y of the sel of axioms of a theory is said to be independent if some wf in Y cannot be proved by means of" the rules of inference from the set of those axioms not in Y.

PROPOSITION

1.17

In definitions (DI)-(D3), the abbreviating formulas replace wfs to which they are logically equivalent. Hence, by Proposition 1.4, .1M and I{/ are logically equivalent, and (e is a tautology if and only if .08 is a tautology. The corollary now follows from Propositions 1.12 and 1.14.
COROLLARY 1.16

lach
Proof

of the axiom schemes

(A I )-(A3)

is independent.

I () prove the independence

i.rbles:
A

of axiom schema
~A 1 A

(A I), consider

the following

0 0 2 0

The system L is consistent; -,q] are theorems of L.

Proof

that is, there is no wf ;'Jd such that both

;;4

and

B 0 0 0

A=>B

1
2 0 I 2 2 2 2

By Proposition 1.12, every theorem of L is a tautology. The negation of a tautology cannot be a tautology and, therefore, it is impossible for both .!JJ and ,:Yl to be theorems of L. Notice that L is consistent if and only if not .111 wfs 01' I. arc theorems. In fact, if L is consistent. then there are wfs that are not theorems (e.g., the negation» of theorems). On the other hand. bv I.en 1111 a I II(l'). I I "'1/ ;. (.!19 :- (f,). and so. if I. were incousistcnt. lhat 1\. II ,ollie w! '1/ and any these \ aluc O .. III check
I
()J'

0 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 0

11.

assignment of the values 0, 1 and 2 to the statement letters of a wf tables determine a corresponding value of ga. If.08 always takes the !II is culled .1'('/('('/. Modus ponens preserves selectness, since it is easy thut. if.!19and.!19 :. If, are select, so is ((,. One can also verify that all

44

IIII

PROPOSITIONAL.

CALClI

LUS

OTHER

;\XIOMATIZATIONS

45

IIlSl~IIll'l'S (II" ;1\1()11l .Sl'helll~1S 1/\2) and (A3) arc select. Hence. any wl' dcriir(lill IA2) uud (1\3) by modus poncns is select. However. . 11 '. I " I J. which is an instance or (A I), is not select. since it takes the I ,lltll' :-. 1\ hen II is I and A:, is 2. I ,) prill" the independence or axiom schema (A2). consider the r()llowing t;lhlc-s.
va hl,:
A

- vi 0 I

II

B
()

/1 => B
()

0
:2

~ -

0
0

0
0 :2

0
I

2
0

jl

define a (finite) 1I1(//I1'-\"(/llIl'd logic M. A formal theory involving statement letters and the connectives of M is said to he suitabl« for M if and only if the theorems of the theory coincide with the exceptional statement forms of M . All these notions obviously can he generalized to the case of an infinite number of truth values. If 11= I and m = () and the truth tables are those given for', and~· in section 1.1. then the corresponding two-valued logic is that studied in this chapter. The exceptional wfs In this case were called tautologies. The system L is suitable for this logic. as proved in Propositions I .12 and I .14. In the proofs of t he independence ofa xi om schernas (A I ) and (A2). two three-valued logics were used.

2
()

Exercises 1.51 Prove the independence of axiom schema (1\3) hy constructing appropriate 'truth tables' for ' and ~->. 1.52 (Mck insey and Turski. 1949) Consider the axiomatic theory P in which there is exactly one binary connective *. the only rule of inference is modus ponens (that is, ((, follows from :M and .fIJ * ((,), and the axioms arc all wfs of the form .'IJ * .'IJ, Show that P is not suitable for any (finite) many-valued logic, 1.53 For any (finite) many-valued logic M, prove that there is an axiomatic I hcory suitable for M . Further information about many-valued logics can be found in Rosser .md Turquette (1952), Rescher (1969), Bole and Borowik (1992) and Malinowski (1993).

2
"-

~
2

:2

Let us call a wf that always takes the value 0 according to these tables grotesque. Modus ponens preserves grotesqueness and it is easy to verify that all instances of (A I) and (A3) arc grotesque. However. the instance (AI~~' (A:, =~ ;lll)~' ((AI ;le)~' (AI ~., //;)) 01" (1\2) takes the value 2 when ill is O.. ·1:, is O. and A; is I and. therefore, is not grotesque. The following argument proves the independence or (1\3). Let us call a wf .fIJ slIl)('r if the wI' /1(.'IJ) obtained by erasing all negation signs in'IJ is a tautology. Each instance of axiom schemas (AI) and (A2) is super. Also. modus ponens preserves the property of being super; for if h(:fIJ =} (6') and h(.'IJ) are tautologies. then hWi) is a tautology. (Just note that h(if =', (6') is h(fIJ) =} 11(((;) and use Proposition 1.2.) Hence, every wf ;'ljj derivable from (A I) and (A2) hy modus ponens is super. But h((,A I =},A I) =} ((--AI=}AI)=}AIl) is (AI =}AIl=} ((AI =}AI)=}AI), which is not a tautology. Therefore, (,AI =?,AI) =} ((,AI =} AI) =} AI)' an instance of (A3), is not super and is thereby not derivable from (A I) and (A2) by modus ponens. The idea used in the proof of the independence of axiom schemas (A I) and (A2) may be generalized to the notion of a many-valued logic. Select a positive integer n, call the numbers 0, 1, ... , n truth values, and choose a number In such that O<;m < n. The numbers 0.1, ... , In are called desig» noted values. Take a finite number of 'truth tables' representing functions from sets of the form {O, I, ... , n}k into {O, 1, ... , /J}. For each truth table, introduces a sign, called the corresponding connective. Using these connectives and statement letters. we may construct 'statement forms', and every such statement form containing j distinct letters determines a 'truth function' from {O.L .... n}' into {O.L , .. ,Il}. 1\ statement form whose corresponding truth function takes only designated value 1<'; said to he ('\("j'I'lilll/ilr TIlt' numbers 1/1 and 1/ and the haslc trllth tuhlcs an' \;l1d t o

1.6

OTHER AXIOMATIZATIONS

the axiom system L is quite simple, there are many other systems do as well. We can use, instead of, and =}, any collection of primitive connectives as long as these are adequate for the definition of all other truth-functional connectives.
ih.n would
I, \1/1111'11.'.1

\Ithougb

I I: V and,

are the primitive conectives. We use iIB =} (f! as an abbreviation V ((;. We have four axiom schemas: (I) ,O)J V {if =} ;':iJ; (2) Yl=} .'IJ V -«. (3) .CftJ V ((.j =? ((.j V f!B; and (4) ((e =} C0) =} (!JB V (f! =} YI V '/). The only rule of inference is modus ponens. Here and below we lise the usual rules for eliminating parentheses. This system is developed ill l l ilbcrt and Ackermann (1950). !\ and ., arc the primitive connectives. :'ljj =} ((;' is an abbreviation for ,( Y1!\ ,'t,), There arc three axiom schcmas: (I) .M =} (.Yl!\ .'IJ); for,.fIJ

46
(2)

Till.

PROPOSITIONAL
=}

C;\LCULUS

OTHER (k ) f- L, \.;;]

;\XIOMATIZATIONS

I'

47

'IJ /\

'I,
I'

'IJ: and (_I) (.Y]

'f,) ='> (~(f,

/\

puncu-, st udv I ,:
lhi-, "

111,' onlv rule of inference. Consult

'./i =} --;('/ /\>1)) Modus Rosser (195.1) for a detailed

(I)

juxt like our original system L except that. instead of the axiom (A I) (A3). we have three specific axioms: (I) Al -? (Ae '* AI): (2) ii, :. (A, => Al)) =} ((AI =} A2) =} (AI =} A2)); and (.I) (A, => ,.11) > ((~A2 ='".41) =}A2)· In addition to modus poncns, we have a substitution rule: we may substitute any wf for all occurrences of ,I st.ucrncnt letter in a given wf. 1.4: The primitive connectives are =">, /\. V and --;. Modus poncns is the only rule. and we have ten axiom schernas: (I) .111 =} ({f, => .>1); (2) (.;;] =} ('f, =} '.I)) =} ((.111 =} (e) =} (1/ =} 9)): (]).J)J /\ '(; '=? .111: (4);;] A '(, =;. 'c: (5);;] =} ('(; =} (281\ 'f,)): (6) ).1 => (.111 V '(j); (7) {f, =? (.:.1 V 'f,); (X) (.:.1 =} '..I) =} (('(, => (/) =? (.11 V '{; =}(l)); (9) (.d1 =} 't) =} ((>1 =; --;'(,)~. ~.:8): and (10) --;--;;J/J ~? //J. This system is discussed in Kleenc (1952).
S,'IWIll:IS

=> ('f, ~, '.I)) => (,f, ~? (;;] => '.I)) l- 1,(</ => ,:!J).=> ((31 =} 'f,)-=> ('/' =;. '(,)) (m);;] => ({f, =} '..I), .:!J => 'f, ,L I,M => (>1 =;. (/) (n)YJ => ('f, => '/'),:.1 => ({; f- L,;;] => (/ (0) llT.. YJ f- L,'(,. then r l- L,·;;] => «(, (deduction (p) (r, =}YJ./f, =-'?MI- 1,·;;]
(q) f-

theorem)

Axiomatizations can be found for the propositional calculus that contain only one axiom schema. For example. if --; and =} arc tile primitive connectives and modus ponens the only rule of inference. then the axiom schema
[«(1Ic-;. '1,)=: (
,1/; .;;

1) : '/)

;il :·1(" : .11):

(1;:0')) 10
(j)

is sufficient (Meredith. 195.1). Another single-axiom formulation. due Nicod (1917). uses only alternative denial I . Its rule of inference IS: follows from .:.1 I ('f, I (.I) and ;YJ, and its axiom schema is
(.t1/(Ct'I0:))

I (f61(ciIIJ)] ; [(~Irt')I«($)·-Y;)I(·~I·~))))

Further information, including historical background, may be found in Church (1956) and in a paper by Lukasiewicz and Tarski in Tarski (1956, IV),

Exercises
1.54 (Hilbert

and Ackermann,

1950) Prove

the following

results about the

theory
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)
(g) (h) (i)

LI.

0: f- L,@ V 2# => (fj V (6' f- 1,(:18 => '6') => ((@ => 88) => ('Zi => (e)) (!,tJ => 2#,14 => {6' f- L,.@ =} ((j f- L,£4 => .g{J (i.e., f- L,--;2# v.?4) f- L,36' V --;.0/1 f- 1,·$ => --;--;,0/1 f- 1,--;.111 =} (.M => (e) 1 1,·:.1 V ({f, v'./) =} (('f, V (.YJ v'./)) V .:8)
.g{J =}

ti)

~ I,('f,

1,;9

V (.!dv:.J)) V ('I, v'/)

'f, V (.!dV './) > 'I, V (.;9 V '..I)

v » =>

L(Yl if and only if.M is a tautology. 1.55 (Rosser. 1953) Prove the following facts about the theory L2. (a) .-:8 =} (f,. '(; =} './ f- L, --;( --;'/1\ .il) (h) f- L, --;( --;.M r. .41) (e) f- L,--;--;:8 =>:8 (d) f- t. ,(:81\'(1) =} (((,=> o;YJ) (e) l- L,>1 => --;--;.'$ (f) f- L, (YJ =} «(5) =} (--;'e => --;.$) (g) ,;111 =} --;{(j 1- I., (Ii => .J)j (h) .y) => (6 f- L,V I\.YJ ~> {(, A (/ (i) ,:.1 => {6, '(; =} '/:, (;t => IJ f- L,·:8 ~> IJ (j) f- L,f6' => .'ill (k ) f- L,:8 /\ 'f, =} {(; /\ .:8 (1)111 => (t(. '(; => '/ f- L,:8 => '/ (111);Y) => '(j, '/ =} (; f- L,;J)j 1\ {;;;=> '(, 1\ (,;' (n) 'f,' =} (/1- L,.:4 1\ «(, =>;11 A {.J (0) I- L,(YJ=> ('Ii=> './)) => iU!8A'e) =} (:/) u» l- L, «.y) A (6) =} g) =} (:>1 => ((6' =>12)) (Q).:.1 => 'If, :1/ => ({6 => '7) f- L/1/ => './ (r) f- 1.,.11 => ('f,; =} 'yj 1\ {(,)) (s) 1- L2:Yl => (((; => .!/I) (t) If 1, /41 L/If, then r f- L,;;8 => '6' (deduction theorem) (u) l- L, (--;:31 => .qa) => ;'1/ (v) ;1/ => «(!, --;:$ =} ((; f- L, y.j (w ) f- L,31 if and only if.04 is a tautology. 1.56 Show that the theory L3 has the same theorems as the theory L. 1.57 (Kleene, 1952) Derive the following facts about the theory L4. (a) f- L, ..J6' =>.0jJ (h) If F, :11 f- L/e, then r f- t..-eJa => {{i (deduction theorem) (c) .YJ => ((5, {(; =} Cj; f- 1.,88 => (!2J (d) I- 1..(.:8 => (6') => (--;'8' => --;,J.t]) (e) .Yl. --;:8 f- L, '{f (n f- I,·YJ => ---;.'?iJ ( f!) l- I, --;.:.1 => (::8 => (6') I il) 1 I,';;] =} (--;'(,' =} --; (.!f8 => (t&')) (,) I 1 ":.1 =} (--;((,' } --;(.1/J V (e)) = II) I 1, ( ,'f, =-'? .:8) =} (('f,j => ;j{j) =} ;d8) tk) I 14'~ il' and only if.11 is a tautology.
4

48

1111 PROPOSITIONAL

CALCULUS

OTIII.R

,\XI<Hvl;\IIZ;\TI()"\JS

1.5Xi> ('()Il~idcl the Iollowing axiomntization 01' the propositionul c.ilculu« '/ (dill.' to 1.1ILI~icwic/). '/' has the same wfs as our system L. Its \)Ilh rule 01' inlcrcucc I~ modus poncns. Its axiom schemas arc: .
(,I) (h) (l)

(viii)
(nil

f- I[ -',-,.'I].=>

.cJj/

f- I [',~.J/J

(g) (h)!)

f-

1.[ "./]

if' and only iff] is a t.uuology. if and only if ~.J/J is a tautology.

then i-' L/:1/

i
'// (1J

,1/

1J)

..~.

YJ

( . /J -> 'f,)

If.:4 has II and -. as its only connectives, is a tautology.

if and oilly it'

f]

'(,)

> (('(,

'* 'J)

=* (:11 =;. CI))

is provable in'.!' if and only if /J is a 1;lut()I()~y. ':1:' have the same theorems. HOWCVl'I, remember proved about L (such as Propositions I.X l. t:l) to !P. In particular, the deduction theorem is not available until it is proved for Y'] 1.59 Show that axiom schema (A3) of L can be replaced by the schema (-..:4 =i> -.'t) ~ ((t =? ."!(J) without altering the class of theorems. 1.60 I I' axiom schema (10) of L4 is replaced hy the schema (10)': -,.:4 =? (.:4 => (C), then the new system LJ is called the intuitionistic propositional calculus." Prove the following results about LI. (a) Consider an (/I + I )-valued logic with these connectives: ,IJ) is () when ;1} is /I, and otherwise it is II; .J/J II {(, has the maximum of till' values of.YJ and '(" whcreas ie' V ,(, has the minimum or these values: aml./J ~:. '(, is () if.:4 has a value not less than that of 'f" and otherwise it has the same value as ((,. If we take () 'IS the only designated value, all theorems of LI arc exceptional. (b) AI V -.AI and -.~AI =? AI arc not theorems of LI. (c) For any 111, the wf
(A, <=> 042) V ... V (AI <=> Am) V (,12 <=>

I'I\l\C that a wf ;:4 of 'P I/lilll: Show that Land l ha t none of the results .uuomatically carries over

1.61'\ Let.:4 and ((, be in the relation R ifand onlv iii i IJ) P (f,_ Show thut R is an equivalence relation. Given equivalence C\;ISSCS :.J/Jj and f(('i. let /J]u[((,] = If] V '(,]. [11]n['(,1 = [:4 /\ ((,], and = ! ,Jj' Show that the equivalence classes under R form a Boolean algebra with respect to t>. u u nd ,called the Linck-nbaum algebra L' determined hy I The clement () of L' is the equivalence class consisting of all contradictions (i.c .. negations of tautologies). The unit element I of L; is the equivalence l'I;lss consisting of ;i11tautologies, Notice that r- L.1} => ((, if' and only if IlJ)i i'(,] in L:, and that , [.J1 q '(;ifand only if [.:tJ] = [(('1. Show thut u Book-an function I (built up from variables, 0, and L using u. nand ) is equal to the constant function I in all Boolean algebras if' and only if' r- IJ'!, where [:' is obtained 1'1'0111 / hy changing u, n, ,0 and I to V, II. -., AI II ,Ai, aud AI V -.A" rc-pcctively.

Ad

V ...

V (,12 <=> Am) V ... V (Am-I

~ Am)

is not a theorem

of LI

(d) (Godel, 1933) LJ is not suitable for any finite many-valued logic. (e) (i) If I", .0/) f- L[{t', then I' f- L[;16' =i> (deduction theorem) (ii) !JO =} (fI, C{j =? .r:» f- L[ ,%' =? 'i! (iii) f- L/!8 =? -.-..98 (iv) l- L/iJ8 =i> ({i') =i> (-.<'{i' =? -.~) (v) f- L[."!(J =? (-.~ =? <'(i') (vi) l- L[ -.-.( -.~.iJ8 =} PlJ)

re

(vii) -.-.(.iJ8

=?

ce), -.-.:Ja

f- L[

-.-.(6

tThe principal origin of intuitionistic logic was L.E.J. Brouwer's belief that classical logic is wrong. According [0 Brouwer. :;IJ V {(, is proved only when a proof of .:4 or a proof of '(, has been found. As a consequence, various tautologies, such as .:4 V ,.:4. are not generally acceptable, For further information, consul: Brouwer (1976), Heyting (1956). Klecnc (1952), Troclsrru (1%')), and Dunuuctt (1'177) .la sk owski (19.'\6) showed that 1.1 is suitable for a mnny-va lucd IOgll' With dl'III1IlIl'r;lhlv mallv values. .

QUANTIFIERS Here, F(x._I') means that x is it friend M art in, John, and Peter. respectively. Inference 2 becomes:
(\fx)(H(x) (3r)(A(x) (1\")(;1(\);\
0(" I".

while m.]

and p denote

L_Q_ua_"_t_ifi_c_a_t_iO_"_T_h __ eO_r_y_------,
I'

=> R(x)) III/(x)) R(x);

Here. H. R and A designate the properties of being human, rational. and an animal, respectively. Inference 3 can be symbolized as follows:
(\;Ix)(I(x) 1\ E(x)

=> D(s(x)))

/(h)

II E(h)

2.1

QUANTIFIERS

lJ(s(h)

There arc various kinds of logical inference that cannot be justified on the basis of the propositional calculus; for example: I. Any friend of Martin is a friend of John. Peter is not John's friend. Hence, Peter is not Martin's friend. 2. All human beings arc rational. Some animals arc human beings. Hence, some animals arc rational. 3. The successor of an even integer is odd. 2 is an even integer. Hence, the successor of 2 is odd. The correctness of these inferences rests not only upon the meanings of the truth-functional connectives, but also upon the meaning of such expressions as 'any', 'all' and 'some', and other linguistic constructions. In order to make the structure of complex sentences more transparent, it is convenient to introduce special notation to represent frequently occurring expressions. If P(x) asserts that x has the property P, then (\;Ix)P(x) means that property P holds for all x or, in other words, that everything has the property P. On the other hand, (3x)P(x) means that some x has the property P - that is, that there is at least one object having the property P. In (\;Ix)P(x), 'Cv'x)' is called a universal quantifier; in (~.x)P(x), '(3x)' is called an existential quantifier. The study of quantifiers and related concepts is the principal subject of this chapter. Examples I'. Inference

Here, 1, E and D designate respectively the properties or being an integer. even and odd: s(x) denotes the successor 01"1': and h denotes the integer 2. Notice that the validity of these inferences docs not depend upon the of F, m.j,p. H, R,A,1. E, D;« and h. Just as sta ternent forms were used to indicate logical structure dependent upon the logical connectives, so also the form of inferences involving .ju.mtifiers, such as inferences 1-3, can be represented abstractly, as in I' 3'. For this purpose, we shall use commas, parentheses, the symbols -, .uu] c-=? or the propositional calculus, the universal quantifier symbol \;I, and I ill' following groups of symbols:
p.irticulur meanings

Individual variables: xl,X2, ... ,x,,, .. Individual constants: al ,a2,.·· ,(In"" Predicate letters: At: (n and k are any positive integers) lunction letters: H (n and k are any positive integers) rile positive integer 11 that is a superscript of a predicate letter AI: or of a letter indicates the number of arguments, whereas the SUbscript I. I~ just an indexing number to distinguish different predicate or function kucrs with the same number of arguments.' In the preceding examples, x plays the role of an individual variable; III t, P and h play the role of individual constants; F is a binary predicate 1"lln (i.c., a predicate letter with two arguments); H,R,A,l,E and Dare monudic predicate letters (i.e., predicate letters with one argument); and s is .1 lunct ion letter with one argument. rile function letters applied to the variables and individual constants 1','llerate the (allis:
runction

It

above can be represented

(Vr)(f-'(x.lII) ,I-"( I)· i) "'1/'
III)

symbolically:
> 1-"(\. i)l

example. in arithmetic hath addition and multiplication S", we would lise one function letter. say I], for addition, IIIIII"II,HI letter. say /;'. lor muluplic.urou.
11'01' 1I\l·lIh.

take two arguand a different

()l /\'JTIfIC;\TION

THIORY (VI'!)/I: (I'd V (X2- xil (VXI )(A: (.11) V AT(xc.xll) ((VI'I )(A: (XI)) \j Ar(.IC-XI))) ~. (vxl)(=Jxc)AT(XI,Xc) (\lxi )((:3x2)Ar(XI.Xl)) «(VXI )((::JXc)AT(XI.X2))) ")

QUANTIFIERS

I. V,II'I,lhle~ and individunl constants arc terms. II'//, IS <I i'1I1Ic·II{1I1Ictterand/l.lc ..... I" arc terms. then//,'(/I.I" .... I,,) is ,I IC'lln , \;, C'\j1I'e"lun IS ;, term only if it C<1Il he shown to he a term on the basis (Ii' c', 111lliIllllS I and 2. t and noun

Ai

lcnu-. correspond to what in ordinary languages are nouns phr.r-.c-, lur example, 'two'. 'two plus three', and 'two plus x'

(he predicate letters applied to terms yield the atomic [ormulas: th.u is. if . 1;' i-, a predicate letter and /1,12 ....• 11/ are terms, then AA'(/I.I2.... 1,,) is an .u omic form Lila. The 11'('II-/ill'lllcd/imnu/as (wfs) of quantification theory arc defined as 1'0 IIows:
I. Every <I tomic formula is a wf. 2. If.YJ and ((, are wfs and v is a variable. then (,.YJ). (.YJ=> '(,). ;11](1 (\f_l')."!.1) arc wfs. 3. An expression is a wf only if it can be shown to be ;, wI' on the basis of conditions I and 2.

Exercises
2.1 Restore parentheses to the following . (a) (lixl)A:(.I'I)i\--.A:(xc) (h) (V,")A:(X2) 8A:(X2) (c) (\fx2)(3..rl)Af(XI,X2) (d) (\fXI ) (VX1)(\fx4)A: (1'1) => A: (xc) i\ --. A: (,'1) (c) (3.1'1 )(\fxl)(=Jx,)A:(xd V (:3X2),(\fX1)AT(Xl.X:) (I) (\fx2)--.A:(x!l => Ai(.rl,XI.X2) \j (\fx!lA:Crl) (g) --'(Vxl)A:(xl)~';' (3.~·2)A:(.'2) =>AT(XI.X2)t\Ai(X2) 2.2 Eliminate parentheses from the following wfs as far as is possible. (a) (((\fxl)(A:(Xt) =c;. A:(xl))) V ((]'I)A:(xl))) (h) (('((]1"2)(A:(X2) VA:(ail))) {o} A:(X2)) (e) (((vxl)(--.(,A:(a1)))) => (A:(xl) ==>A:(X2)))

In «vr).YJ). '.YJ' is called the S(,O!l£' of the quantifier . (\jI'J". Notice that .YJ need not contain thc variable 1'. In that case, we undcrst.md «V\').YJ) to mean the same thing 'ISYJ. The expressions (YJ /\ '(,). (.YJ V '(,). ilIH.1 (.YJ 0 '(,) .uc defined as in system L (see page .16) It was unnecessary for us to usc the symbol ::J as a primitive symbol because we can define existential quantification as follows:
«3x)11)

An occurrence of a variable x is said to be bound in a wf 36 if either it is the occurrence ofx in a quantifier '(\fx)' in :U or it lies within the scope of a quantifier '(\fx)' in .!Il. Otherwise, the occurrence is said to be/i'ce in .:jJ,

stands for

(,«I;!x)(-

t.

YJ)))

t: vaniplcs
I. AHxl,X2) , A 7 (x I •X2) ==> (\fx I )A : (x I ) ('7XI )(AT(XI' X2) => (\fxl)A: I. (3.\"I)AT(XI,X2)

This definition is faithful to the meaning of the quantifiers: .U(x) is true for some x if and only if it is not the case that 31(x) is false for all x.t Parentheses The same conventions as made in Chapter I (page 20) about the omission of parentheses are made here, with the additional convention that quantifiers (\f)') and (::Jy) rank in strength between --., i\, V and =>, {o}. Examples Parentheses I. (\fxl)A:(XI)
((\fxl)A:(x!l) ((\fxl)A:(rl))
'We hrcvi.uion c'aw that could

(XI))

are restored

in the following

steps.

=>ATCr2,x1) => AT(X2,XI)

=> AT(.,~,xl))
ah· the

111 Example I. the single occurrence of XI is free. In Example 2, the first occurrence of XI is free. but the second and third occurrences are bound. In I x.uuple 3, all occurrences of XI are bound, and in Example 4 both oc.utrcnces of Xt are bound. (Remember that (3xI)Af(XI,X2) is an abbrevia11()11 of ,(Vxl)-.AT(XI,X2).) In all four wfs, every occurrence of X2 is free. '\nticc that. as in Example 2, a variable may have both free and bound "cTlIITcnces in the same wf. Also observe that an occurrence of a variable iu.rv he hound in some wf ,qa but free in a subforrnula of ,'J?J. For example, the lir,1 occurrence of XI is free in the wf of Example 2 but bound in the larger 1\ I' of t.x.unplc .1 A variable is said to be free (bound) in a wf YJ if it has a free (bound) tlL'l'lll"J'ence in .111. Thus. a variable may be both free and bound in the same II I. rill' cx.nnplc.w, is free and bound in the wf of Example 2.

have taken I as primitive and then defined ((VII.Jf) a, all 1'01' ( '(I t.)( ,>f))l. smcc .>f(x) is trill' 101' all I II' and unlv 1111 "not >91111' l'ahl'lnl' vomc 1

54 EXl'rcisl'S

QUANTIFICATION

THEORY

<)l.'i\"JTIIII-'RS

5S

2.7 Justify
occurrences

facts

I 4 above, are translated Into formulas. certain

general

2.3 Pick out the free and hound

wls.
(a) (h) (c)

of variables

in the following

When guidelines

English sentences will he useful:

(\1'x,)(((\1'x!lAf(XIX2)) =} Ai(Xl,(/I)) (\1'x2)AT(.r"x2) =} (\1'xl)AT(.rl,x2) ((\1'.\2)(=1.\"1 )A;(XI.X2.J}(XI.X2))) V,(VXI

)!ly(x2Ji

(rl))

I, A sentence of the form 'AII As are Bs' becomes (Vr)(A(x) =:} B(x)). example. Even' !I III I I tenurt ician 10)'(',1 !lIIISt'< IS translated (\1'x)(,\1(x) ~. L(x)), where M(x) means .r is (/ IIWI 11('1II11 I iciau and

For
as

L(xl

2.4 Indicate

the free and bound occurrences of all variables in the wfs of Exercises 2.1 and 2.2. 2.5 Indicate the free and hound variables in the wfs of Exercises 2.1 2.3.

We shall often indicate that some of the variables x',"" .x', are free variables in a wf.YJ by writingM as .Jil(Xi I , .. , .x, , ). This docs not mean that .M contains these varia hies as free variables, nor does it mean that ·Mdoes not contain other free variables. This notation is convenient because we can then agree to write as :il(tl"'" tk) the result of substituting in ,M the terms 11," ., I, for all free occurrences (if any) of Xi," .. ,x',' respectively. IfYJ is a wf and t is a term, then 1 is said to be Fe!' [or .v, ill .Yl if no free occurrence ofr, in.YJ lies within the scope of any quantifier (\1'.1;). where Xi is a variable in I. This concept of I being free for .r. in a wf .M(x,) will have certain technical applications later on. It means that. if I is suhstituted for all free occurrences (if any) or .v, in .0'(x,). 110 occurrence of a variable in t becomes a bo u nd occurrence In 0' (I). Examples I. The term X2 is free for XI in A: (XI), but X2 is not free for XI in (\1'x2)A: (XI)' 2. The term _/}(XI ,x,) is free for XI in (\1'x2)Af(XI,X2) --=} A: (XI) but is not free for XI in (3x,)(\1'x2)AT(XI.X2) --=} A:(xl)' The following facts are obvious.

means .r 101'('.1' IIIlISic. A sentence or the Iorrn 'Some As arc Bs' becomes (Jx)(A(x) 1\ B(x)). For example, SOIllI' Nell' Yorkers are friendlv becomes (~x)(N(x) II F(x)), where N(x) means x is II N(')\' Yorker and F(x) means .r is [ricndlv. I. A sentence or the form 'No As are s« becomes (\1'-')(A(x) ; ,B(x)).1 For example, No philosopher understands politics becomes (Vx)(P(x) --=},U(x)). where PIx) means X is II 1)III'/o.\(}I)IIC/' and U(x) means x 11/1derstands politi,», Let
LIS

,·ITO/u'.

consider a more complicated example: SOI1l(, pcop!« /,('.Ifw('/ ('\'This can he translated as (3x)(P(x) /\ (Vl')(P(y) _-';' R(x.v))). where I'(xl means x is ({ person and R(x.y) means x respects l'. Notice that. in informal discussions, to make formulas easier to read we may use lower-case letters II.I',X •.I-'. z instead of our official notation X, for .ndividua l varia hies. capital letters A, B, c.. ,. instead of our official notation ,~ for predicate letters, lower-case letters fy, h .... instead of our official notation it for function letters, and lower-case let ters a . b, c .... instead of "til' official notation 0, for individual constants.

I:xercises
!.X Translate
1.1) I h) I,') 1(1) I,,) II) 1.1' I

I. A term that contains no variables is free for any variable in any wf. 2. A term t is free for any variable in (Ij] if none of the variables of t is bound in gao 3. Xi is free for Xi in any wf. 4. Any term is free for Xi in .rIJ1 if ;1A contains no free occurrences of x..

Iii I

Exercises 2.6 Is the term j}(XI'

(a) AT(XI,X2) (b) ((\1'x2)Ai(X2, (c)
(d) (c)
=:}

III

X2) free for XI in the following ,X2)

wfs?

III
I~

(\1'x2)A:(X2) al)) V (3x2)AT(XI

III

(\1'xl )A~(XI,X2) (V'2 )A;(tl,X2) (VI,')A:(.I~»

the following sentences into wfs. Anyone who is persistent can learn logic. No politician is honest. Not all birds can fly. All hirds cannot fly. .v is transcendental only if it is irrational. Seniors date only juniors. I r anyone can solve the problem, Hilary can. Nobody loves a loser. Nobody in the statistics class is smarter than everyone in the logic class. John hates all people who do not hate themselves. l.vcryouc loves somebody and no one loves everybody, or somebody loves everybody and someone loves nobody. Y ()I1 can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time.
!\, we shall sec l.ucr , this is equivalent
to .( lI)(A(x)!\
8(1')).

Ilf(XI.t.')

1- ~-----~--------.-

56

()I.:,\NI

II--Ic/\TION

THI-ORr

fiRST

ORDER

LANCiIJi\CifS

SA IISI I \BIU IY

'vIO!)LLS

57

(rn) AIl\ sl'l~ that have the same members (11) Anvo nc \" ill) knows Julia loves her. «(1) Th~re is IlO set belonging to precisely

arc equal. those sets that do not belong to

DEFINITION

A first-order (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

(I)

language

'/' contains

the following

symbols.

u»

themselves.

There is no barber who shaves precisely those men who do not shave themselves. 2.9 Translutc the following into everyday English. Note that everyday English docs not usc variables. (a) (Vx)(M(x) A (V'y)~W(x.y) --> U(x)), where lv/Ix) means .r is 0 11/0/1, W(r.v) means .r is married to)" and U(x) means x is unhapp«, (b) (Vx)( V(x) A PIX) ~ A(x. h)). where V(x) means X/.I (//1 ('1'('11 integer, PIx) means .r is (/ prime integer, A(x,y) means x = y, and h denotes 2. (c) ~(=jy)(/(y) j\ (Vx)(J(x) ~ L(x,y))), where fly) means r is (/// integer and Li». vi means x~y. (d) In the following wfs. A\ (x) means x is a person and 01;(\,.1') means x hates v.
(i) (~\')(A

By By

The propositional connectives -, and ~'. and the universal quantifier symbol \;f, Punctuation marks: the left parenthesis (. the righ: parenthesis), and the comma.' Dcnumerably many individual variables XI,.\'> A finite or denumerable, possibly empty, set of function letters. A finite or denumerable, possibly empty. set of individual constants. A non-empty set of predicate letters. a term ot 'f we mean a term whose symbols are symbols of !f, a wf' o/.'f we mean a wf whose symbols arc symbols of (I',

(ii) (Vx)(A (iii)(j\)(A

(c) (\Ix) (11(\)

(x) 1\ (Vy)(A: (y) ~ Af(x,\'))) (x) ~ (Vr)(,1:(r) =} AT(cr))) (x) '\ (VI')(/I:(r) > (AT(x.r)<c>AT(I',rl))i
; (11')( 1::)( A(I'.::) A (VII)(I'(II.,)~>
:1(1/.

(/1(11.1') 'II

where /1(\) mcans ., /.\ (/ l'I'f.IO/l, II is (/ purcn! of v.

r)

means

VA (II,Z))))). r. and P(II.X) means

Thus, in a language .'.I: some or all of the luuction letters ~llld individual constants may be absent. and some (but not all) of the predicate letters may be absent.' The individual constants. function letters and predicate letters of a language '.f/ are called the non-logical constants of 'f. Languages are designed in accordance with the subject matter we wish to study. A language Ior arithmetic might contain function letters for addition and multiplication .md a predicate letter for equality, whereas a language for geometry is likely 10 have predicate letters for equality and thc notions oipoint and line but no function letters at all,

2.2

FIRST-ORDER SATISFIABlLlTY

LANGUAGES AND THEIR INTERPRETATIONS. AND TRUTH. MODELS

DEFINITION l.ct '/' be a first-order lullo wing ingredients,

1;1) I b)
u)

language,

An interpretation

or

i/' consists

of the

Well-formed formulas have meaning only when an interpretation is given for the symbols, We usually are interested in interpreting wfs whose symbols come from a specific language. For that reason, we shall define the notion of a first-order ianguage,t

Id)

tThe adjective 'first-order' is used to distinguish the languages we shall study here from those in which there are predicates having other predicates or functions as arguments or in which predicate quantifiers or function quantifiers arc permitted, or both. Most mathematical theories can be formalized within first-order languages, although there may be a loss of some of the intuitive content of those theories, Second-order languages are discussed in the appendix on sCl'ollll-order logic. l.xarnplcs of higher-order languages arc studied also in (iiidL'! ( 1').ll), Tursk i ( I'ln), Church (IIJ40), Hascnjacger and Scholl (1%1) and Vall Bentham ,I lid Doc" (1')X1). Dil1'l'rl'lIccs between first-order and higher-order thl'onc' all' (,,,,,\lllIl'll 11\ ('oll'oran ( 1')XtI)

set D, called the domain of the interpretation. For each predicate letter A'J of .'.1', an assignment of an n-place relation (A71M in D. For each function letter of .:t', an assignment of an II-place operation M in D (that is, a function from D" into D), I, or each individual constant a, of .'.1', an assignment of some fixed clement (ai)M of D,

A non-empty

Un

Ii'

Given such an interpretation, varia hies are thought of as ranging over the 'l't D, .uul ~,=? and quantifiers are given their usual meaning, Remember I h~1 an II-place relation in D can be thought of as a subset of D", the set of all I
lhc punctuat ion marks arc not strictly necessary; they can be avoided by ,,·dl'linlllg the notions of term and wl. H(lWCVer,their usc makes it easier to read and , "IIlIHCill'IHIformulas. : IIlhl'l'l' were no prcdir.uc letters, there would he no wfs
I

5X

QlJ;\NTIFIC;\TION

THfORY

J-IRST ORDER

LANGuAGES.

S;\TISFIABILITY.

i\10DEL.S

»-tuplcs of clements of l). For example. if D is the set of human beings. then the relation -father can be identified with the set of all ordered pairs (.\'.,1') such that .v is the father of 1'. lor a given interpretation of a language 'f. a wf or (,P without tree v.uiubles (called a closed III or a .1'('111('/1('(') represents a propost ion that is [rue or false. whereas a wf with free variables may be satisfied (i.c .. true) for some values in the domain and not satisfied (i.c .. fulsc) 1'01' the others.

0'"

(h)

(c) (d)
(i)

(Vx)(Al (x) (=i\')(A~lV) 1\ AiCl,X))). where D is the set of all clays and people. A:(.r) means X;S 1I dll)" A~(y) means \. is 1I Slicker. and ATC"",,) means .J' ;.1' born Oil duv X. (Vx) (VI')(A: (x ) 1\ A: ()' )=> A ~(Jl (x.\·))). where D is the set of integers, A: (x) means xis odd, Ai(x) means X;.I' l'I'l'I1, and I/(x.y) denotes .r + v. For the following wfs, D is the set or ;111 people ;\I1d AT(II.I') means II
~~?

/0\,1'.1' 1'.

/:'\'(/111/)/('.1'

Consider

the following

wfs:

(1y)(VF)(Af(x.l') (ii) (Vv)(:3x)Af(x.y) (iii) (3x)(Vy)((Vz)(ATCv,z) (iv) (3x)(Vy),Af(x,v)

=}

Af(x,y))

I. Ai(XI,X2) 2. (Vx2)AT(_~1 ,X2) 3. (::L~I)(Vx2)AT(_\'1 ,X2) Let us take as domain the set of all positive integers and interpret Af(y.z) as y~z. Then wf I represents the expression 'XI ~X2', which is satisfied by all the ordered pairs (a, b) of positive integers such that (/~h. WI' 2 represents the expression 'For all positive integers X2. XI ~X2.'t which is satisfied only hy the integer I. Wf 3 is a true sentence asserting that there is a smallest positive integer. lfwc wen; to take as domain the set of all integers. then w]' 3 would be false. Exercises
2.10

For the following wfs and for the given interpretations, what values the wfs are satisfied (if they contain free variables) they are true or false (if they are closed wfs). (i) ATU}(XI,x2),al) (ii) AT(_~I ,X2) =} AT(X2,XI) (iii) (VXI )(VX2)(VX3)(AT(Xt ,X2) 1\ AT(_r2,X3) =} AT(xl ,X3)) (a) The domain is the set of positive integers, ATCv,z) is y?-z, y·z, and al is 2. (b) The domain is the set of integers, AT (y, z) is y = z,/? (y, z) al is O. (c) The domain is the set of all sets of integers, AT(Y,z) if y <;;: y n z, and al is the empty set 0. 2.11 Describe in everyday English the assertions determined lowing wfs and interpretations. (a) (Vx)(Vy)(AT(x,y) =} (:3z)(A: (z) 1\ AT(x,z) 1\ AT(z,y))). where D is the set of real numbers. AT(x,v) means .r < v. and A: (::)
1'(l(;IIIW/ II

indicate for or whether

The concepts of surisfiability and truth are intuitively clear, hut. following Turski (1936), we also can provide a rigorous definition. Such a definition is necessary for carrying out precise proofs of many mctamathcrnatical results. Satisfiahility will be the fundamental notion. 011 the basis of' which the notion of truth will he defined. Moreover, instead or talking about the n-tuples of objects that satisfy a wf that has 1/ free variables. it is much more convenient from a technical standpoint to deal uniformly with denumerable sequences. What we have in mind is that a denumerable sequence \ = (."1, "'2, is to be thought of as satisfying a wf/l that has Xl' .. rj. ,Xi" as free variables (where JI <]: < ... < )11) if the n-tuple (1'/1' sic' SIJ satisfies '!!l in the usual sense. For example, a denumerable sequence (.~l' .1'2, .1'.1 •..• ) of objects in the domain of an interpretation M will turn out to satisfy the wf AT(X2.X5) ifand only if the ordered pair, (S2,SS) is in the relation (ATlM assigned to the predicate letter AT by the interpretation M. Let M be an interpretation of a languagc Y' and let D be the domain of M. Let 2: be the set of all denumerable sequences of elements of D. For a wf YJ of:!), we shall define what it means for a sequence s = (.\'1 .. \'2, ... ) in 2: to satisfy JiJ in M. As a preliminary step, for a given .I' in 2: we shall define a function s" that assigns to each term f of .ff an element s' (I) in D.

S, .... )

f}(y,z) is y

is and is

+ z,

z, J?(Y,z)

I. If f is a variable Xj' let s*(/) be Sj. If f is an individual constant aj, then S'(I) is the interpretation this eonstan t. M I. If It is a function letter, is the corresponding operation II ....• 11/ are terms. then

(ai)M .

of

(fn

in D, and

hy the folthe domain mcnns c iv (/

III ;111 1)(1,111\<'

s'(fl' (II , ...

,11/))

= U;lM(s'(/il,

... ,S'(I"))

untbcr,
"lie would sav 'I I' 1,,\\ lh;1II or ,'qu;J!

lin ordin.irv I'.n~li,h.

11I1Cgl'l'"

Intuitively . .1"(1) is the element of D obtained by substituting, for each), a \1;II11eof Sf for all occurrences of Xi in 1 and then performing the operations "I' the interpretation corresponding to the function letters of I. For instance, III is li(\\.t?(XI.III)) and if the interpretation has the set of integers as its domain, Ii and I} are interpreted as ordinary multiplication and addition. rcvpccuvcly. and til is interpreted as 2. then. for any sequence .\' (.\'1 .. \':_. ... )

60

(>l \"'d

IIIC\TI()r~

TH I OR Y

[IRS'!

ORDER

LANGUAGES

S.\TISIIAHII.IT\.

\IOI>IIS

(,I

or

ill 1l')-'IT', the ordinarv

NIlI\

\' II i I, Ihe 1\;1\

01' reading

vvc proceed

in !l'~l'rI1 (.1'1" 2). This is really nothing more tha n mathematical expressions. to the definition 01' satisfaction, which will be an in-

PI" the results arc also obvious understanding of the notions

(I) (a) ./1
(b).l/j

if one wishes to use onlv the ordinarv intuitive of truth. falsity ~Ind sa;isl'aetion, .

ductill'dclilllllllll. I. II' 1J IS :: 11 .uomic wf A;; (f I ..... 11/) and (An:V1 is the corresponding lI-pl;lce rcln Iion of the intcrpretn tion. then a seq ucncc S = (SI. s: .... ) salislies 'Ij il' and only if (An''\V'(/I).,., ,,1'(/1/)) that is. if the n-tuple M (.1 (/1) 1' (/1/)) is in the relation (An I s satislies ,.YJ if and only if s does not satisfy .YJ. "\ s satisfies .YJ c.-=} (f, if and only if s does not satisfy ..YJ or v satisfies (t. 4. s satisfies ('7x,).YJ if and only if every sequence that differs from s in at most the ith component satisfies ,YJ.t Intuitively, a sequencev = (.\·1,,1·2 .... ) satisfies a wf ,YJ if and only if. when. for each i, we replace all free occurrences of .r, (if any) in .Y/ by a symbol representing ,I,. the resulting proposition is true under the given interpretation. Now we can define the notions of truth and falsity of wfs for a given intcrprcuuion.

DEFI~ITlONS I. A wf.l/j is trucjortlu: interpret at ion M (written FM .11)ifand only if every sequence in L satisfies·fI. 2. :%J is said to be [alse for M if and only if no sequence in L satisfies .?II. 3. An interpretation M is said to be a model for a set r of wfs if and only if every wf III r is true for M. The plausibility of our definition of truth will be strengthened by the fact that we can derive all of the following expected properties I-XI of the notions of truth, falsity and satisfaction. Proofs that are not explicitly given are left to the reader (or may be found in the answer to Exercise 2.12). Most
t For example. if the domain of the interpretation is the set or real numbers, the interpretation OrAT is the relation ,,;. and the interpretation of III is the function e. then a sequence s = (.~I.S2 •... ) of real numbers satisfies Aiui (X2),X5) if and only if eS2 ";,\'5. If the domain is the set of integers, the interpretation of A7(x,Y.II· 1') is x . v = u . y, and the interpretation of GI is 3, th~n a sequence s = (.\'1,,1'", ... ) or integers satisfies A~(.q. al.xl. X.1) if and only if (s, t = 1"1· lin other words, a sequence s = (."1. S" .... s,., .) sa tislies (V\,).:.9 If a nd only if'. for every dement (' of the domain, the sequence (.I·I.S,.... C· •. ) s;tllslie, .:.9. l Icrc. (Sl . .\', ..... c. .I denotes the sequence obtained Irom (,11.'." .',. I 1)\ rcplucing the ith componcutv by r: Note also that. Irs satislies ('1\, I'll. then. ;1' a ,pl'l·lall·;lSl'.,
'all,fit" If

is false for an interpretation M if and only if' -,'Ii is true for M. is true for M if and only if -l/j is raise for M. (II) It is not the case that both F'! .fI and ,bVI,JjJ: that is. no wf can he both true and false for M. ( III) II' F~I!JJ and FM ,fie;> (f,. then F\lfI. (IV) ,l/j =:> if, is raise for M if and only if FM .!JJ and F-'\! -,if,. (V)t Consider an interpretation M with domain D. (a) A sequence .I' satisfies .!JJ;\ (f, if and only if,\' satisfiesl/j and .1 satisfies r: (h) s satisfies .!d V ((; if and only if .I' s<ltisfiesl/j or s satifies (f,. (c) s satisfiesfl <=} ((; if and only if .I' satisfies both .l/j and ((, or s satisfies neither ,l/j nor (f,. (d) s satisfies (3x,)YJ if and only if' there is a sequence s' that differs from s in at most the /rh component such ih:u .1' satisfies .!JJ. (In other words v = (.1·1 . .1'2 ..... .1', .... ) satisfies (cJx,).fI if and only if there is an element c in the domain D such that the sequence (.\·\,,1·2, .... c, ... ) satisfies .!d.) IVI) FM .W if and only if FM ('7x, ).!JJ. We can extend this result in the following way. By the c!o.l·urel of.CJjjwe mean the closed wf obtained from/)] by prefixing in universal quantifiers those variables. in order of descending subscripts, that are free in .!JJ, If ;l/j has no free variables. the closure 01'.11 is defined to be ;CJjj itself. For example. ifCJjj is Af(x2,xs) -=} -,C3X2)Aj(xj,X2,X,), its closure is ('7xs)('7x,)('7x2i ('7XI ).?II. It follows from (VI) that a wf ;Y/ is true if and only if its closure is true. I V II) Every instance of a tautology is true for any interpretation. (An instance of a statement form is a wf obtained from the statement form by substituting wfs for all statement letters. with all occurrences of the same statement letter being replaced by the same wf. Thus. an instance of AI => ,A2 V AI is A:(x2) => (-,('7xI)A:(xj)) V A:(x2).) To prove (VII), show that all instances of the axioms of the system L are true and then use (III) and Proposition 1.14. I \ Ill) I I' the free varia bles (if any) of a wf 1B occur in the list Xi, , ... , Xi, and if the sequences S and Sf have the same components in the il th ..... hth places, then s satisfies .04 if and only if Sf satisfies .9] IIIiut: use induction on the number of connectives and quantifiers in YJ. First prove this lemma: If the variables in a term I occur in the list v, ..... x". and if s and Sf have the same components in the
"Remember
~ :.'t,).

that
,19

.111\ '("':.9

> 't., (:.9

V 't., ,11-¢"""> :. '(,) 1\ ('t, :.:.9)

(f,

and ('3.\',).$ are abbreviations and ,(Iix,) '.11.respectively.

('/11.1111'1'.

for

:;\ hel

tcr term lor .-/""11'1' would hc

1I1II1','I'\",i/

62

()I..\'\TIIICAIlO'\

IIILORY

IIRST

ORDER

L."r\(il)'\(i1S

SATISII;\Bll.ITY

v!ODELS

ilth" ... i.th )1I:IL'':'' then sOli)' no variables .u all, s' (I) = (s')"

(/)(/).
(I) 1"01'

In particular. iI'l contains any sequences s and,' I

Although. hv (VIII). a particular wl.!IJ with k free va riablcs is essentially s.uisfied or riot ()nly hy k-tuplcs, rather than by dcnumcruhle sequences. it is more convenient 1'01' a general treatment satlsi':H.:tion to deal with infinite rather than finite sequences. If we wen: to define s.uistaction using finite sequence" condiiions J and 4 or the definition ofs.uisluction would become much more complicated. l.et .1"1"" ,x,, be k distinct variables in order of increasing subscripts. Let .:I1(Xi ,Xi,) be a wf that has .1"" ••.. Xi, as its only free varia hies. The set of k-IUrles (h,.· ... h,) of elements of the domain D such that any sequence wi th bl •... ,hk in its il th, ...• ik th places, respectively, sa tisfies .:4(Xi, ' ...• Xi,) is called the relation (or proper/.rl) ofthe interpretation defined byYl. Extending our terminology. we shall say that every k-tuple (hi.' .. ,hI) in this relation satisfic» .YJ(Xi" ...• Xi,} in the interpretation 1\1; this will he written FM .!IJ[bl •... , bAl· This extended notion of satisfaction corresponds to the original intuitive notion.

or

is interpreted as r -c,:. then .!IJ is satisfied by only those sequences •... ) of intcgcrx in which" <.I"> Hence. YJ is neither true nor false ror this interpretation. On the other hand, there arc wfs that are 110t closed but that nevertheless are true or false for every interpretation. A simple example is the wf A: (XI) V-v4: (XI)' which is true lor every interpretation.
=
(XI.S2

A;CI·.:)

(X)

Assume

1 is free for .v, in ..IJ(x,). ! in terpreta t ions.

Then (VI', ).!IJ(I;» lemmas.

!IJ( /) is t rue for ;!ll

The proof of (X) is based upon the following LEMMA

J

••••

II'I and II arc terms. s is a sequence in L I' results Irorn 1 by replacing all occurrences of Xi by u, and .1" results 1'1'0111.1" by replacill)! the /th component ofv by .I'(u), then 1"(/') = (.1'')"(1) [/lil/I: Use induction on the length or I.;]

Examples I. If the domain f) or M is the set or human beings, Af(x,y) is interpreted as x is II brother of" 1". and A~(.\.1") is interpreted <IS x is a parcn! of" y, then the binary relation Oil f) corresponding to the wf ,!IJ(Xj.X2) : (3..r~)(;lT(.\1 ,xI) /\ A~(.rl.X2)) is the relation of unclehood. hi ?Il[h, c] when and only when b is an uncle of c. 2. If the domain is the set of positive integers, AT is interpreted as = . .fl is interpreted as multiplication, and al is interpreted as I, then the wf .'J9(x, ):
~A~(xi.

LEI\>JMA 2
l.ct I be free for
/;II
Xi

in .c0'(.I"J. Then:

Ill) I \: I)

A sequences '--= (.lj"'·2, ... J satisfies .}1(I) if and only if the sequence .1", obtained from s by substituting .1" (I) for Si in the ith place. satisfies !IJ(Xi). [Hinl: Use induction on the number of occurrences of connectives and quantifiers in .18(.1',), applying Lemma I.] If (\i\", pa(Xi) is satisfied by the sequence s; then .:i8(I) also is satisfied by s . If :1,] does not contain Xi free, then (\Ix, )(.11 true for all interpretations.
=? ((,)
=}

all

f\

(\fx2)((::1~3 )AT(xl ·fnr2,X,))

~ AT(X2. XI) V AT(X2. al))

(YJ => (\lxY(,)

is

determines the property of being a prime num ber. Thus FM .'!4[k] if and only if k is a prime number. (IX) If:JlJ is a closed wf of a language Y', then, for any interpretation M, either FM :JlJ or FM -,:JjJ - that is, either ,'31 is true for M or fJ)} is false for M. [Hilll: Use (VIII).] Of course, .11 may be true for some interpretations and false for others. (As an example, consider A: (UI)' If M is an interpretation whose domain is the set of positive integers, is interpreted as the property of being a prime, and the interpretation of a, is 2. then A: (al) is true. If we change the interpretation by interpreting a, as 4, then A: (al) becomes Ialse.) Ir.!IJ is not closed - that is, if /)}contains free variables· .1,] may be neither true nor lulsc for some interpretation. For example, if.:4 is Af(xi ,'\2) and we consider an interpretation in which the domain is the sci of integers and

!'HHlf

A:

(XI) is not correct. Then (\lXi)(Ja =} (e) => (,af => (\lxi)(e) is not true interpretation. By condition 3 of the definition of satisfication 111,'ll' is a seq uence S such that .I' satisfies (\Ix;) (@ => (e) and .I' does not satisfy 1/ (VI', )((,. From the latter and condition 3, .I' satisfies .5)] and s does not "lllsly (Vr,)(('. Hence, by condition 4, there is a sequence .1", differing from s III .rt most the ith place, such that .I' does not satisfy ({/. Since Xi is free in 11('1111<.'1" (VI, )(.!IJ => ((,) nor ,$, and since s satisfies both of these wfs, it follows 1>\ (VIII) that s' also satisfies both (\lx,)(!IJ =} ((,'") and ;11. Since .I' satisfies \"lIllle
,," xornc I
ill'

/.'l/gll1

of

;til

ex pression is the number

of

occurrences of

symbols

in the

" \ Pll'V'I\)ll

64

()It\i\JTII'ICI\TION

TIIIOKY (c)

IIRST

ORDER

LANCil /\(ilS.

SATISllAHll.ITY

'vl0()ILS

65
_

(VI,)(;.1 .~~.'(,). it follows bv condition 4 that s' satisfies .;.1 => 'r.. Since s' s.uislics .;.1 "; '(, ;lnd;.1. l"nt~ditiol1 Ol implies that s' satisfies 'r. \\ hich con~ t r.idicts the Iacr that .1" docs not satisfy '(,. Hence. (XI) is established.

Exercises 2.12 2.13

SOliI('

Vcrilv (I) (X). Pnl\~ that a closed wl".;.1 is true for M if and only if.;.1 is satisfied by sequence s in L (Remember that ~ is the set 01" denumerable sequences

or clements in the domain of M.) 2.14 Find the properties or relations determined by the following wfs and interprcta tions. (a) [(=JujATU}(x.u).v)] II [C=Jl')AiUnr,z;).z)], where the domain D is the set of integers. AT IS =. and II2 is multiplication. (b) Here, D is the set of non-negative integers, AT is =. (II denotes 0, is addition. and Ii is multiplication. (i) :C=Jz)(,AT(;.{/I) II A;(I?(x,z).y))] (ii) (]I·)AT(x./~2(l'.v)) . ..' (c) (3.rl)A;U}(XI.Xl) . .rl), where f) is the set 01 positive Integers. AT IS and I? is multiplication, (d) A:(Xl) II (Vx2)-,A;(XI.X2). where D is the set of all living people, AI(x) meansv is 1/ /1/(1/1 and Ai(x.v) means .v is married 10 y. (e) (i) (3.XI)(:3X2)(AT(XI.Xl) f.. AT(X2.X4) tl A~(XI,X2)) (ii) (=b:l)(A;(xl'x,) II AT(Xl,X2)) . where D is the set of all people, AHx.y) means x is a parent 01 y, and A~(x.y) means x lind yare siblings. J (f) (Vx,)«3.r4)(AtU}(X4.X1).XI) r. (3.X"4)(AlUn'-4.X,),X2)) => A1(x3,al)). where D is the set of positive integers, Af is =,J} is multiplication, and a I denotes I. (g) ~At(xp'l) II (3y)(AT(Y,xl) II.A~(X2.Y)), . where D is the set of all people, AT(u, 1)) means U is 1/ parent of»; and A~(u, v) means u is a wife of li. .., 2.15 For each uf the following sentences and interpretations, wnte a translation into ordinary English and determine its truth or falsity. (a) The domain D is the set of non-negative integers. AT is =, j} is addition, Ii is multiplication, at denotes 0 and a: denotes 1. (i) (Vx)(3y)(AT(X,J}(y,y)) V AT(x,/12U}(y,y),a2))) (ii) (Vx)(Vy)(ATrfl(x.y),al) => Ai(x,at) VAT(y,al)) (iii) (3y)ATU?(y,y),a2) (b) Here, D is the set of integers, is =, and is addition. (i) (V.II )(Vx2)Afcr?(XI.xc) ..t?(X2,XI)) (ii) (V.\I) (Vxc )(V.I·\ )Af U?(\"I .J} (xc ..\ d) .rIC U;c (v I .\c).\ \)) (iii) (V\I)(V\~)( bd:1;U?C\,.XI).X,)

f?

The wfs me the same as in part (b), but the domain is the set ofpositive integers, AT is =. and ft"(\.r) is .v". (d) The domain is the set of rational numbers. 01; IS =. A~ is <.j? is multiplication. Iii (x) is .r + I. and III denotes O. (i ) (Clx)A;UP(x.x)Jt' (al))) (ii) (Vx)(Vy)(A~(x,y) => (:Jz)(A~(.\.z) IIA~(::I'))i (iii) (Vx)(~AT(x.lll) => (~F)A;(II2(,\.\')Jt'(IIII)) (e) The domain is the set of non-negative integers. ,,'f;lI.l) means ,,0;1', and A'~(". t. w) means 11+ r = w. (i) (Vx)(Vv)(Vz)(A~(x.v. z ) => A~(\',x. ::)) (ii) (Vx)(Vy)(Aj(x.x,y) => Af(x.),)) (iii) (Vx)(Vy)(A;(x.v) => Aj(x.x ..I')) (iv) (3x)(Vy)A~(x.y.y) (v) (3y)(Vx)Af(x,y) (vi) (Vx)(Vy)(A;(x.y).¢=} (3z)A~(x.:.r)) (I) The domain is the set 01" natura] numbers .. Ijill.l") means II = 1', {P(II, 17) = II + 1'. and {l(lI. 1') = /1' 1 (Vx) (3y) (3z)Af(xJ? u2\IJ,v),{l(z. z)))

(Ii

DEFINITIONS \ wf .:YJ is said to be

IIItcrpretation. 1/ 'I

logically

valid if and

only if .1J is true for every

Ai

f?

;.1is said to be satisfiable if and only if there is an interpretation for which is satisfied by at least one sequence. It is obvious that :;(j is logically valid if and only if ~.;(j is not satisfiable, .111(1;.1is satisfiable if and only if •. ;.1is not logically valid. 11".;.1is a closed wf, then we know that .Y1 is either true or false for any "I\L'n interpretation; that is, !;(j is satisfied by all sequences or by none. 1hcrcfore, if gj is closed. then :14 is satisfiable if and only if;jlJ is true for some uucrprcta tion. A set r of wfs is said to be satisfiable if and only if there is an interi'll'I;ltion in which there is a sequence that satisfies every wf of I", II is impossible for both a wf.;tJ and its negation ~:JjJ to be logically valid. I (\1' il";.1 is true for an interpretation, then ~,dJ is false for that interpretation. We say that ;M is contradictory if and only if.JlJ is false for every inter1'll'I;ltion, or. equivalently, if and only if~:JlJ is logically valid. iI is said to logical!.)' imply (g if and only if. in every interpretation, every '\·'1l1l'nce that satisfies ;Y1 also satisfies 'f!:. More generally, ({f is said to be a

,1.'11111111'11:

lhe mnrhcmuuciun and philosopher G.W. Lcihniz (1640 1710) gave a similar '19 IS IngiL'ally valid if and only if iI is true in all 'possible worlds'.

60

Q1JANTII-ICAfiON

THEOR\'

----1

FIRST OIU)f:R

LANGUAGES

S;\TISFIAI3IL1TY.

MODELS

67

logilill (,01/.l('(IU(,11(,(, of a set every sequence that satisfies ;1/ and ((, are said to he imply each other. The [ollowing assertions I,
;1/

101' wrs if and only if, in every interpretation. every wl' in I also satisfies «(" logicall, equivalent if and only if they logically arc easy consequences
,;1/ =? ((,

(i]

of these definitions. valid,

logically

implies

«(,

if and only if

is logically

, ,;I] and «(, are logically equivalent if and only if .;1/ 0 «(, is logically valid. 3. If .. 1logically implies «(, and.1# is true in ,1 given interpretation. i then so is ((,. 4. If «(,' is a logical consequence of a set I of wfs and all wls in I are true 111 a

given interpretation. Exercise 1.16 Prove assertions I 4.

then so is ((,.

=';- (Vx{)(=Jx,J!8 1f.1Il is a closed wl', show that.l) logically implies ((, iland only if«(' is true for every interpretation for which .111 is true, (h) Although. by (VI). (Vxt!A:(xI) is true whenever Al(.rtl is true, lind <In interpretation I'm which A: (\1) =;> (VxI)A: (XI) is not true. (Hence. the hypothesis that .;1/ is a closed wf is essential in (a).) 2.10 Prove that. if the free variables 01'.;1] are Fl .... r". then.!8 is satisfiable if and only if (3YI) ... (3y,JIIJ is satisfiable. 2.21 Produce counterexamples to show that the following wfs arc not logically valid (that is. in each case. rind an interpretation for which the wf is 110t true). r "))) , (a) I(Vx)(Vy)(Vz)(Aj(x,y) ;\Aj(y.z) => Aj(x.=)) 1\ (\1\) "I(\,x)1

(~.r,)('v'x{).;I]
(a)

2.19

~c;'

(]\)(Vl')

,.I~(\'I)

Examples I. Every instance of a tautology is logically valid (VI!). 2. If I is free for x in .!8(x). then ('tfx).i1(x) => .18(/) is logically valid (X). 3. If.J1 docs not contain x free. then ('tfx)(.!8 =.0} ((,) ='" (.18 => ('tfx)((,) is logically valid (XI). 4.1) is logically valid if and only if (VVj) ... ('tfF,,).l) is logically valid (VI). 5. The wl' (Vx")(3xl )/I}(XI .X2) =? (::x!l(Vx2)AT(.\"I.X2) is not logically valid. As a counterexample. let the domain D he the set of integers and let ATCV,z) mean y < z. Then (VX2) (:3.\'1 )AT(XI.X2) is true but (3.\'1 )(VX2) AT(XI,X2) is false. Exercises 2.17
(a)

(h)
(c) (1I)
(c)

(Vx)(3Y)AT(.\".y) (:3.\')(3y)Ar(x,y) [(3x)A:(x) (3.\")(A: (x)

{o?

=> (::ly)Af(y.F) => (3Y)ATCv.y) (3.\')A1(x)] A 1(x))

=?

=> (Vx)(A:(x) (:ix)A:

{o?A~(x))

=?

(x) => (-3x)A ~(x)) (Vx)(Vy)(Vz)(AT(X,Y);\ => (Vx)AT(x.x)

=?

(I)

[(Vx)(Vy)(Af(x,y)

=> ATCv,x));\ => AT(x,z))]

AT(y,z)

I,~)J)

(3.\')("V:F)(AT(x,y);\ (VX)(Vy) (Vz)(AT(x,x)

-,AT(y,x)

[AT(.\,.x)
=? =?

{o?

Ay(y,y)j)
V AT(y,z)))

Ill)

;\ (A~(x,z)

AT(x,y)

(3y)(Vz)AT(v,z)

(b) 2.18 (a)

(b)

(c) (d ) (e) (I) (g) (h)

Show that the following wfs are not logically valid. [('tfxI)A:(xI) =? (VxI)Ai(xI)] =? [(VxI)(A:(XI) =? A1(xI))] [(V.rl)(A:(xll V Ai(xI))] => [((VxI)A:(xI)) V (VxIlAi(xI)] Show that the following wfs are logically valid." ::f4(t) =? (3.\';).?a(x;) if 1 is free for Xi in .?a(x;) (Vx;)::JJ =? (::Lxi)86' (Vx;)(VXj);?a => (VXj)(Vx;).OjJ (Vx;) ,0jJ {o? -, ( ::Lx;) -,.0jJ (Vx;)(.OjJ =>~) =? ((Vx;)::JJ => (Vx;J'6') «(Vx;),?a) r. (VXi)~ 0 (Vx;)(.OJJ /\~) ((Vx;):!d) V (Vx;W =? (VXi)('OJJ V (C) (3x,) (3.\'j)::jJ {o? (3.\'j)(::Lxi)86'

I AI this point. one can use intuitive arguments Dr one can lise the ngorous definitions of salisfactlon and truth. as in the argumcn: above tor (XI) 1.:lln Oil, we shall diSU1VCI another method for showing hl!(Il'i11 \'alilllt)'

(3x)(Vy)(3z)«AhY,z) => A7(x,z)) =? (AT(x,x) =? Af(y,x))) By introducing appropriate notation. write the sentences of each of Iii" Iollowing arguments as wfs and determine whether the argument is '<111'\-".:1. that is, determine whether the conclusion is logically implied by the . onjunction of the premisses 1,1' All scientists are neurotic. No vegetarians are neurotic. Therefore, no vegetarians are scientists. I h) All men are animals. Some animals are carnivorous. Therefore, some men arc carnivorous. I,) Some geniuses are celibate. Some students are not celibate. Therefore, some students are not geniuses. id , /\ ny barber in Jonesville shaves exactly those men in Jonesville who do lint shave themselves. Hence. there is no barber in Jonesville. I") hn any numbers X.\'.;:. if x > F and y > z : then x > z. x > x is false for all numbers .r. Therefore, for any numbers x and y. if x> \'. then it is 1101 the cusc that l' . v.
II)

2.22

6X
(I')

()l :.. \r\TIIICATION HI ~.ORy

FIRST-ORDER 2,3 FIRST-ORDER THEORIES

THFORIIS

69

(g)

(h)

(i)

U)

No ~tlldL'nt iii t hc st,llistics class is smarter than every student in the Ill~IC da\\. I lcncc. some student in the logic class is smarter than every student in t hc stdtistics class, l.vcryonr 1\ ho IS s.mc can understand mathcmutics. None 01" Hegel's SOilS ca n undcrst.md mathematics. No madmen are lit to vote. Hence. none of Hcgcls sons is fit to vote. lor every set .v. there is a set v such that the cardinality ofv is greater th.m the cardinality ofr. If x is included in v. the cardinality ofx is not greater than the cardinality ofy. Every set is included in V. Hence. V is not a set. For all positive integers x.x~x. for all positive integers x,r. z, if x ~y and y~z. then x~z. For all positive integers x and y. x~y or y~x. Therefore. there is a positive integer Y SL1Chthat, for all positive integers x,y~x. For any integers X.y, z , if .v '> y and y > z: then x > z, x > x is false for all integers .r. Therefore, for any integers .r and y. if x > y. then it is not the case that y > x. that is,

2.23 Determine whether the following sets of wfs are compatible whether their conjunction is satisfiable. (a) (:3x) (3y)A T(c y) (\iX) (\iv)(3z)(A{(x. :::) ;\ AT(:::.I')) (h) (\ix)(::Jv)AfCl'. .r ) (\ix) (Vv)(AT ('-.\.) ~~ x)) (\ix)(\iy)(\iz)(Af(x.y! AATev.z) ~ Af(x,z)) (c) All unicorns arc animals. No unicorns are animals.

III the case of the proposi tional en lculus, the met hod of truth tables provides an effective test ,IS to whether any given statement Iorrn is a tautology. However. there does not seem to he any cflcctivc process for determining whether a given wf is logically valid, since. ill gcncr.rl. one has to check the truth of a wf for interpretations with arbitrarily large finite or infinite domaills. In fact. we shall sec later that, according to a plausihle definition of 'effective', it may actually be proved that there is no effective way to test for logical validity. The axiomatic method, which was a luxury in the study of the propositional calculus, thus appears to he a ncccsxit v 1f1 the study of wfs Involving quantifiers.' and we therefore turn now to the consideration of first-order theories. Let Y' he a first-order language. A [irst-ordcr tlicorv ill the language <f will he a formal theory K whose symbols and wfs arc the symbols and wI's of 'j' .md whose axioms and rules of inference an: specified In the lollowing way. The axioms of K are divided into two classes: the logical axioms and the proper (or non-logical) axioms.
I.OGICAL II
1\ I

AXIOMS

-·'llfev.

I)j. (f,

and Yare
~

wfs of !./', then the following

are logical axioms

of K:

I )YJ

\2)
\-t)

I \,) 1

2.24 (a) (b) (e) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) 2.25

Determine whether the following wfs are logically -'{3y)(\ix)(AT(x,y) {=} -,AT(X,x)) [(3x)A:(x) ~ (:3x)A~(x)1 ~ (3x)(A:(x) ~ A~(x)) (3x)(A:(x) ~ (\iy)A: (y)) (\ix)(A:(x) V Ai(x)) ~ (((\ix)A:(x)) V (3x)Ai(x)) (3x)(3y)(Af(x,y) ~ (\iz)AT(z,y)) (3x)(:3y)(A: (x) ~ AiCv)) ~ (3x)(A: (x) ~ A1{x)) (\ix)(A: (x) ~ Al(x)) ~ -,(\ix) (A: (x) ~ ,Ai(x)) (:3x)AT(x,x) => (3x)(3y)AT(x,y)

valid.

1 \~)

/18) (t ~ '.0)) ~ ((.18 ~ (e) cc;. (.;8 ~ '.i)) (,(e ~ ,(18) ~ (( ,ff, ~ (18) ~ (e) (\ixi):;4(Xi) ~ :18(1) if Jd(Xi) is a wf of If and t is a term of !.I' that is free for Xi in .'?8(xt). Note here that 1 may he identical with x, so that all wfs (\iXi ):11 ~ 28 are axioms by virt ue of axiom (A4). (\ixi)(99 ~ (e) => (.~ ~ (\iXiYC) if 211contains no free occurrences of
(58 ~
.Xi·

W: =?

1'1,

Exhibit a logically valid wf that is not an instance of a tautology. However. show that any logically valid open wf (that is. a wf without quantifiers) must he an instance of a tautology.
2.26 (a) Find a sutisfiublc closed wf that is not true in any interpretation whose domuin has only one member. lincl a s.uistiablc closed wI' that is not true in any intcrprct.uion who,,' dom.un has flow,')' than three member».

IIII~'II;I~CS.Since semantical notions are set-theoretic in character, and since set because or the paradoxes, is considered a rather shaky foundation for the .1 \ld I Ill' muthernatical logic, many logicians consider a syntactical approach, con1.[111)' "I' a study of formal axiomatic theories using only rather weak number,I,,', )!l'1 ic met hods, to he much safer. For further discussions, see the pioneering study ." ,,'nlantics by Turski (1936). as well as Kleene (1952), Church (1956) and Hilbert
Ii"'''r~, :The reader might wish to review the definition of [ormal thcor v in Section 1.4. \\ " ,Ii;dl \I'" the tnillinology (P)'(l()f. theorl'l1\,COnsl'qlll'nce, axiol11at'IL',1 .11 crc.) and
(I
I

'I" ».iuous that involve the notion or interpretation and related ideas such as truth un I IIHHlelarc often called scman tical to distinguish them from syntactical concepts, .v 111\1i refer to simple relations among symbols and expressions of precise formal

IThere is still another reason for a formal axiomatic approach.

Concepts and

",.1

Ikrnays

(1934).

(h)

'I>,l,ltloll

.11.1

iI)

IIltrodul'l'd there

7()

ot
PROPER AXIOMS

!\~ 111'1(;\ TIO"J TIIIOR

PROPERTIES

OF FIRST-ORDFR

THlORll::.S

71

These cannot order theory

prcdicat«

he ~peCllicd. since they vary from theory to theory. A firstIII which there arc lin proper axioms is called a first-order

The antecedent 01 (VV) is logically valid. Now take as domain the set of Integers and let A: (x) mean that x is ('1'('11. Then (\lxl).4: (XI) is false. So. any sequence s = (1'1,.1'2 .. ") for which .1'1 is even does not satisfy the consequent of (\7\7).; Hence, (\7\7) is not true for this interpretation. Examples IIF/irSI-(mler theories I. Partial order. Let the language (f have a single predicate letter /1~ and no function letters and individual constants. Wc shall write x, <. x, instead of A~(x,.Xi)' The theory K has two proper axioms. (a) (VXI)( -, XI < XI) (irreflcxivity) (b) (VXI)(VX2)(VX1)(XI < X2 1\ X2 < Xl =-} XI <. .r i ) (transitivity) A model of the theory is called a parlial/r
ordcrci]
structure,

«(/I(/I/{I.I.

RUI.ES OF INFERENCE

The rules or inference I. Modus ponens: 2. Generalization:

«(,

of any first-order

theory

are:

follows fromYl and JJ ~ (f:. (V'x;)>1 follows fromJJJ. MP and Gen. respectively. to indicate ap-

We shall use the abbreviations plications of these rules. DEFINITION

2. Croup theory. Let the language !j) have one predicate letter AT. one function leiter and one individual constant (/1. To conform with ordinary notation. we shall write 1=.1' instead of AT(/.s).1 + S Instead or '/}(I,S). and 0 instead of (fl. The proper axioms of K are:

I?

Let K be a first-order theory in the language i/. By a tnodcl of' K we mean an interpretation of' :f 1'01' which all the axioms or K are true. By (III) and (VI) on rage 61. if the rules of modus poncns and generalization arc applied to wf's that arc true for a given interpretation. then the results of' these applications arc also true. Hence ('I'cr), theorem III K is true iff every mo.k-! of K. As we shall see, the logical axioms are so designed that the logical consequences (in the sense defined on pages 65-6) of the closures of the axioms of K are precisely the theorems of K. In particular, if K is a first-order predicate calculus. it turns out that the theorems of K are just those wfs of K that are logically valid. Some explanation is needed for the restrictions in axiom schemas (A4) and (AS). In the case of (A4), if I were not free for Xi in .:?a(x;). the following unpleasant result would arise: let Ja(XI) be ~(Vx2)AT(xl ,X2) and let I be X2. Notice that t is not free for XI in 2I.l(XI)' Consider the following pseudoinstance of axiom (A4):
(\7) (Vxl)HVX2)AT(XI,X2))
=}

(a) (VXI) (V'X2) (VX1)(XI

+ (X2 + Xl)

(XI

+ X2) + Xl)

(h) (VXI)(O-+ XI =XI) (c) (VXI)(3x2)(X2 +xl = 0) (d) (VXI)(XI = XI) (e) (VXI)(VX2)(XI = X2 ~->X2 = XI) (f) (VX[ )(VX2)(VX3)(XI = X2 1\ X2 = Xl =-} X[ = Xl) (g) (VXI)(VX2)(VX3)(X2 = x3 ~ XI+X2=X[+XlI\X2+XI =X3-!-XI)

(associativity) (identity) (inverse) (reflexivity of =) (symmetry or =) (transitivity of =) (suhstitutivity of =)

\ model for this theory, in which the interpretation of = is the Identity relation, is called a group. A group is said to be abelian if. in addition. the wf 1\/\I)(VX2)(XI +X2 =X2 +xil is true. The theories of partial order and of groups are both axiomatic. In genc·LII. any theory with a finite number of proper axioms is axiomatic, since it IS obvious that one can effectively decide whether any given wf is a logical
;1 \

rom.

~(Vx2)AT(X2,X2)

Now take as interpretation any domain with at least two members and let AT stand for the identity relation. Then the antecedent of (\7) is true and the consequent false. Thus. (\7) is false for this interpretation. In the case of axiom (AS). relaxation of the restriction that .v, not he free in .'1/ would lead to the following disaster. Let.>1 and «(, both he A: (XI)' Thus. II is free in .'1/. Consider the following pseudo-instance of axiom (1\)):
I") IVIIiI·I:III) :. ,,':lld)

.U

PROPERTIES OF FIRST-ORDER THEORIES

'II the results in this section refer to an arbitrary first-order theory K. Instead of writing f-K ;JJJ. we shall sometimes simply write f- 31J. Moreover, II L' shu II refer to first-order theories simply as theories, unless something is s;lId to the contrary.
1

:- ("':llil

:. IVIII.I:III))

1\'111--1:111).

Sll.:h a sCqllCIH:C would satisfy !t: (tl I. sincc v, is even. but would -ancc no vcqucucc satislics (V'I ):1:111)'

not satisfy

72 PROPOSITION 2.1

QUANTIFICATION

THEORY

r----PROPFRTlES Of f-IRST-ORDLR THHmlFS

Proof
of a tautology is a theorem (A I )-(AJ) and MP. of K_ and it If awf)/J and its negation -n. 'IJ were both theorems of a first-order predicate calculus. then, by Proposition 2.2, hoth'IJ 'lI1d-,.'IJ would he logically valid. which is impossible. in <In inconsistent theory K. every wf '(, of K is provable in that .'IJ and -n. 'IJ arc both provable ill K. Since the wf .'IJ ~ (~.~ ~ ((,) is an instance of a tautology. that wf is. by Proposition 2.1. provable in K. Then two applications of MP would yield f- ((,. It follows from this remark that. if some wf of a theory K is not a theorem of K, then K is consistent. The deduction theorem (Proposition 1.9) Ior the propositional calculus cannot be carried over without modification to first-order theories. For example, for any wf 31, .11 r-K (Vx,).'IJ, hut it is not always the case that ; Kfl ~ (Vx,).11. Consider a domain containing at least two clements (' and d . Let K be a predicate calculus and letfl be /1:('\1). Interpret iI: as a property that holds only for c. Then (XI) is satisfied by any sequence \ c= (.~I,S2, ... ) in whichv, = c. but (Vxl)A:(xl) is satisfied by no sequence at .ill. Hence, (XI) => (Vxl)A: (xJJ is not true in this interpretation, and so it is not logically valid. Therefore, by Proposition 2.2. (xll ~ (\Ix I (XI) is not a theorem of K. A modified. but still useful. form of the deduction theorem may be derived. however. Let .f8 be a wf in a set r of wfs and assume that we are given .1 deduction rz ., ... ,Cj)1I from I", together with justification for each step in rhc deduction. We shall say that 'i, depends UpO/1 .~ in this proof if and .inly if: Notice that,

Lvcry wf 11 of K that is an instance

11H)' be proved

using only axioms

Proof
.Y hy substitution. By Proposition 1.14. there is a proof of f in L. In such a proof. make the same substitution of wfs of K for statement letters as were used in obiainingss from f. and. for all statement letters in the proof that do not occur in ."7. substitute an arbitrary wf of K. Then the resulting sequence of wfs is a proof of :11. and this proof uses only axiom schemes (A I )-(AJ) and MP. The application 'Tautology'. of Proposition

.11 arises from a tautology

K. In fact. assume

2.1 in a proof will be indicated

by writing

A:

PROPOSITION
Every theorem

2.2 of a first-order predicate calculus

is logically valid.

A:

A:

)A:

Proof
Axioms (A I) (A3) truth (see page 61), erties (X) and (XI). and Gen preserve calculus is logically are logically valid by property (VII) of the notion of and axioms (A4) and (A5) are logically valid by propBy properties (Ill) and (VI), the rules of inference MP logical validity. Hence, every theorem of a predicate valid.

II)
1-')

Example
The wf (VX2)(:JXI )Af(xi ,X2) ~ (3xIl(Vx2)AT(xl,X2) is not a theorem of any first-order predicate calculus, since it is not logically valid (by Example 5, p.66).

Vi is ;11and the justification for rx, is that it belongs to r. or justified as a direct consequence hy MP or Gen or some preceding wfs of the sequence. where at least one of these preceding wfs depends upon ::14.
rj;i is

I. \ ample 1. (\lxl ).~ ~

((j

l- (VXI Y(/ Hyp

DEFINITION
/1 ) .~

A theory K is consistent if no wf:!8 and its negation K. A theory is inconsistent if it is not consistent.

-,;"Jj are both

provable

in

i')
I .; ,)

(VXI )f8 (VXI ):f8 ~

'(,

(!_01), Gen
(fj

Hyp

l.iI
I

I,)

(VXI)((,

(!_02), (~3), ('YJ4) , Gen

MP depends upon :;t1,('YJ1) depends upon and (Vxl).I1~(('. and (v,,) depends

COROLLARY

2.3 calculus
is consistent

Any Iirsi-ord, ..r predicate

l lcrc, ('./1) depends upon .~. (V2) I·.'II)~ ~.'(,,(~/~) depends upon.~ 11J1I1II .~ and (VII)~ :- 't•.

--,
74
__J

QUANTIFICATION PROPOSITION 2.4 upon

THEORY

i~ __
1

PROPERTIES 01 FIRST-ORDER THEORIES 2.6 no application r ~-!JJ «(;. of Gcn of

75

COROLLARY !JJ in a deduction showing that 1..!JJ ~- '(" then

r:

If '(, docs not depend

«(,.

If a deduction showing that r.11 1- ((, involves which the quantified variables is free in !JJ. then COROLLARY 2.7 wf and r .. !Ii I- ((,. then r 1-11 => OF PROPOSITIONS 2.4-2.7

'*

Proof
of (f; from rand .Yi. in which «(, does not depend upon .!JJ. (In this deduction, ~i:/lis ((,.) As an inductive hypothesis, let us assume that the proposition is true for all deductions of length less than II. If «(/ belongs to r or is an axiom, then r 1-. (c. If (C is a direct consequence of one or two preceding wfs by Gcn or MP, then, since «(, does not depend upon .!Ii, neither do these preceding wfs. By the inductive hypothesis, these preceding wfs are deducible from r alone. Consequently, so is ((,.
'/1"',

Lc:

'r; be a deduction

If .11 is a dosed EXTENSION

(f,.

PROPOSITION

2.5 (DEDUCTION

THEOREM) that 1. .!JJ I- «(" no application of as its quantified variable a free

Assume that, in some deduction showing Gen to a wf that depends uponYi has variable of The r I- .!JJ =;. r:

».

Proof
Let0iI, .... (/" be a deduction 01'((; from rand !JJ, satisfying the assumption of our proposition. (In this deduction. ':i" is (C'.) Let us show by induction that r I-.JjJ =} r"j), for each i~n. If'iJj is an axiom or belongs to I", then r I- /-!!J =}C)j, sincer"j)j =} (28 =} (.;;iij) is an axiom. If'3J; is f!lJ. then r I- :J1J =}'2Jj, since, by Proposition 2.1, I- :-fa => PJJ. If there exist j and k less than i such thatr"j)k is I'Jjj =} (0;, then, by inductive hypothesis, r f- {!Ii =} Cj)j and r 1-.04 =} (C}/)j =} C}/);). Now, by axiom (A2). I- (•.i8 =} ('iij =}'i!;)) =} ((.04 =}r"j)j) =} ({!Ii =} .01;)). Hence. by MP twice, r I-:#) =} (jj,. Finally, suppose that there is some j < i such that C}/); is (\lxdr7j)j. By the inductive hypothesis, r I- ::;(J =}CJiI, and, by the hypothesis of the theorem, eitherCj)} does not depend upon ;1fJ or Xk is not a free variable of :$. If U;Jj does not depend upon .0)], then, by Proposition 2.4, r I-Uf)j and. consequently. by Gen, r I- (\lxk)CtJj. Thus, r I-@;. Now, by axiom (AI), I-@; =} (.-fa =}0!;). So. r I- .04 =} .f?Ji; by MP. If, on the other hand, Xk is not a free variable of .!Ii. then, by axiom (A5), I- (\lxk)(38 =} =} (.CS =} (\lxdCj)I)' Since r I-.!Ii =} 'fl. we have. by Gen. r I- (\lxd(:?4 =}'YJj). and so. by MP. r I-.!Ii =} (V".)'//; that is. r I- .;1 =}'f,. This completes the induction. and our proposition is just the special case i = 11.

In Propositions 2.4-2.7. the following additional conclusion can be drawn from the proofs. The new proof of r f- .-!Ii =} (f, (in Proposi tion 2.4. of r I- (e) involves an application of Gen to a wf depending upon a wf f, of r only if there is an application of Gcn in the given proof r.!JJ 1- 1(, that involves the same quantified variable and is applied to a wf that depends upon f,. ( In the proof of Proposition 2.5. one should observe that '/, depends upon a premiss !J of r in the original proof if and only if."JjJ =} '/j depends upon (; 111 the new proof.) This supplementary conclusion will be useful when we wish to apply the deduction theorem several times in a row to a given deduction - for ex.nnple, to obtain r I- 0;' =} (28 =} ((j) from F, ':1,(:11 I- «(i; from now on, it is to he considered an integral part of the statements of Propositions 2.4-2.7.

or

i.xampl« (\lxl ) (\lx2)J8

=}

(\lx2)(\lXI

).":11

Proof
, (\Ix 1 ) (\lx2),:;(J (\Ix 1 ) (\lx2)28 (\lx2)":IJ I. (\lx2).)f =} .:;(J

* (\lx2).:$

Hyp
(A4)

,
11.

Yi
(\lXI);"jiJ (\lX2) (\Ix
1

)f!lJ

1.2, MP (A4) 3,4. MP 5, Gen 6, Gen

I II LIS. by 1-7, we have (\lxl)(\lx2)'04

III'

.@J

. ill

I- (\lX2)(\lxl)28, where, in the deduction, application of Gen has as a quantified variable a free variable of )(\/.\"2)·:11. Hence, by Corollary 2.6, I- (\lxt) (\lx2)'04 =} (\lx2) (\Ix 1).04.

FXl'rl'iscs 1,27
1,1)

The hypothesis weaker corollaries

of" Proposition 2.5 is rather cumbersome: often prove to he more IIsctu I

till' )pllllwing

Derive (Vx)(./J·

the following theorems. > (f,) ;. ((Vx)./J } (\11)'(,)

76
(h) , i 1\/\)(
(VI'I)

C)Ui\NTIFICATION

THEORY

AJ)I)ITION/\L

M[TATHEOREMS

AND

DERIVED

RULES

l_ __2'7_j

yJ
...

> '(, ('/v,,)

i>
0'

((]r):YJ=;. )

(3\")«(,)

EXISTENTIAL

RULE

E4

(e)
(d)

(111)(:11\'(,\:>(

11) 1\ (Vr)«(,
./J(x, I) by replacing

>/J

(C)

,(1/\).:1'
t

( h) ,/J

2.2)(1) l.ct

h,l\int!
(:1)

(h)

K be ,I first-order theory and let K" he an axiomatic theory hc 1'()llllwing axioms: (\il·I) ... (\1rI/J1l. where ./J is any axiom of K and Vi .... 'YI/(II ",,0) arc any variables (none at all when II = 0): elfVI ) ... (iiI',,) (/J =? «(,) =? r(livl) ... (I;IYII ).31 =? (1;1)'1) ... ('i) II)'(, I where jl) and «(, arc any wfs and VI ... ,y" are any varia hies.

Let I he a term that is free for .r in a wf$(x. I). and let ./J(I.I) arise from all free occurrences of x hy I. (./J(X.I) mayor may not contain occurrences or I.) Then •. /J(I.I) 1- (3x)/J(x.I).
Proof

Moreover. K" has modus ponens as its only rule of inference. Show that Kit has the same theorems as K. Thus. at the expense of adding more axioms. the generalization rule can he dispensed with.
2.29

to show that 1-11(1.1) =? (3x).$(x./). But. hy axiom (A4). ('cJx)-</J(x.l) =? -'/J(I./). Hence. by the tautology (A =? ~B) =? (B =? ~A) and MP. 1-.;1(1.1) => -(l;Ix)~;.;1(x. I), which. in abbreviated form. is l: ;/J(I, I) .. (3x) ..;1(x.I). ~ A special case of rule E4 is ..;1(1) l : (3x);"0'(x). whenever I is free for x in /J(x). In particular. when I is x itself. ;jl}(x) 1- (3..1) . .;1(x).
f

It sulliccs

Carry out the proof of the Extension

of Propositions

2.42.7

above.

Evantple
1- (l;Ix);/J
=?

(3x) ..;1

2.5

ADDITIONAL

:vJETATHEOREMS

AND DERIVED

RULES

I. ')

(l;Ix)$ ;"0'

For the sake of smoothness in working with particular theories later. we shall introduce various techniques for constructing proofs. In this section it is assumed that we arc dealing with an urbitray theory K. Often one wants to ohtain11(I) from (1;1.,).I1(x). where I is a term free for x 1ll!8(x). This is allowed hy the following derived rule,

.1. (3x ),jIj 4. (l;Ix) ..:8 f- (3x) ..;1 ~. I- (1;1.1)..:8 -? (=ix).jIj

Hyp I. rule A4 2. rule E4

1-3
1-4. Corollary rules are extremely useful. 2.6

The following

derived

Negation elimination: ~~pjJ I- (.;1 Negation introduction: ..:8 I- ~~;~ ( 'onjunction elimination: ,rjIj 1\ (fj I- !.:8
.@ 1\ ((/

PARTICULARIZATION

RlJLE

A4 I- S6'(t).t

I-

(fj ~«(,

~(:JIJ 1\ (G) f- --,,31 V

If t is free for x in .~(x), then (l;Ix)!18(x)

Proof

From (l;Ix).@(x) and the instance (l;Ix)88(x) =? 88(/) of axiom (A4), we obtain .,?d(l) by modus ponens. Since x is free for x in .~(x), a special case of rule A4 is: (l;Ix).@ I- .q]. There is another very useful derived rule, which is essentially the contrapositive of rule A4.
I From a strict point of view. (Vx)./J(x) I- .11(/} states a fact Rule ;\4 should he taken to mean that, if (V.r)./J(.r) occurs ~IS a may write .!J9(t) as a later step (if 1 is free for .v in .!J9(,)). ;\s III this xt atc a dcrrvcd rule' in the form or the eorn:spondin!-! dcrivabilitv the rule

Conjunction introduction: .:~, rfj I- ;~ 1\ q/ I )isjunction elimination: :3fJ V (G', --,88 I- ((/ !!8 V (fj, ~(fj I- .@ -r-t (@ V (f:) I- --,.@ 1\ ~(fj) 88 =? (j), (fj =? .rJ), !?Ii V (f: 1-rJ)
I risjunction

introduction: elimination:

.'il I- .@ V (fj I- 38 V
.@ =?

(e

( 'onditional

gj =?

~18 =? (e, ~~ I- .q] ~.o/J =? --,(t!f, C(j I- gj

--,re, re I- ~.@
~)

(e,~(e I-

re

~.'il

step in a proof. we case. we shall often result t h.it IlIstllil's

about

dcrivability,

~(.'.?8 =?
~(!.:8 Conditioual ('Illiditional introduction:
contrupositivc:

I- ;JjJ
l: ~~
=?
c}

=? (fj)

.11. ~((, I- ~(.fIJ ./J > ((. 1 /(.

(ti) -,./J

78

QlIANTIFIC/\TION

THEORY

ADDITIONAL

MI:.TATHEOREMS

I\~f)

DERIVI::'D

Rl II~S

79

-"((, ~ Hiconditionul ciilllill:ltlon:YJ

¢=}

,.!Jl f- .!Jl;. f1(,

'(, .YJ ~c} 'r., ~.!Jl f-"'('

'(',!J]

Proof
.!Jl

Biconditional Bicundiriona!

_Jjl ¢=} ((, r- .}IJ ~ '(, !fj ¢=> ((, f- ((, introduction:.Y1 => ((,. ((, =>YJ f- .!Jl ¢=.> '(, .!Jl ¢=> ((, f--,!Jl ¢-_;, ~'(, negation: ~.!Jl ¢-'? ~((, f-fIJ ¢=> '(,

=>

I. (\-Ix) (.!Jl <=> ((, ) ') (Vx)!Jl 3. _j!J ¢=> ((,

4.!Jl 5. ((,

Hyp
Hyp I. rule 1\4 2. rule A4 3.4. biconditional

elimination

Proof by contradiction: If a proof of F. -,.!Jl 1- ((, /\ -if, involves tion of Gcn using a variable free in .!Jl, then F f- .fIJ. (Similarly. r 1- -,!Jl from r..!Jl ~- ((, /\ ~((,'.)

no applicaone obtains

Exercises 2.30 2.31

(a)

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 1 I.

(\;Ix)"(;

(lix)(!Jl {=} (Vx)!Jl f- (lix)'(; (lix)(.!Jl <=-} ((,) f- (Vx).fIJ => (lix)'(, (lix)(.fIJ {=} (e) f- (Vx)((' => (Vx).~ (lix)( ..!Jl ¢=} (el f- (lix).18 {=} (lix)'e f- (Vx)(~ {=} 'In => ((Vx ).!Jl {=} (liX)'0)

n.

5, Gcn
1- 6 1-7, Corollary 2.h Proof like that of 8 X. 9. Bioconditional introduction I 10. Corollary 2.6

Justify the derived rules listed above. Prove the following. l 1 f1(lix)(liv)AT(.cr) => (lix)AT(x.x) [(lix).!J]] V [(lix)(e] => (lix)( ..A V (d) ~(:Jx).iI =;. (lix)~.fIJ (lix)!Jl => (lix)(.!Jl V ((,)

PROPOSITION

2.9

(b) (c) (d)

(e)

(f)
(g)

~ (lix)(lir)(AT(x.F) =? -,AT(I',x)) =---} (lix)-vlT(Y,x) f- [(3x)!Jl> (lir)'(, => (lir)(.fIJ => ((,) l- (lix)(.fIJ V ((,) => [(lix).YJ] V (:3X)'('

If ((, is a subformula of .14, .fIJ' is the result of replacing zero currences of(d in.!J] hy a wI":!'. and every free varia hie 01"(, or :1 hound varia ble of :fIJ occurs in the list YI , .... y" then: ru)
(h)
(c )

sr

or more octhat is also

(h) (i) (j) (k) (I)

f- (lix)(Af(x.x)

=? (=jF)AT(x.y))
(f,) =?

l- l(VYI) ... (1i),,)(,0' ¢=> C!')] => (18 ¢=} 3d') (Equivalence Iff- {(j ¢.} a, then l- 38 ¢=} :.!Jl' (Replacement theorem) If f- ((; {=} ry and fthen f- .18'

theorem)

».

1- (lix) (.18 =>

f(lix)~((,

=?

(lix)~.18]
/-.'Hlmple 1:1)

f- (3y)[A:(y) => (Vy)A:Cv)) f- (lix ).:8 => (lix) (:fIJ V (t)

l- [(lix)(liy)(r!Jl(x,y) => :?8(y, x)) /\ (lix)(liy)(liz)(J8(x,y)/\ 21J(y,z) => (18(x,z))] => (lix)(liy)(28(x,y) ~ @(x,x)). 2.32 Assume that :dJ and {e are wfs and that x is not free in 28. Prove following. (a) f-:~=> (lix).qa (b) f-:-11 => (3x);'-iJ (c) f- (.qa => (lirye) {=} (lix)(@=> (e) (d) f- ((3x)re => 21) {=} (lixW& => :YJ)

f- (Vx)(A:(x)

q (A1(x))

=>

[(3x)A:Cr)

{=}

(3x) Ai(x)]

the

Proof
Lt)

We need a derived rule that will allow us to replace a part 'e of a wf:14 by a wf that is provably equivalent to 'e. For this purpose, we first must prove the following auxiliary result.

1.1-::\1!\'1,\ 2.M

I'll! .mv wi,

tI

.uul

't"

(VI )(!J]

.: ;. 'f.)

;. (( VI) tI < ;. (V\ )'t. )

We use induction on the number of connectives and quantifiers in :14. '\J,lte that, if zero occurrences are replaced, .J8' is ;14 and the wf to be proved I' .m instance of the tautology A => (B {=} B). Note also that, if'e is identical 1\ ith!Jl and this occurrence of 'e is replaced by t?IJ, the wf to be proved, i'ir (liYkW6'q'l))] => (:J1{=};qa'), is derivable by Exercise 2.27(d), ihus, we may assume that (If is a proper part of ;J8 and that at least one "l'l'lIlTenCe of (& is replaced. Our inductive hypothesis is that the result holds 1"1 all wfs with fewer connectives and quantifiers than :?II. ('I/.\'(' I .. !Jl is an atomic wf. Then C(,' cannot be a proper part of :]B. ('1/.\(' l .. !Jl is Let .18' be ~0u'. By inductive hypothesis, l- [(liYl)'" (VYk) t. -:~. '/)1 c> (n {=} n'). Hence, by a suitable instance of the tautology I( ;. (ll <> Il))> (C .c} (~A {=} ~R)) and MP, we obtain f- [(liyd __ . (livd ,t, .: > Ij) 1 > (,!J] < > .!J]I).
l) •••

~n.

so

()l;;\NTIFICATION

TIIFORY

RLLI

('
(i)

SI

('1/.1'(' 3 .. :JJ IS ,~ => .:/. Let .:JJ' he /;'_> .r', By inductive [(Vlj) ... ('\Ild(,(, 0 '/)l => (I; {=? /i') and r ((VI'I).,. (Y1d((t: < > ;F'). lJsing a suitable instance of the tautology

hypothesis.
¢=>

(h)

,/)j

.c;,

(T

Show that the duality bitrary theories,

results

of part (a).

(iii). do not hold for a r-

(I WL

;. (8,~

C)) /\ (A => (D ¢c> E))

¢=>

~'(I

[Iii

-; D)

<c;' (e

=> c')!)

obtain

[('\I_I'IJ .. , ('\Iy.)('(,

'/')1

=>

(.:JJ {~>:JJ').

2.6

RULE C

CII,Il' 4 .. YJ is (Yx)o. Let '11' he ('\Ix)/i', By inductive hypothesis. 1(''7'1'1) ... (\;IYkl('t: ¢=> (/)1 => (n ¢=> ,!i'), Now, .I docs not occur free in (V\'j) ... ('\Iyd('t: ¢=> 9) because, if it did. it would be free in 't: or c~ and, since it is bound in ;'11, it would be one OfYI., .. '.n and it would not be free in ('\IYI)'" CV)'k WI: {=? C/), Hence, using axiom (AS). we obtain ~ (\;IYI) . , , (Vl'k)('f, {=? '-/) => (\-Ix)(/! {=? 0'), However. by Lemma 2.<". 1- (V1')(t1 <'=) 0') => (('\Ix)0' <=> (Vx)0'), Then. by a suitable tautology and MP. f-- [(VYI) ". (\-IYkWt: ¢=> 9)] => (;14 {=? .;&'), (b) From f-- (If {=? V. by several applications of Gen. we obtain l- (VYI)," ('1yd('(' ¢=> '2), Then. by (a) and MP. f--;& {=? .YJl (c) Use part (b) and biconditional elimination.
1

It is very common in mathematics to reason in the following way. Assume that we have proved a wf of the form (=:ix).YJ(x). Then we say. let b be an object such that ;fIl(h), We continue the proof. finally arriving at a formula that does not involve the arbitrarily chosen element b. For example. let us say that we wish to show that (3x)(.YJ(x) => (f,(x)). (\;Ix);&(x) l- (3.\)'&(x).
I, C3x)(.:4(x) ., ('1x)d1(x) .;'/J(b)

=> 't:(x))
b

Hyp Hyp
I 2. rule A4

=> (t: (h) for some

-I.!4(b)
\ 'r:(b)
fl.

Exercises
2.33 Prove the following: (a) f-- (3x),,;& <=) ,(V.\).;& (b) ~ (Vx).YJ {=? -.(3x)-..;& (c) f-- (:J.x) (..%9 =} ,('f, V tj;)) => (3x)(.'XI => ,0!\ (d) f-- (Vx)(3y)(;;$ => (If) {=? (Vx)(3y)( •. ?lJ V (0) (e) l: ('1x)(;J8 => ,(6') ¢=> ,(3x)(.:38!\ (6) 2.34

(3x)'6'(x)

3.4. MP 5. rule E4 basis, In fact, choice of an

Such a proof seems to be perfectly legitimate on an intuitive we can achieve the same result without making an arbitrary clement b as in step 3. This can be done as follows: ,'l)
I, ('1x).~(x) :2, ('1.\),((/(x)
I.. >1(x)

Show by a counterexample that we cannot omit the quantifiers ('1YI)." (Vyd in Proposition 2,9(a), 2.35 If ri is obtained from !$ by erasing all quantifiers ('1x) or (3x) whose scope does not contain x free, prove that f-- ;:38 ¢=> ri. 2.36 For each wf;Jjj below, find a wf (t' such that f-- ((/ ¢=> -..;1] and negation signs in (Ii apply only to atomic wfs. (a) ('1x)('1v)(=Jz)A;(x,y,z) (h) (VI:)(I: > 0 => Cj())(b > O!\ ('1x)(lx - c[ < b => [f(x) -/(c)1 < 1:)) (l) (VI:)(I: () ~ (=In)(Vm)(1Il > n => lam - b[ < £)) 2 •.17 l.et.YJ be a wI' that does not contain => and ¢=>, Exchange universal and existential quantifiers and exchange!\ and V. The resulte" is called the
tllIlI/(lfYJ.

-I. ,(6 (x)

~. -,(:;&(x) => ((/(x)) (,. (Vx),(.2&(x) => (t(x)) 7. (Vx)g8(x), ('1x)-.((/(x) f-('1x),(.2&(x) => (6'(x)) x. (Vx)M(x) f-- (Vx)-.~(x) .c? ('1x)-.(28(x) => (6'(x)) 'I. (V.\').18(x) f-- -.('1x)-,(14(x) > '&(x)) => -,(Vx)-.(6'(x) il) ('1x).YJ(x) ~- (ix)(,%'(x) => '(,(.1')) => (3x)'t!J(x)
II (1.1')(.$(x) => ((,(x)), (Vx)YJ(x) f- (3xW:(x)

Hyp Hyp I. rule A4 2. rule A4 3,4, conditional 5, Gen

introduction

1-6
1-7, corollary 8, contrapositive Abbreviation 10, MP of 9 2,6

t;a)

In
(I) (II)

;111\

I
j

prl'dll'atl' calculus, '" 11 ;ll\d (lilly If I

if if::, :ill{

prove the following,

-r.

(III) I (1\)
I

.,J/' .md only if I 'f, '> ,YJ', 'f, If alld "Illy if I ,YJ' < > -r.: tI \ 'f,) n ,(I 11).If) V ( h)'f,1 I/lilll
If

li'l'

hl'll'l\l'

2.27(l').1

III general. any wf that can be proved using a finite number of arbitrary ,lllllces can also be proved without such acts of choice. We shall call the rule ih.u permits LIS to go from C:Jx).;&(.r) to .YJ(/J). rille C (,C for 'choice'). More precisely. a rule (' deduction in a first-order theory K is defined in the

Qll;\NTII-ICATION

THEORY
I." '. '/"

RULE

X.I

rollowing manner: such that o; is/J

r r-c ./J if and only if there is ~I sequence or wls (/ and the following four conditions hold:

Proof

(h) {_/i is in r. or (c) 'Ii follows hy MP or Gen from preceding wfs in the sequence. or (d) there is a preceding wf (3x),(, (x) such tha t (/( is '(, (eI). where d is a new individual constant (rule C). 2. As axioms in condition I(a), we also call use all logical axioms that involve the new individual constants already introduced in the sequence by applications of rule C. 3. No application of Gen is made using a variable that is free in some (3x)<('(x) to which rule C has been previously applied. 4 .. li contains none of the new individual constants introduced in the sequence in any application of rule C. A word should be said about the reason for including condition 3. If an application of rule C to a wf (_3x)((i(x) yields {(;(d). then the object referred to by d may depend on the values of the free variables in (]r),(, (x). So that one object may not satisfy «(,(x) for (/1/ values of the free variables in (3x),(;(x). For example. without clause J. we could proceed as follows:
I. ('v'x)(3y)Ai(x 2. (3Y)AT(x.V) 3. At(x.d)

I. For each i II. either (a) 'r, is all axiom of K. or

Let (3l'IJ'(, I (1'1) ..... C=J)iJ«('k(_vd be the wI's in order of occurrence to which rule C is applied in the proof of r r-c ./J, and let ell d" be the corresponding new individual constants. Then F. 'r, I (ell) «('ddd f- .li. Now. by condition J of the definition above, Corollary 2.6 is applicable, yielding r. «(, 1(eli) ..... ((,k I (Ih I) r- «('ddd =>$. We replace ii, everywhere by a variable: that does not occur in the proof. Then and, by Gen.
r.'(,I(dl) ..... '(;k I(d, I) 1- (V~)('(,d~» .1/)

Hence, by Exercise But. Hence, hy MP,

2.32(d),
r.'(,I(d.) ..... '(,k

del, ill

Ill',)'f.dld

./J

I", '(, I(dl), ....

'("

delk

l)f-·$

. .I')

4. ('v'x)AT(X, d) 5. (:3y)('v'x)AT(x,y)

Hyp I. rule A4 2. rule C 3. Gen 4, rule E4

Repeating the other. l. vaniple ('v'x)(38(x)

this argument. we can eliminate finally obtaining r r- .q&.

({;k-l

(dk

1) •...•

«(;1(til)

one after

=> (&(x)) => ((=Jx):!a(x) => (3x)!if(x))

Hyp
Hyp

However, there is an interpretation for which ('v'x)(3y)Ar(x,y) is true but (3y)('v'x)AT(X.Y) is false. Take the domain to be the set of integers and let AT(x.y) mean that x < y.

PROPOSITION

2.10

If r r-c fJJ. then I" l- .09. Moreover, from the following proof it is easy to verify that, if there is an application of Gen in the new proof of :$ from r using a certain variable and applied to a wf depending upon a certain wf of r. then there was such an application of Gen in the original proof.'

I. (\fx)(Mx) => (e(x)) , (3x).::8(x) I.$(d) -I.$(d) => '6 (d) \ ((,(d) I, (=J.x)'6(x) 7. ('v'x)(:$(x) => (e(x)), (3x).qa(x) r-c (3x)(6(x) :\. (\fx)(Jd(x) => (6(x)), (3x).qa(x) r- (3x)<e(x) 'I. (\fx)(:$(x) => 0'(x)) r- (3x)S8(x) => (:3x)(C(x) III. I ('v'x)(:!d(x) => (e(x)) => ((3x)YJ(x) => (3x)'f:f'(x)) lvercises

2, rule C I. rule A4 3,4, MP 5, rule E4 1-6 7, Proposition 2.10 I - S, corollary 2.6 I - 9, corollary 2.6

1
, lhc 111',1 l"n11I1I;1II1>"

'l'

rule C and Proposition

( Ir).:&(x) ~ «(,(x))
,( h·)(Vr)(AT(r.r)

2.10 to prove Exercises

=?

2.38-2.45.

,,1';1 vcrxion

"I' rille

(.

vnnil.u

II>

rh.u ).:1""" here

,,'CIl1,

III

(('v'x).:&(x)
,AT(x.r))

=> (3x)«(,'(x))

I",' dill' II> I{"''''I

II

I)~

1)

<>

X4
2.40
~'>

Ql;.\:--.J rlFle;\ TION

ru lORY
(.1) ~

COMPLETENESS

THFOREMS

(VI)(A:

(I) ~~. ,I~(I)V

/\.I\(x))

A l(I))

/\ -,(VI)(A:

A~(I))j
-

LEM;VIA 2.11
If 16'(x, land Proof (7'x,)0'(x,) ~·YJ(II) by axiom (A4). Then. by Gen. 1- (7'x,) ((7'x,) 11(.1',) >0'(-',)). and so. by axiom (AS) and MP. 1- (7'I,)0'(X,) => ('ifx/):1(x/) Similarly, f- (7'.\).I6'(Xi) ~. ('ifx,) 11(x;). Hence. 0)' biconditional introduction. ('ifx,) 16'(.1',) <=> (7'xi)YJ(x/). E.xcrcises 2.47 If.;1(x,) and .:d(Xj) are similar. prove that
<.;' (3-,,/):1(.1'/). to .16'( .1'). (V\).YJ(x) is a one or more occurrences of
1

\~b)(A:(I)

2.41 2.42 2.43 2.44 2.45 2.46

···13x)11(I)] /\(\/\)'((1)1'* (::JX)(YJ(I) /\«((r)) c- (3\")«(, (x) ~. (3\)(0'(x) V «(,(x)) f (31)(3\)0'(1 ..,') .;=> (3\')(3.1')0'(\.\') f· (=Jx)(VI')0'(x.y) ~~. (V\·)(3x).0'(X.F) f· (3x)(.0'(x) /\ «(,(x)).~ ((3x).11(x));\ (31)'(,(1') What is wrong with the following alleged derivations? (a) I. (Clx).0'(x) Hyp 2 .. 0'(d) I. rule C 3. (=1x)(f;(x) Hyp 4. «(, (eI) 3. rule C S.YJ(d) /\ «(;(11) 2.4. conjunction introduction 6. (3x)('!6'(x);\ «(;(x)) 5. rule E4 7. (:3.x}YJ(x). (:3.1')'(; (x) r- (3x)(.0'(x) r: (((x)) 1-6. Proposition 2.10 Hyp (0) I. (3\)(0'(.1') '* «(;(x)) Hyp 2. (:=Jx).YJ(x) 3 .. YJ(d) ~" «(. (d) I. rule C 4. A(d) 2. rule C
5. ((.(d)

.11(x,)

are similar.

then l- (7'x,) 11(x,)

<=> (7'.\'/)11(.1',).

(Jr,) 11(1',)

2.48

Change o]' bound variables. If .11(.1') is similar

«(;'.

<ubforrnula 01'«(;. and ,(,' is the result of replacing ,/1')0'(.1') in «(; by ('ify) 0'( v). prove that l- ((; <=>

lEMMA

2,12

J. 4. MP
5. rule 1:-:4
'(.(1)). II ;1 closed wf -..16' of a theory K is not provable in K, and if K' is the theory "illained from K by adding.1J as a new axiom, then K' is consistent.

6. Ch)'f.(.Il 7. (3.\)(11(1); (3x).0'(x) f-

C1X )'(

(.1)

I 6. Proposition

2.10
Proof

2.7

COMPLETENESS

THEOREMS

We intend to show that the theorems of a first-order predicate calculus K are precisely the same as the logically valid wfs ofK. Half of this result was proved in Proposition 2.2. The other half will follow from a much more general proposition established later. First we must prove a few preliminary lemmas. If x, and Xj are distinct, then M(x;) and $(Xj) are said to be similar if and only if Xi is free for X; in :18 (r, ) and .09 (x, ) has no free occurrences of Xi' It is assumed here that ·.JB(Xj) arises from14(x,) by substituting Xj for all free occurrences of X;. It is easy to see that, if $(x;) and .0.8 (xi ) are similar, then X, is free for Xi in ,:;@(Xj) and 21(xi) has no free occurrences of X;. Thus. if .16'(x,) and /JJ(xi) are similar, then ,ga(Xj) and M(x;) are similar. Intuitively .. 0'(x;) and .16'(x/) are similar if and only if .:d(x;) and M(x i) are the same except tha t .0'(x,) has free occurrences of x, in exactly those places where ·0'(.\'1) has free llCClIlTL'JlCeSof .r 1 F \ (/11//,/,'
(VIIl! .:lj'(II.II) V.-I:ill)

Now. of MP. f. .0'. Now, any Lise of;J1J as an axiom in a proof in K' can be regarded as , 11\pothesis in a proof in K. Hence.:M f-K Since ;!Ii is closed, we have l-, J] c;, -,.16' by Corollary 2.7. However, by Proposition 2.1. l-, I 11 .;. -,16') =? -.21). Therefore, by MP, f-K -/;J1J, contradicting our hy-,«(,.
f,

\"lIll1e

K' inconsistent.

Then.

for some

'f, =? (-,«(;' =?

-.;;:iJ) by Proposition

wf '{" f-K, «(. and r-K' 2.1. So. by two applications

-:».

I" dlJl'si s.

!.~I) If a closed wf:!IJ of a theory K is not provable in K, and if K' is the I,," '1\ obtained from K by adding -..91 as a new axiom, then K' is consistent.

I '·.\I\IA

2.13

;lJ1d (VvI)[.'li(I.,.\I)V:I:(,:i.

are suiul.u'

II Ill'

I Ill' '>L'tof expressions or a language .!I' is denumerable. Hence. the same is Ill' the set of terms. the set of wls and the set of closed wfs.

X6 Pronf

QIJ/\NTII-ICATION

ruronv
Proof

COMf'LFITNLSS

THFORHvlS

X7

hrsl

assign

a distinct

!I(() = 3. !I()) = 5. IJ+'!)k.lj(a!.l=7rXk.

Then. to an where Pi is number of the order of merable Ifwe can effectively tell whether any given symbol is ~Isymbol of .'f. then this enumeration can he effectively carried out. and. In addition. we can effectively decide whether any given number is the number or an expression of i/', The S<1I11Colds true for terms, wfs and closed wfs. I I' a theory K in h the language Y} is axiomatic, that is, if we can effectively decide whether any given wf is an axiom of K. then we can effectively enumerate the theorems of K in the following manner. Starting with a list consisting of the first axiom of K in the enumeration just specified. add to the list all the direct consequences of this axiom hy MP and by Gen used only once and with XI as quantified variable. Add the second axiom to this new list and write a II new direct conscq ucnccs hy M P and Gcn or the wfs in this a ugmcntcd list. with Gcn used only l1l1CCand with XI and Xc as quantified variables. Irat the klh step we add the kth axiom and apply MP and Gen to the wfs in the new list (with (Jell applied only once for each of the variables Xi •.... xd, we eventually obtain in this manner all theorems or K. However. in contradistinction to the case of expressions, terms, wfs and closed wfs, it turns out that there are axiomatic theories K for which we cannot tell in advance whether any given wf of K will eventually appear in the list of theorems.

;I:

positive integer (/(II) to each symbol u as follows: = 7, I/(~) ~c 9. 1/(;') = II. .'1(\;/) = 13, (/(.rd-c !IUf') = I+X(2"JA). .md !I(AA')=3+X(2"J') . .' expression "OUI ... u, aSSOCI<lte t I num I - . "_, .... (>,1)1".1 1C )er J'lill 10'1(11' I the jth prime number, starting with /10.-=0 2. (Example: the (xc) is 2'1 J'S2Y7.\.) We can enumerate all expressions in their associated numbers: so. the sct or expressions is denuif(.)

l.etYlI . .Y12 . be <Ill cnurncrution or all closed \vl's or the language or K, by Lemma 2.13. Deline a seq lienee Jo. J I. J 2, , .. or theories In the following way. .II) is K. Assume J" is defined. with I1?oO If it is not (lie case that I-J"-"Yl,, I I. then let JII! I be obtained from In hy <loding;!]", I as u n additional axiom. On :he other hand. if !--J" -'.;!]" , I. let .In' I =-' J Let .I be the theory obtained hy laking as axioms all the axioms or all the J,». Clearly . .I, I is an extension of I:. and J is an extension of all the .l.s including L, K To show that J is consistent. it suffices to prove that every J. is consistent because a proof of a contradiction in J, involving as it does only ~I finite number of axioms, is also d proof of a con tradition in some J" We prove the consistency of the Ls, by Induction. By hypothesis, Jo = K is consistent. Assume that J, is consistent. I r .I" I = .l., then J, i I is consistent. If .I, cf J, I. and therefore. oy the definirion O(J'O'I.--.·/(1,+1 is not provable in .l., then. oy LL'Il1I)l~1 2.1:2. J.. I is also consistent. So. we have proved that all the .J,' arc cousrstcnt .md. therefore. ih.u J is consistent. To prove the completeness or J. let «(, be any closed wf of K. Then «(, = .111 I fer somej ~ O. Now. either 1-.1, ~.Yl j I 1 or 1-.1, ,:Ilj, i; I. since. II' It is not the case [hat 1-.1, --.·Ylj'l, thenYl;; I is added as an axiom in .1;11. I hcrefore, either 1-) ~';!]i+1 or I-JYl1+1· Thus. J is complete. Note that even if one can effectively determine whether any wf is an .1"lom of K, it may not he possible to do the same with (or even to cnuuicratc effectively) the axioms of J; that is, J may not he axiomatic even if K I'. Fhis is due to [he possibility of not being able to determine, at each step, II hcihcr or not ~.'lJ1I1 I is provable in .III'
/I'

I· verciscs

DEFINITIONS
(i)

Show [hat a theory K is complete if and only if. for any closed wls ;!] Illd '(, of K, if I-K :iJ vie, then f-K 'Yl or I-K If- . .! :;(11) Prove that every consistent decidable theory has a consistent, decid.;llk. complete extension.
.!.-t()

(ii)

A theory K is said to be complete if, for every closed wf :Jg of K, either I- K .14 or I-K --..'14. A theory K' is said to be an extension of a theory K if every theorem of K is a theorem of K'. (We also say in such a case that K is a subtheory of K'.)

IHHNITIONS without variables, K is a scapegoat Theory if, for any wf .18(x) that has x as its only tree variable. there is a dosed term t such that \ theory
f--K (3x) ~.J&(x) I 1\1\1,\ 2.15 \ closcc! term is a term

'*

~g.g(1)

PROPOSITION If K i\
;I

2.14 (L1NnF.NBAlIM'S t hcory. then

1here

LF.MMA) is "
COIlSlslellt. l'lllllpl\.'lc

CllllSlst\.'lIl

extension

1\

"I K

l'l\ consistent theory K has a consistent extension K' such that ",II'L'!-~pat thL'pry and K' cont.uns dcnumcrubly many dosed terms.

K( is a

<)t ;;\"JTIfICATION

TfllORY

COMPLL1TNf'SS LEMiVIA 2.16

1111 ()Rf\lS

Proof'

;\dd to the symbols or K a denumerable set {hl.h, .... } 01" new individual const.rms (',111 this new theory Kf). Its axioms are those of K plus those logical axioms that involve the symbols of K and the new constants. Kf) is consistent. Ior. II" not. there is a proof in Kf) of ,I wl"YJ!\ ~jJ. Replace each hi appearing in this proof hy a varia hie that docs not appear in the proof. This transforms axioms into axioms and preserves the correctness of the applications of the rules of inference. The final wf in the proof is still a contradiction. hut now the proof does not involve any of the h,s ami therefore is a proof in K. This contradicts the consistency of K. l-Ienee. Ko is consistent. By Lemma 2.U.let FI(x'I)' Fc(.r,,) ..... Fi.(x,J ... he an enumeration of all wfs of Ko that have one free variable. Choose a sequence hi,. hi: .... of some of the new individual constants such that each hi, is not contained ill any of the wfs FI (XII)" ... hi. (Xi,) and such that biz is different from each of h;" .... hi, r Consider the wf

Let J he a consistent. complete scapegoat thcorv whose domain is [he set n of closed terms o lJ.

Then

h<ls a

model

Proof lor any individual const.mt a, or J. let (a, )~I - a, I PI .In\ function letter f" J and for any closed terms 11 .... 1" of .I. let Iii ,\1(11" .. 1,,): //'(/1", .. 1,,). (Notice that//'(/I .... 1,,) is a closed term. IkIIL·e. (/nM is an II-ary operation on D.) For any predicate leiter A;' olJ. let II;' )\1 consist of ;"1 II-tuples (il.· ... 1,,) of closed terms II ..... 1" or .I such that : J 141'(/1 ....• 11/). It now suffices to show that. for any closed wl"'(, olJ:
of (0)

\1

'f,

if .md onl , 11'

i.1

'f,

Let K" be the theory obtained by addJJ1g (SI) ..... (S,,) to the axioms of KII• he the theory obtained by adding. all the (S,)s as axioms to Ko. Any proof in K, comuins only a finite number of the (S,)S and. therefore. will also he a proof in some KI/' Hence. if all the Kns are consistent. so is K x.' To demonstrate that all the Kns are consistent, proceed hy induction. We know that Ko is consistent. Assume that K, I is consistent hut that KII is inconsistent (/1): I). Then. as we know. any wf is provable in K" (by the tautology -,A q (A =} B). Proposition 2.1 and MP). In particular. I--K"--.(S,,). Hence, (SII) I--K" I --.(SI/)' Since (S,,) is closed. we have, hy Corollary 2.7. I--K", (S,,) =} ~(S,,). But, by the tautology (A =} ~A) =} ~A, Proposition 2.1 and MP. we then have I--K, I --.(S,,); that is, I--K" I ~[(-lr,J~F,,(X,J =} ~F,,(bdl· Now, by conditional elimination. we obtain I--K" I (3xi,,)--.F,,(Xi,,) and I--K", ~~F,,(hj,,), and then. by negation elimination. I-- K1F,,(bjJ. From the latter and the fact that bj" does not occur in (So) •... , (S" I). we conclude I--K,,_,F,,(X,.), where X,. is a variable that does not occur in the proof of F" (bj,,). (Sim ply replace in the proof a 11 occurrences of b;" hy xr.) By Gen, I--K,_I (Vxr) F,,(xr), and then, by Lemma 2.11 and biconditional elimination, I--K" I (Vx,")F,,(x;J. (We use the fact that I';,(x,) and F,,(x;,,) are similar.) But we already have I--K, I (3x,,,)~F,,(X,J. which is an abbreviation Ofl--K" I -{v'x,,,)~--.F,,(x,J. whence. hy the replacement theorem. I--K" I ~(\fx",)F,,(x,J, contradicting the hypothesis that K" I is consistent. Hence. K" must also be consistent. Thus K, is consistent. it is all extension of K. and it is clearly it scapegoat theory.
.md let K,

(I f this is estahlished and !lJ is any axiom 01'.1. lei «(, he the closure of:!]. By (;el1.I--J «(;. By (0). FM ((;. By (VI) on page ('l. F\:1 .YJ. Hence. M would he it model of .I.) The proof of (0) is by induction on the number ,. of conucctives and quantifiers in «(;. Assume that ([]) holds for all closeu wfs with Il'\\er than r connectives and quantifiers. Case I. «(, is a closed atomic wrA;'(II ..... I,,). Then (0) is a direct con,'ljllCnCe of the definition of (A;')~I. Cas« 2. (f, is --.9. If «(, is true for M, then v is false for M and so. by 1I11111etive hypothesis. not-f-.1 9. Since J is complete and .'/. is closed, 1-.1~(/ /11;11is. f--J (f,. Conversely. if«(; is 110t true for M. 111l'1l (/ is true for M. Hence. I r, Since J is consistent, 110t-l--.1='>, that is. not-l- J 'r.. Cas« 3. «(/is 9 =} If. Since e(;' is closed. so are (/ und (L 11"«('is tulsc for M. Ilicll '/ is true and 6 is false. Hence. by inductive hypothesis. 1.1 (/ and notI /, By the completeness of .I. I--J ~I;. Therefore. oy an instance of the i.lllllllogy D =} (~E '-? --.(D =} E)) and two applications of MP, ('/ =} 8), that is. I-- ~'(/, and so, by the consistency J of .I, not-l--.1 (e. ( »uvcrscly, if nOI-I--J (g, then. by the completeness of J. 1--.1 (&. that is. ~ ,1'/ => 1,). By conditional elimination, 1--.I.'Yi nd I--J ~If(. Hence. by (0) a I" I / , (/ is true for M. By the consistency of J. not-l--.1 I, and. therefore, by I rllr!;. (~ is false for M. Thus. since '?J is true for M and If is false for M, ( "raise for M. (',/\(' 4. «(, is (Vxm)9. (I/.It' 4u. (/ is a closed wf. By inductive hypothesis, FM Q if and only " I '/. By Exercise 2.:l2(a). f-J (j) -(=} (\fxm)~' SO, I--J i?/) if and onlv if I 1':1", )'/. by biconditional elimination. Moreover. FM 0: if and only Ii \I (Vr",)(/ by property (VI) on page 61. Hence. FM {(j if and only if
I

f. ( "/'t'

v.u r.rblc,

·11>. '/ is not a dosed wf. Since '(, is closed. suy '/ is /-'( I,,,) lhcu 'f, is (VI", )/-'( I",)

(/ has

I'm

as its only free

QUANTIFICATION

rnronv
COROLLARY

COMPLFTENESS

THEOREMS

(i)

Assume ~=M 1(, and not-f-J If,. By the completeness 01' J. f--,1 -,'(,. that is. I J -{\7'x",)F(x",). Then. by Exercise 2.33(a) and biconditional climination, 'C-J (=Jx",j-,F(x",). Since J is a scapegoat theory. f-J ---.F(I) for some closed term I of J. But FM 1(,. tha t IS. f~'1 (vx", )F(xm). Since (vx",)F(x =;, F(/) is true for M by property (X) on page 63. FM F(/). lienee. by (0) for F(/). 1-.1 F(/). This contradicts the consistency of J. Thus, if FM '(,. then. f-J 1(,.
lII)

2.IH of K.

Any logically valid wl'.:1 of ,\ theory K is a theorem

Proof
We need consider only closed wfs ,:1, since a wf '/ is logically valid if and only if its closure is logically valid. anel (/ is provable in K if and only if its closure is provable in K. So. let .:'/1 be a logically valid closed wf of K. Assume that llot-I-K ,itJ. By Lemma 2.12. ifwe add ,:1 JS a I1l,;W aXIOm to K, tbe new theory K' is consistent. Hence. by Proposition 2.17, K' has a model 1\.1. Since ---.,j/) is an axiom of K',-.,:8 is true for M. Hut. sinccl1 is logically valid .. ;1 is true for M. Hence .. ;1 is both true and false lor M. which IS impossible (by (II) on page 61). Thus. ;/] must be a theorem \If K.

(ii)

Assume f-J ((, and not-f~~'1

(#)

1(,.

Thus.
110t-

f--J (VxlII)F(x",)(##)

hI

(Vx",lF(x",i·

Hy (##). some sequence of elements of the domain D docs not satisfy (vxlI/)F(x",). Hence. some sequence s does not satisfy F(x",). Let I bc the ith component of s. Notice that s'(u) = II for all closed terms /I of' J (by the definition of (aj)M and Ut)M). Observe also that F(/) has [ewer connectives and quantifiers than If; and. therefore. the inductive hypothesis applies to F(/), that is. (0) holds for F(/). Hence. by Lemma 2(a) on page 6.1. s does not satisfy F(/). So. F(/) is false for M. But. by (#) and rule 1\4, I-J F(/). and so. by (0) for (-'(/l. FM F(/). This contradiction shows that. If f-J 1(,. then
~~'M 1(,.

COROLLARY

2.19. (GODEL'S

COMPLETENESS

THEOREM,

1930)

In any predicate

calculus.

the theorems

are precisely the logically valid wfs.

Proof
proof runs along

Now we can prove the fundamental theorem of quantification theory. Hy a denumerahlc III0 del we mean a model in which the domain is denumerable.
PROPOSITION 2.171

Proposition 2.2 and Corollary 2.18. (Godel's original quite different lines. For other proofs, see Beth (1951). I >reben (1952). Hintikka ( 1955<1, b) and Rasiowa and Sikorski (1951; 1952).)
2.20

lhis follows

from

(OROLLARY

Every consistent

theory

K has a denumerable

model.

I l'l
1,1)

K be any theory.

Proof
By Lemma 2.15, K has a consistent extension K' such that K' is a scapegoat theory and has denumerably many closed terms. By Lindenbaum's lemma. K' has a consistent, complete extension 1 that has the same symbols at K'. Hence, 1 is also a scapegoat theory. By Lemma 2.16,1 has a model M whose domain is the denumerable set of closed terms of 1. Since .J is an extension of K, M is a denumerable model of K.

A wr.~ is true in every denumerable model of K if and only ir l-K Pd, If. in every model of K, every sequence that satisfies all wfs in a set r of wfs also satisfies a wf .Cf4, then r I-K :J1J. I, I I f a wf .58 of K is a logical consequence of a set r of wfs of K, then I' f-K ..0'. I d I I f a wf :.0' of K is a logical consequence of a wf (f,' of K, then "&. I-K /!i.
I h)

Proof
! .11

IThc

proof

given

here

is essentially

due

til Henkin
1

(11)4l»).

as <nuphficd

hy

Hasenjacgcr (195.1). The result was originally proved hy (;,idel (1Inl)) Other proofs have hccn puhlixhed hy Ra siow.t and Sikorski (1 )51, II)S~ I allli Iklh ( II)S II, lISln!(
(Book-an)
('''IIIHIIII

may assume .j/) is closed. If not-l-j, YJ, then the theory K '- K + {~.dJ} is consistent. t Hence, by Proposition 2.17, K' has a denumerable model M. However. ~:.0', being an axiom of K', is true for We
II K
IS

;dgl'hrail' and topological llillllkka I IIJ.SSa, h) and

methods. rcspccnvclv III Beth (I'JS(})

Sttilothl'l

prill''''

111;1\'

he

"hl,!llIl'd

[rom

a theory and !\ is a Sl't of wfs K hy addlll!( the wI', or i\ as

of K. then K axioms.

L\ denotes

the theory

92

()I .\!\;TIIIC\Ti()\:

nll-ORY

C()MI'UTlcNIcSS

THLORHvlS

9\

--=-

(b)

M. By hypothesis, <urce TVI i~ a dcnurncrublc model of K .. :11 is true for M. Thcrefore,:I1 is true and lulsc for M. which is impossible. Consider the theory K'- I' By the hypothesis .. :11 is true for every 1110dcl of' this theory. Hence. by (a), ~K 1:11. So, fi K!JJ·
Pu rt (c) is a consequence

Proof Let M he ~I model of K with domain [) or GII"lIII1:ility III. Let ll' be ~I ~et 01" cardinality 1\ that contains D. Extend the model M to all interpretation M' that has 0' as domain in the following way. Let c be a fixed clement of D. We stipulate that the elements of D' - D behave like, l-or cxampie. if 13'; is the interpretu iion in M of the predicate let tert',' .md (8';), is the new inicrpretation in M'. then for any d, .... .rl; in D'. ! 13':)' holds for (ell ..... til!) if and only if holds for (III, .... 111/), where II, d, II", () and II, c if d, E D' - D. The interpretation of the function lettcrs IS extended in an analogous way, and the individual constants have the sallie interpretations CIS in M. It is an easy exercise to show, by induction Oil the number of connectives and quantifiers in a wf.YJ, thatYl is true Illr M' If and (lilly if it is true for M. Hence, M' is a model of K 01' cmdinality II.

or (h), ,11lL! part (d) is a special case of (c).

Coroiluries 2.IX 2.20 show that the 'syntactical' approach to quantification theorv hv means of first-order theories is equivalent to the 'xcmuntical' appn<lch- through the notions of interpretations, 1110dl!Js, logical validity, and so 011. For the propositional calculus, Corollary 1.15 demonstrated the analogous equivalence between the semantical notion (tautology) and the syntacti~al notion (theorem of L). Notice also that. in the propositional calculus, the completeness of the system L (see Proposition 1.14) led to a solution of the decision problem. However. for first-order theories, we cannot obtain a decision procedure for logical validity or, equivalently, for provability in first-order predicate calculi. We shall prove this and related results in Section 3.6. COROLLARY

8;'

~C.

Exercises 2.51 For any theory K. if r I-K .j!) and each wf in f is true for a model M I)f K. show that:l1 is true for M. 252 I I' a wf ;!/J without quantifiers is provable in a predicate ca lcul LIS, prove i hnt .:11 is an instance of a tautology and, hence, by Proposition 2.1, has a proof without quantifiers using only axioms (A I) -(/\3) and M P. [Hil1l: if;YJ were not a tautology, one could construct an interpretation, having the set Ill" terms that occur in .;t) as its domain, for which /J) is not true. contradicting l'roposition 2.2.] Note that this implies the consistency of the predicate I:i/eulus and also provides a decision procedure for the provability of wfs 1\ n hout quantifiers. Z5J Show that f-K ,Yi if and only if there is a wf (6 that is the closure of the ,,)Illullction of some axioms of K such that (6' =};;ti is logically valid. Z5.t Compactness. If all finite subsets of the set of axioms of a theory K Il.lle models, prove that K has a model. .!.SS (a) For any wf 3d, prove that there is only a finite number of interpretations of .OJ on a given domain of finite cardinality k, (b) For any wf J1J, prove tha t there is an effective way of determining wherher zs is true for all interpretations with domain of some fixed cardinality k. (c) Let a wf.$ he called k-valid if it is true for all interpretations that have a domain of k elements. Call :1;1 precisely k-valid if it is k-valid but not (k + 1 )-valid. Show that (k + I )-validity implies k-validity and give an example of a wf that is precisely k-valid. (See Hilbert and Hcrnays (1934,}j 4 5) and Wajsberg (1933).) !.C;() Show that the following wf is true for all finite domains but is false 1,'1 vornc infinite domain.

2,21. (SKOLEM-L{)WfNHEIM
,I

THEOREM,

1920, 1915)

Any ihcorv t h.u h~I'

IlllHkl 11:1, a lkllllillerahle

model.

Proof
If K has a model. then K is consistent. since no wf can be both true and false for the same model M. Hence, by Proposition 2.17, K has a denumerable model. The following stronger consequence of Proposition 2.17 is derivable. COROLLARY For any cardinal cardinality 111. 2.22"' number
111 ~ ~I"

any consistent

theory

K has a model

of

Proof
By Proposition 2.17, we know that K has a denumerable it suffices to prove the following lemma.
LEMMA

model. Therefore,

If III and cardinality

II

arc two cardinal numbers such that III III. then K has a model of curdinuliry

<

11
II.

and if K hus u model of

94

QI.'i\"-JTIIICi\TION

IIiIORY

l-iKSI-ORDLR

TIHe()RIES

WITH

I:QI.;\LIT'r

Then
-c- I

il\1\ U;I

L'\)

('(IIIII/ilr) (/\6)

K is called ,I [nst-ordcv I!?C(lI'.1' with ('{IIIU/ili' if the following <lIT theorems of K:

).\1
~c?

(or simpl, '

11It'''/'r

1I'i11l

Prove that there is no theory K whose models ~II"L' exactly the interpretations with tinite domains. 2.5H Let ilj he any wf that contains no qu.uuificrs, function letters. or individual constants. (,I) Show tha t a closed prcnc: wf ('7\, ) ... (vx,,)( ::h, ) ... (::]1;" ).Yl. wit h 11/ :;: 0 and II:;: I. is logically valid if and only if it is true Ior every interpretation with a domain of II objects, (h) Prove that a closed prenex wf (3.1")' .. (3YIII).YJ is logically valid if and only if it is true for all interpretations with a domain or one clement. (c) Show that there is an effective procedure to determine the logical validity of all wfs or the forms given in (a) and (h). 2.59 Let K I and K2 he theories in the same language i/', Assume that any interpretation M of:P is a model of K, if and only if M is not a model of K2. Prove that K I and Kc are finitely uxiomatizable, that is. there are finite sets of sentences r and ~ such that. for any sentence 11. I--K, .YJ if and only if r I-- .11. and I--K' .11 if and only if ~ 1- .YJ. 2.60 A set r of sentences is called an independent axionuuization of a theory K if (a) ,!II sentences in r arc theorems or K, (h) r 1-11 for every theorem YJ or K, <111l1c) I'm every sentence 'f, or F. it is not the case that ( r ,-{'(,) 'f. '. Prove that every theory K has an independent axiomatizaI tion. 2.61" If. for some ca rdi na I III ? ~II. a wf .11 is t rue for every in terpreta tion of cardinality III. prove that ,11 is logically valid. 2.62" If a wl'.JIJ is true for all interpretations of cardinality III prove that .!/J is true for all interpretations of cardinality less than or equal to III. 2.63 (a) Prove that a theory K is a scapegoat theory if and only if, for any wf :dJ(x) with x as its only free variable. there is a closed term I such that f-K (1r).J8(x) :YJ(/). (b) Prove that a theory K is a scapegoat theory if and only if. for any wf :J8(x) with x as its only free variable such that f-K (3x)M(x), there is a closed term I such that f-K .JIJ(/). (c) Prove that no predicate calculus is a scapegoat theory. 257

('v'x,

= x,

(A 7) .v =)'

(f/J(x.x)

=> .YJ(X.F))

(reflexivity

(suhstitllli,ity

of equality) of equality)

where x and y arc any variables .. 11(x.x) is any \\1'. <lndA(x.),) arises from YJ(x,x) hy replacing some. hut not necessarily all. [rcc occurrences ofr bv J'. With the proviso that I' is free for .v in .11(.\.x). Thus. YJ(X.I·) mayor may 'not contain Iree occurrences 01'.\. The numhcring (A6) and (A 7) is a continuation or the numbering of the logical axioms.

PROPOSITION
In any theory
(;1) L

2,23

with equality,

I =I
=.\'

(h) (C'j

1- I I-- I

for any term I; s = I for any terms I and v; s =;- (.I' = r,,* I r) for any terms

"*

C~

1.. 1'

and r.

Proof
1.1)
I h)

"*

,,)

2.8

FIRST-ORDER THEORIES WITH EQUALITY

(A6). f- (vxil x, = XI. Hence. by rule A4. i- I = I. x and y he variables not occurring in lor s . Letting .JIJ(x, x) he X = X ,:1(x.y) he y = x in schema (A 7). f- x = y (x = x _II = x). But. (a). f- x = x. So, hy an instance of the tautology (A => (B e)) ~-';> (B,,* (A => e)) and two applications of MP. we have I-- x = v c> y = x. Two applications of Gen yield f- (vx)(vy)(x = y => Y = .r}, .md then two applications of rule A4 give l- I = s s = I. LeI x.y and z be three variables not occurring in t ,», or r. Letting YJ( y.v) be y = z and 14( y,x) he x = z in (A 7), with x and y interchunged, we obtain f- y = .r (y = z x = z). But. by (b). I .v = V => .I' = x. Hence, using an instance of the tautology 1.,1 c/ B) «(B e) (A e)) and two applications of MP, we obtain I-- x = y => (.I' = z x = z). By three applications of Gen, (Vr)(V\,)(vz)(x=y,,* (y=z,,*x=z)), and then, by three uses of rule 1\4. I-- I = .1' (s = r I = r). By Let and by

"*

"*

"*

"*

"*

"*

"*

"*

"*

"* "*

"*

"*

Let K be a theory that has as one of its predicate let ters AT. Let us write 1= s as an abbreviation for Af(/.s). and I i-.I' as an abbreviation forvli(t.s).
I Here. an expression ,., .yJ, without any '1Ilhnipt atLIL'lll'd til I . IIll';1111thai .!It i, dCI'I\,;Jhk from l lI,in): "111\ 11I):ll';1I a xion». th;lt II \\ rt hrn till' PIl'dll'alc' c.rkulu-;

I 't'n'j'l"

!.t~
!.h~

Show

',' ,\1 IS

that (1\6) and (1\ 7) arc true for any interpretation M in which the idcntitv relation 011 the domain of the interpretation. 1'1'1)\l' the followillg ill <Illy theory with equality. .

96

1_(a)
(h) I (\1\)1

()[!i\'-iTIIICAfI()N 0'(1) < >

14(1)
II') \

THLORY

FIRST-ORDLR

THFORIFS

WIHI

FC)UAI.I!)

)(x
(1/r)(1 l

=r A
c=

(\/1)( (If I) (
1.1 l'

~>
c.

.l' =/

.14(.\'))) if I' docs not occur in .14(.\) .0( 1'))) if" docs not occur in .14(\)

PROPOSITION

2.25 in which (A6) holds and the following arc true.

(c)
(1I)

Let K he a theory
(a)

(e) (1')

.~. (( v). where I' is any function letter of one argument 14(1) ;\ .v .1'> .14( v). if y is free for .r in .14(,) 0(.1') !\,.14( r) ~. .r 1- v, if y is free for .\ in 0(.1')
'.c;'

fiX)

We can reduce schema

(A 7) to a few simpler

cases.

Schema (A 7) holds for all atomic wl\:.1(.r..r) such that no function letters or individual constant, occur in .00(x.x) and .0'(.1'.1') comes from A(x ...) hy replacing exactly one occurrence of .v hI,' ." , (h) f-x=y=>.lj'(zl ..... zl/) =.1/'(\\'1 ..... 11'1/). where I;' is any function letter of K. 21 •...• ZI/ arc variables, and .1;'(11'1 .. lI,,) arises from I/(zl, ... ,ZII) by replacing exactly one occurrence of I' hy v. Then K is a theory
Proof

PROPOSITION

2.24

with equality.

Let K he a theory for which (A6) holds and (A 7) holds for all atomic wfs in which there arc no individual constants. Then K is a theory with equality. that is. (A7) holds for all wfs .";;j(x.x).
.0(x.x) Proof

We must prove (A 7) for ,111 wfs .0(x,x). It holds for atomic wfs by assumption. Note that we have the results of Proposition 2.23. since its proof used (A 7) only with atomic wls without individual constants. Note also that we have (A7) lor all atomic wi's .:.1(1.1). I'm if:.1(x.l) contains individual constants. we can replace those individual constants hy new variables, obtaining a wf ;;j'(x.x) without individual constants. By hypothesis. the corresponding instance of (A 7) with ;;j' (x,x) is a theorem: we can then apply Gen with respect to the new variables. and finally apply rule A4 one or more times to obtain (A7) with respect to (:.1(x, x). Proceeding by induction on the number /1 of connectives and quantifiers in M(x.x), we assume that (A7) holds for all k < /1, Case 1. ;~(x,x) is ~(e(x,x). By inductive hypothesis, we have f- y = x=? (6'(x,y) =? (§(x,x)), since (§(x,x) arises from (8(x,y) by replacing some occurrences of y by x. Hence, by Proposition 2.23(b), instances of the tautologies (A =? B) =? (~1d =? ~A) and (A =? B) =? ((B =? C) =? (A =? e)) and MP, we obtain f- x = Y =? (~(x,x) =? 18(x,y)). Case 2.. ";;j(x,x) is (6'(x,x) =?£?(x,x). By inductive hypothesis and Proposition 2.23(b), f- x = Y =? (§(x,y) =? (t?(x,x)) and f- x = Y =? (C/(x.x) =?£?(x,y)). Hence, by the tautology (A =? (CI =? C)) =? [(A =? (D =? DI)) =? (A =? ((C =? D) =} (CI =? DI)))], we have f- x = Y =? (.qa(x,x) =? ;:.1(x,y)). Case 3. ,qa(x,x) is (\1'zyG'(x,x,z), By inductive hypothesis. f- x = Y =* ((t(x.x,z) =} (t?(x,y,z)). Now, by Gen and axiom (A5). l- .r ~ ." =* (\1'zWt(x, x, z) =? 0(x. y. z)). By Exercise 2.27(a). l- (\1'2) (f(, (v, v, 2') > ((, (r. r. 2')) =* [(\1'z)'(,(X,X.2) =* (\1'z)(('(x,y.z)j. and so. hy the tautology (..! ;·IJ) >
((8 =* C) =* (A =* C)). f- x = y c=> (,:.1(.1, x) > .4(x.I')),

By repeated application, our assumptions can he extended to replacements of more than one occurrence 01'.1 hy r. Also. Proposition ::.2-' i: still derivuble. By Proposition 2.24. it suffices to prove (A 7) for only atomic wfs without individual constants. But. hypothesis (a) enables us easily 10 rrove
f- (YI = 21 A,.,
Ay"

= z,,) ~ Zl ....

(!fI(l'I.'.'

.),,,)

=,>

.11(::1, ... ,2,,))

lor all variables without function

I.)

YI ... "YII'

ZII and

letters or individual

any atomic wf .:.1( .\'1 ... · ,YII) constants. Hence. it suffices to show:

If I(X,X) is a term without individual constants and I(x,y) comes from I(X,x) by replacing some occurrences of x by y, then f- x = Y => I(X,x) = I(x,y).i of

l unction

I1lIt (*) can be proved, using hypothesis (b). by induction on the number letters in I(X,.\'). and we leave this as an exercise,

1\1111,'

It is easy to see from Proposition 2,25 that. when the language of K has finitely many predicate and function letters. it is only necessary to \ nii'y (A 7) for a finite list of special cases (in fact, 11 wfs for each and n \\ Is lor each

.In.

Ai

!,,(,(,

l.ct K I he a theory whose language has only = as a predica te letter ,lid no function letters or individual constants. Let its proper axioms be
'I,) Il'
II

1.'1.
XI?

(\1'XI)(\1'x2)(XI =X2=?X2=XI) and XI = Xl)). Show that KI is a theory

(\1'XI) (\1'x2)(\1'x3)(XI =X2 with equality, [Hinl: It

",·,J.lllll· :, .1

I he reader can clarify how (.) is applied hy using it to prove the following "I' (1\7): I \ ,',. (,.1:( 1/(')) :. ,.,:( 1,'( 1'))). Let I(r,x) he III(\,) and let
ill' /,' ( 1')

The insiunccs

of (A 7) can be still further

reduced

9H suflicc«
~, (XI

QUANTIFICATION

THEORY If

FIRST-ORDER

THEORIES

WITH

EQUALITY
. J

L)l) axioms. take

proY(; that ~ XI = x; ~ (XI cc .v: c=? x; = x~) and f- X~ = Xl ~> XI c_, xd.] KI is called the purefirst-order tlteorv ofcquolit». 2.67 Let K~ be a theory whose language has only ~= and < as predicate letters and no function letters or individual constants, Let K~ have the to
~·\'c

s . .I~~(/.S) by 1·.1'. and al and a~ by () and (a) (h) of Example I plus the following.
XI =X2~(XI'X1=X~'Xl/\Xl'XI XI' (X2 'Xl) =Xl'X2) ·X.1

I. As proper

(i)

(j)

==

(XI '.12)

following
(a) (b) (e) (lixl) (lixi (lixi (lixi (lixi (lixi

proper
XI

axioms.
XI

) (IiX2)(XI )(3X2)(3x')(.\'1 )(IiX2)(XI )(IiX2)(XI )(IiX2)(XI

= X2~
=X2

.1'2 = XI) ~

(k ) XI . (X~ 1- Xl! = (XI . X2) (I) XI 'X2 = x~ '.11 (m) XI' I = XI

(XI'

1'1)

(1iI'Jl(lixz)(Vx;)('1'1
(IiXI)(lix2)(lixl)(XI

(X2 X,l

=x,
XI)

~XI

=x;)) <Xl!

(n)

XI

(d) (e) (I) (g) (h)

<
= X~ ~

X2/\ -, XI

<
<x,

(0) 0 ~XI

f ()=> (3.d
I

XI

'X2

<X2/\X2

<

X2)

F is a theory with equality. Axioms (a)-(m) define the elementary theory Rc ofcommutative rings with unit. If we acid to F the predicate letter A~.
X2))

< X2 < X2

V XI

= X2

V X2

< XI)
X3 /\X1

c=? (3.\'3)(XI

<

<

Using Proposition 2.25. show that K2 is a theory with equality. K2 is called the theory of densely ordered sets with neither first nor Ills I element,

XI

< X2 !\ 0 < X3 ==? XI . Xl < X2 . Xl, then the new theory elementary theory of orderedfields.

abbreviate Exercise

Ai(/,s) 2.67.

by as

/ <.I'. well

and as

add
XI

axioms

(e),
XI -I-

(f)
X2

and

(g)

< X2

x, <
I-

and is called the

+ Xl

(;1'

2.68 Let K be any theory

(a) I- XI = YI /\

(b)

Prove the following. x,,) = t( YI vll)' where I(yl •...• .1',,) arises from the term 1(.1'1 ..... x,,) by substitution of -"I ..... .1'" for Xi ... · .X". respectively, f- XI = VI !\ ... /\ X" (.iIJ(XI ..... .v.,) ¢=> YJ( Vi ... · . .1',,)). where .iIJ( VI ..... y,,) is obtained by substituting .\·1··· .. .1'" for one or more occurrences of Xi ..... .1'". respectively. in the wfiIJ(XI,'" ,x,,). and YI,'" .Y" are free for Xi.··· .X". respectively. in the wf .18(xl •... ,x,,).
/\ x; = )'" ~ I(XI •...•
.'C' .\'" ~~

with equality.

Exercise 2.()9 (a) What formulas (b)

must be derived in order to lise Proposition 2.25 to conclude that the theory G of Example I is a theory with equality? Show that the axioms (d)-(f) of equality mentioned in Example 1 can be replaced by (d) and

(f'):
IS

XI

= X2

(X.1

= .1'2

==? XI

= X,).

Examples. (In the literature,

'elementary'

is sometimes

used instead

of 'first-order")

I. Elementary theory G ofgroups: predicate individual constant (II. We abbreviate proper axioms are the following.

f?

letter =, function letter and (/,.1') by / + s and III by O. The

J?,

(a) (c)

XI

(b) XI

+ (X2 +X3) + 0 = XI

= (XI +X2)

+X3

(lixJJ(3.x2)xl
==? X2

+ X2 = 0
= XI = X3)
/\ X3

(d)xl=xl (e) XI = X2 (I) XI = X2

One often encounters theories K in which = may be defined; that is, there a wf IJ(x,y) with two free variables x and y, such that, if we abbreviate ! (1 . .1') by I = s, then axioms (A6) and (A 7) are provable in K. We make the vouvcution that, if I and s are terms that are not free for X and y, respecnvcly, in I](x,y), then, by suitable changes of bound variables (see Exercise '·.lX). we replace I] (x,y) by a logically equivalent wf r (x.y) such that I and s .uc free for x and y, respectively, in I]';(x,y); then 1= s is to be the abhrcviutiou of I]A(t,S). Proposition 2.23 and analogues of Propositions 2.24 .uul 2.25 hold for such theories. There is no harm in extending the term 11,,'(1101' with equality to cover such theories. III theories with equality it is possible to define in the following way 1,11I;lsl',S that use the expression 'There exists one and only one X such

11i;11

==? (X2 = X3 ==? XI

(g)

XI = X2 ==? (XI

+ X3 = X2 + X3

+ X]

= X3

+ X2)
2.25. If DF ....NITION
II

the clcmentarv thcorv of abelian groups. .., Elcmentarv theory J-' offichls: predicate leiter . function letters II" and I~~.and individual constants II] and II.', Ahhrcvurtv /1.'(1,1) hy is called

(h) XI + X2 the new theory

That G is a theory with equality follows easily from Proposition one adds to the axioms the following wf:

= X2 + x]

1>1(\)
I1IlI

for

(1,).:8(x)

!\ (lix)(liv)(::8(x)

/\

f:8( y)

==?

III

lit]s definition.

dlll'S

.ktuutious

the new variable v is assumed occur in .!d(xl. A similar convention where new variables are introduced.

x = y) to be the first variable that is to he made in all other

____

100

..

I
1

<)1\\JTIIIC,\IION

T1IH)RY

fIRST-ORDLR

TIIf'ORIES

wnu

H,)lALlT)' sci

I ()I

Exercise 2.70 In any theory with equality.

(<I)

because the scI \ lr den umcrublc. prove the following.

_11.1') x'.\'
<.-.;.

or equivalence

classes

in a denumerable

n is

either

finite

I I

(V\)i

(b) (c) (d)

k)

coc .\' <=> .31(.\')) !i::h\)31(x) ¢c? \-1lx)'(,(\)1 f (~IX)(31 \j ((,) =? ((=j11)11) \j (3;.1)'( ~ (::II.1')31(.\") ¢> (=;x)(.31(.\') /\ (V)')(.31(v) ~ r~· x))

(:1\)./1(\1

(=l\)(\f\')(x

(\/r)(11Ix)

\} ''''(x))

cc;.

COROLLARY 2.27 (EXTENSION OF THE SKOLEM-L(>WENI-IEIM IHEOREM)

.\ny theory denumerable with equality K that normal model. has an infinite
11 II 1'111 a I

model

M has a

In any model for a theory K with equality, the relation E in the model corresponding to the predicate letter =c is an equivalence relation (by Proposition 2.23). If this relation E is the identity relation ill the domain of the model, t hen the model is said to be normal, Any model M for K can be contracted to a normal model M' for K by taking the domain D' of M' to be the set of equivalence classes determined by the relation E in the domainD of M. For a predica te letter and lor any cq uivalence classes [hd, .. " [h" in D' determined by elements hi ..... h" in D, we let (A'j)~'f hold for ((hl] ..... ib,,]) if and only if (A,,)M holds for .I (bl •.... h,,). Notice that it makes no difference which representatives hi ..... h, we select in the given equivalence classes because. from (A 7), f- XI= FI /\ ... /\ X,,\~, -~ (,1';(1'1..... .v.,) ~> /1';( VI, ... v,,)). Likewise, for any function letter I;' n nd uny equivalence classes [hd.·· . [hill in D', let M ([hi), ... [h,,]) ;U;,)\1(hl .. "hll)l. Again no te that this is independent of the choice or the representatives hi ..... b.; since, from (A 7),

Proof
\<.Id to K the denumerably many new individual constants hi ./'e. ... together with the axioms hi "# hi for i"# j. Then the new theory K' is consistent If K' were inconsistent. there would be a proof in K' o! a contradiction 't, /\ -,'(" II here we may assume that (f, is a wf or K. But this wool' uses only a finite number of the new axioms: b., "# hjl •... ,h,,, f 17,.. Now. M can be extended 1(1 a model Mil of K plus the axioms hil "# hjl •.... hi" "# hi,,: in bet, since Mis .111 infinite normal model. we can choose interpreta tions of h'l • bil •...• hi". hj,,' ',jl ihat the wfs hil "# 17,', .... b,,, "# hi" are true. But, since r(, /\ ,((, is derivable 11<)1ll these wfs and the axioms of K, it would follow that (f, /\ ,(f, is true lor \1". which is impossible. Hence, K' must be consistent. Now, by Proposi11<111 2.26, K' has a finite or denumerable normal model N. Aut, since, for I " i. the wfs hi "# b, are axioms of K', they are true for N. Thus, the ,kl\lents in the domain of N that are the interpretations of bl, b2, ... must be ,\"lll1et, which implies that the domain of N is infinite and, therefore, de-

A';

un

we can prove f-xi =VI /\ ... /IX" =.1'" ~-}./;'(XI, .. "XII) =.fF(YI'''',YI1)' For any individual constant 0, let ({fI)M' = [(a,)l-fl. The relation E' corresponding to = in the model M' is the identity relation in D': E'([bJ], [h2]) if and only if E(bl, h2)' that is, if and only if [bJ] = [b2]' Now one can easily prove by induction the following lemma: II's = (bl, b2, ... ) is a denumerable sequence of elements of D, and .1'1 = ([hd, [h2],"') is the corresponding sequence of equivalence classes, then a wf ::a is satisfied by sin M if and only if .'dJ is satisfied by .1" in M". It follows that, for any wf <lJJ, .0.8is true for M if and only if.0.8 is true for M'. Hence, because M is a model of K, M' is a normal model of K.

numerable.

PROPOSITION 2.26 (EXTENSION OF PROPOSITION 2,17)

(Gode], merable 1930) Any consistent normal model. theory with equality K has a finite or denu-

Proof
By Proposition 2.17, K has a denumerable model M. Hence, the cnntruction of M 10 ;t normal model Yields a finite or dcuumcruhlc 1\01'11\;11 llIudd M'

!.71 We define (:3"x).'!.8(x) by induction on n?; 1. The case n = I has al'·.Idv been taken care of. Let (:3,,++\'):?4(x) stand for , Ii 0'(1') 1\(:3"x)(x"# Y j\ .'!.8(x))). II Show that (=l"x).%'(x) asserts that there are exactly 11 objects for which :!d holds, in the sense that in any normal model for (:lnx)/!?(x) there are exactly n objects for which the property corresponding to f:7d(x) holds. Ill) (i) For each positive integer n, write a closed wf .OJ" such that 9J" is true in a normal model when and only when that model contains at least n clements. (II) Prove that the theory K, whose axioms are those of the pure theory of equality K I (see Exercise 2.66), plus the axioms cs, .1h ... , is nol finitely ax iomatizablc, th,lt is, there is no theory K' with a finite number ofuxioms such that K and K' 11<l\,\.' the same theorems.
I

102 (iii) l-or

1.:1)1/,

QII,\"n
,I
I.

III(

AriON
III

HIH>RY

DUINIiIONS

01 NEW FLNCTJON

LETTERS

J()j

normal

model,

state

ordin.uy

English
l1

the meaning

of

Let n he a positive integer and consider the wf (~Ii) t3 x)x = .r. Let L" he the theory K I + {011}. where K I is the pun' theory of equality. (i) Show that a normal model M is ~I model 01' LII if and only if there arc exactly 11 clements in the domain of M (ii) Define a procedure Cor determining whether any given sentence is a theorem of LII and show that LII is a complete theory. 2,72 (a) Prove that. if a theory with equality K has arhitrarily large finite normal models. then it has a denumerublc normal model. (b) Prove that there is no theory with equality whose normal models arc precisely all finite normal interpretations. 2.73 Prove that any predicate calculus with equality is consistent. (A predicate calculus with equality is assumed to have (A I) (A 7) as its only axioms. ) 2.741) Prove the independence of axioms (A I)-(A 7) in any predicate calculus with equality. 2.75 If.YJ is a wf that does not contain the = symbol and .!II is provable in a predicate calculus with equality K. show that .11 is provable in K without using (A6) or (A 7). 2.76D Show that ~ can he defined in any theory whose language has only a finite number of predicate letters and no function letters. 2.77 (a)/\ Find a non-normal model of the elementary theory of groups G. (b) Show that any model M of a theory with equality K ca n he extended to a non-normal model of K. [Hill!: Use the argument in the proof of the lemma within the proof of Corollary 2.22.] 2.78 Let (!IJ be a wf of a theory with equality. Show that .11is true in every normal model of K if and only if I-K .q}J. 2.79 Write the following as wfs of a theory with equality. (a) There <Ire at least three moons of Jupiter. (b) At most two people know everyone in the class. 2.80 If P(u) means u is a person, G(lI, u) means II is 1.1 grandparent ofu, and II = U means that u and v are identical, translate the following wf into ordinary English: (e)
(\fx)(P(x) =>(:l'I)('lt2)(::!X3)(::Jx4)(XL
X2 ;iX2

2.82 Let the language Read [/-- I as II (/1/{1 c are L(II. c) as 1/ lies 1111 t. Let mctrv have. in addition
uxioms. (I)

'f have the four predicate letters v-. P. Sand L. identical. P(u) as /I is (/ poin«. Stu) as II is (/ line, and the theory of' equality <IJ of planar incidcnc« gCII-

to axioms

(A

I )(A

7).

the following

non-logical

P(.r)~·

,S(.x)

(2)
(3)

(4) (5)

L(x.y)=> PIX) I\S(y) SIx) ="> (=Jy)(J:)(yT' zAL(yx) I\L(z.x)) P(X)I\P(y)I\XfcY=> (]lz)(5(z)I\L(x.::)/\I.(L.::) (3x)(3y)(=Jz) (P(x) II P( 1') 1\ P(z) 1\ -,'f, (t.v.::))

where '(,(.\'.y.z) is the wf (JlI)(5(u)/IL(x.u)I\/(l.II)A.I,(:.II)). read as x, y. Z arc collinear,

(a)

which

IS

(h)

(e)

Translate (I)-(S) into ordinary geometric language. Prove hr, (\lu)(Vr) (S(u) 1\ S-(c) A II I r => (Vr\(\/\-) (/.(.1,11) 1\ qx.I")1\ L( Y, u) 1\ L( y. u) => .r = y)). and translate this theorem into ordinary geometric language. Let Ri«, v) stand for S(u) 1\ Sir) 1\ ,(3w)(L(w.u) /1 L(w. u)). Read Riu, 1') as II and Ii arc distinct parallel lines. (i) Prove: I-Q) R(u, u) ="> II ;i v (ii) Show that there exists a normal model of <IJ with a finite domain in which the following sentence is true:
(\I.\')(\fy)(5(x)
t\

pry) r. ,L(v,x)

=> (3Iz)(L(y.z)

t\

R(z,x)))

Ill)

Show that there exists a model of <IJ in which the following true:
(1/.\)(\fy)(5(x)
A 5( y) A .r

sentence

is

y => -,N(x,r))

2.9 DEFINITIONS OF NEW FUNCTION LETTERS AND INDIVIDUAL CONSTANTS IlL III a thcma tics, once we ha ve proved, for any YI, ... 'YIl' the existence of a object II that has a property ;@(U,YI,'" ,YIl), we often introduce a IIl'W function letter I( YI, ... ,YII) such that .iJ8( I( YI ' ... ,Yn), YI, ... 'YIl) holds 1111 ;1111'1, ...• VII' In cases where we have proved the existence of a unique "hll'l't /I that satisfies a wf l!IJ(u) and :?d(u) contains II as its only free variable, IILl'1Iwe introduce a new individual constant b such that f:i8(b) holds. It is "l'lInally acknowledged that such definitions, though convenient, add l\lltllll\~ really new to the theory. This can he made precise in the following
unrquc

AXL =»: AXL iX4/\

A G(XI ,x) A G(X2,X)
1\ G(X3,X)t\

cf

X.1 AX2

X4 A X3

i.\"4

G(X4,X) A (\fy)(G(y,x)

=> y = XI V Y = -\2 V Y = x] V Y = X4)))

2.81

Consider

the wf
(*) (\fx)(\fy)(3z)(z

cf

.r A z

fc

l'

A(::»

Show that (*) is true in a normal model M of a theory with equality if ami only if there exist in the domain of M at least three thill)!s havill)! property
A(:),

m.umcr.

104 PROPOSITION 2.2X

VII;\NTIIIC;\TION

IlIEOR'y

[)1.11\JITIO-";S

01

NFW

1·1 \Ie 1I0\i

L11 T1RS

lOS

I
I

Let K be ~I theory with equality. Assume that I K (1111):1(11.1.1..... l~I)' Let K II he the theory with equality obtained by adding to K a new function letter f of II <lrgulllL'nts and the proper axiom .:1(/( .\·1 ..... \·,,).VI ..... V,,).I as well as <III instuncc« or axioms (A I )--(A 7) that involve f. Then there is an effective trauslornuuio n mapping each wf (f, of K Ii into a wf If, u of K such that: (a)
(h) (c) (d) (e)

II' Idoes not occur in (t, then (,(f,) (I is -,((f, #).

(If,
I-K'i
=}

If, II

is (f,.

Interpretation. and the axiom :1(/(.11' ... \'//.1.11 .... rlll also holds in M hy virtue or the definition ur/l. Since thc other proper ;P"IOIllS of K·f do not contain / and since they <Ire true for MI. ihcy arc also true for M". But K «(;. Therefore, If, is (rue lor M If. hut since «(, docs not contain f, (f, is true lor MI and hence also for M. Thus. If, is true lor every model of K. lhereforc. hy Corollary 2.20(a), I-K -r . (In (he case where f K (:'JI/I):1(u) and :1(u) contains only II as a free varia hie. we lorm K" by adding a new individual constant b and the axiom .:1(h). Then the anuloguc or Proposition 2.2X follows from practically the same proof as the one just givcn.)

0/)4 is «(/!!
{->

'*

(I'#.

((\fx)!f,))#

is (\fxW(;#).
({jil).

Exercise
2.X3 Find the I-less transforms of the following wi's.

(It:

(I)

If f-K" «(;, then f-K «(;#. if ((; does not contain

Hence.

and f-K"

«.

then f-K «(;.

(a) (h)

(Yx)(3y)(A;(x,y,f(X.l·I,'" .1',,)) =c> LX ..... .v) xl AlU(YI .... ,J'1I IJ(yl ...... I· )))A(Jr).I;CrJ(I'I .... \·,i))
Il

I(

Proof
By a sintplef-tcrm we mean an expression /(/1 ..... 1,,) in which 'I ..... 1" are terms that do not contain [, Given an atomic wf If, of KiI, let «(;' bc the result or replacing the leftmost occurrence of a simple term /(/1 In) in (f, by the first variable t' not in (f, or:1. Call the wl' (:'Ir)(.:1(r.II, III) A((;') the f-transfortn or 'c . If If, does not contain [, then let ((; he its own I: transform. Clearly, f-K" (3r)(:1(r, II,· ... I,rl A «(;') ¢c;> ((;. (Here, we use f-K (=hu):i6'(U.YI'-".YII) and the axiom ·;t](/(YI ....• YII).YI •... ,yn) of Kif.) Since the/-transform (/' of((, contains one less}' than «(;and f-K(i «(;' <=? «(;'.if we take successive I-transforms. eventually we obtain a wf«(;# that does not contain / and such that f-K~ cg# <=? 1(;. Call ({;4/C the f-Iess transform of If/. Extend the definition to all wfs of K # by letting (-,C);) fie be -,( (j!#), =} it beC);# =} 0#. and ((\fx)01)# be (\fx)'iJ1F_ Properties (a)-(e) of Proposition 2.28 are then obvious. To prove property (f), it suffices, by property (e), to show that, iff!? does not containf and f-K# (6, then f-K# (t. We may assume that C() is a closed wf, since a wf and its closure are deducible from each other. Assume that M is a model of K. Let M I be the normal model obtained by contracting M. We know that a wf is true for M if and only if it is true for MI. Since f-K (3Iu)a8(u,Yt, ... ,Yn), then, for any bt,.·., b; in the domain MI, there is a unique c in the domain of M, such that PM) ,@[c,hl •••. ,hill. If we define fi (hi, ... ,h to be c, then, taking 11 to be the interpretation of the function letter f, we obtain from M I a model M# of K «. For the logical axioms of KIA (including the equality axioms of K#) arc true in any normal

Note that Proposition 2.2X also applies when we have introduced several new symbols /1 ..... '/;11 because we C~1I1 assume that we have added euchj. to I he theory already obtained by the addition of (I .... '/1 I: then m successive :1pplications of Proposi tion 2.2g are necessary. 'The resulting wf 1(; if of K can hc considered an (jl ....,j;,,)-free transform or «(; into the language of K.

t: vcnnplcs

cry;

In

In the elementary theory G of groups, one can prove (31.1') x + y = O. Then introduce a new function I of one argument, abbreviate I(I) by (-I), and add the new axiom x + (--x) = O. By Proposition 2.28, we now are not able to prove any wf of G that we could not prove before. Thus, the definition of (-l) adds no really new power to the original theory. In the elementary theory F of fields. one can prove that (:'Ily)((xfOAx,y= I)V(x=Oandy=O)). We then introduce a new function letter 9 of one argument, abbreviate yO) by I I. and add the axiom (x#OAx·x 1= l)v(x=Oandxl =0). from which one can prove x i- 0 =} x . X I = I.

or

lrorn Proposition 2.28 we can see that, in theories with equality. only predicate letters are needed; function letters and individual constants are .hspcnsable. If./t is a function letter, we can replace it by a new predicate letter A~ I I if we add the axiom (3Iu)A%+1 (U,YI,'" ,Yn). An individual con<t.int is to he replaced by a new predicate letter if we add the axiom

AI

ll)

11);11(11).

lit

is

better
..\',,)),

.>9(11. \'1.

to take this axiom since I! \'). . I"imight

in

till'

rD.-m
fill
II

III)t 1,<, fin'

lVI/lilt III) III ifill. \,

..
\'"I

\',,1

I. \ IIII/JI/1' III till' elementary theory G of groups, we can replace + and 0 by predicate letters All and Al if we add the axioms (\fxI )(\fx2) (:3IXl)A~(XI.X2"\'l) and I II II (\1), and if \VL' replace axioms (a), (h). (e) and (g) by the following:

H:

106 (~I')

QII;\NTIFIC;\TION

THEORY
\\')

I'RENEX

NORMAL

I-'ORMS

L
I

107

I
J

A:

(hi)
(c')

,1l

.1> .vi. II) ;\ /1: (.1I . II. I) II 1') i\ .1;(1.1'. :)c> := .r (:_h')(VII)(\1'r)(A:(II) /\A;(x.v.r) Xc AA;(xI'r.;:)
: cc c;'

A; (XI .

.12.

A Iii' (\I' .. r;. v)

=}

Proof
For part (a):

(g') [XI

~ [. = /I) AA;Clc.v.u) /\A;(r . .II.r) /'//;(.1"·.12-\\,)1

/I /, I' -r; \I'

l. (\1'.1)'(,(.1) ~ './
2. -{3y)('(,(y) ~ './)

Notice that the proof of Proposition 2.2X is highly non-constructive, since it uses scmantical notions (model, truth) and is based upon Corollary 2.2()(~1). which was proved in a non-constructive W<I)I Constructive syntactical proofs have been given for Proposition 2.2~ (sec Kleene. 1952. 3 74). hut. in general. they are quite complex. Descriptive phrases of the kind 'the II such that .!!l(U.YI .... 'YII)' arc very common in ordinary language and in mathematics. Such phrases are called definite descriptions. We let /u(.j](U.YI,'" .YII)) denote the unique object II such that .:!!l(U,YI .... 'YIl) if there is such a unique object. If there is no such unique object, either we may let 1II(:51J(U.YI"" 'YIl)) stand for some fixed object, or we may consider it meaningless. (For example. we may say that the phrases 'the present king of France' and 'the smallest integer' are meaningless or we may arbitrarily make the convention that they denote 0.) There are various ways of incorpora ting these I-terms in formalized theories, hut since in most cases the same results arc obtained by using new function letters or individual constants as above, and since they all lead to theorems similar to Proposition 2.2K. we shall not discuss them any further here. For details, see Hilbert and Bcrnays (1934) and Rosser (1939; 1953).

l-"(\1'v)~((('(y) =} (.J) 4. (\1'y)~«(,(v) =} './) 5. ('v'y)(('( y) /\ ~'./) 6. ((,( y) 1\ ~(:/ 7. «(,( v) 8. (\1'y)'(; (_II) 9. (\1'x)(t(x)
10. './

Hyp Hyp 2. abbreviation .I. negation elimination 4, tautology. Proposition 2.9(e) 5, rule A4 6, conjunction elimination 7, Gen 8, Lemma 2.11. biconditional elimination

I. 9. MP
(1.

II. ~'i
12. 0£ A ~Q

1.\. (\1'x)'t (x) =>

~(3y)(t(y) 14. (\1'.1')(6(x)
=}

-»,
~'2;)
'!t;

conjunction elimination 10. II, conjunction introduction 1-12 1-13, proof by contradiction 2.6

f-

(j A

-,ft

I- (3y) (t;( y) =} Ct) 15. f- (\1'x)«(;(x) =} Y

=}

(=Jy)('f,( y)

=} '/)

1-14, Corollary in the following manner.

lhc converse 2.10 PRENEX NORMAL A wf (QIYI) FORMS

I. (3yWt(

is proven
=}

y)

Q)

... (Q"y,,):j], where each (Qi,Y') is either (\1'Yi) or (3Yi),Yi is different from Yi for i j, and !J8 contains no quantifiers, is said to be in prenex normalform. (We include the case II = 0, when there are no quantifiers at all.) We shall prove that, for every wf, we can construct an equivalent prenex normal form.

(\1'x)'t5(x)

i=

((, (b) ~ .0; I. (('(h)

II.

LEMMA 2.29
In any theory, if y is not free inCfJ, and (t1(x) and (e( y) are similar, following hold. then the

< '_/ (3y«(j(y) =} .r]I), (\1'x)'(/(x) f-c .Cj) (-11')«(,( y) =} .'il), (\1'x)«(,(x) l- .U£
(3y)('(,( y) =}CfJ) > «\1'x)'(,(x)
=}

Hyp Hyp I, rule C 2, rule A4 3,4, MP 1-5 6, Proposi tion 2.10 1-7, Corollary 2.6 twice

:--; I

S0)

(a) f- ((\1'x)15(x) =}@) ¢} (b) f- (:Jx)!b'(x) =}Cj)) ¢} (c) f- (.'.Z =} (\1'x)'f,(x)) ¢} (d) l- ('J ~ (:Jx)(e(x)) ¢} (e) f- ~(\1'x )«(, {c? (:Jx) ~«(, (I) I ,(hi't, < > (Vr) /(,

(:JYWt1(y) =} CfJ) (\1'YWt1(y) =} P)) (\1'y) (9 =} (e(y)) (:Jy)('J =} «(,( v))

: ';1 rt (a) follows from the two proofs above by biconditional introduction. 1',Irts (h) (0 are proved easily and left as an exercise. (Part (f) is trivial, and (,.) appeared as Exercise 2.33(a); (c) and (d) follow easily from (b) and (a), Il"pcctivdy.)

I.emma 2.29 allows us to move interior quantifiers to the front of a wf. I hi' IS the essential process in the proof of the following proposition.

108

L_._
PROPOSITIO:"\ 2.311

<)1!A'-'TIII(ATIO'l

nllORY

PRENFX NOKM;\L

FOKMS

Exercise
dny

There is <Ill effective procedure for trunsformiug prcncx 110 rill <I I lorm such that l-Y] <=> 1(,.

wf!li

into

,I

wf

(f, III

2.84
(a) (h)

Find prcncx normal forms equivalent [(\lx)(o4:(x) =';. Ai(x -.v))] =} ([(3y)A:(r)] (3x)Af(x.1')·=} (A: (x) =}-{311)Af(x. 1/))

10
=}

the following
(·l?)Af(r.:))

wfs

Proof

A predicate calculus in which there are no function letters or individual constants and in which. for any positive integer /I. there are infiitely many predicate letters with 11 arguments, will be called a /illrc predicate C(//CU/US. l-or pure predicate calculi we can find a very simple prcncx normal form theorem. A wf in prcnex normal form such that all existential quantifiers (if ;IIlY) precede all universal quantifiers (if any) is said !n be in Sk olem normal
[orni.

by induction on the number k 01" occurrences or in ..Ii. (By Exercise 2.32(a. h). \\T may assume ! that the quantified variables in the prefix that we shall obtain arc distinct.) ir k "0 O. then kt 'f, 0l:.Y.! itself. Assume that we can find a corresponding (f, for all wfs with k < II. and assume that .J!) has n occurrences or connectives and qua ntificrs. Case I. If !Ii i- -Jf. then. by inductive hypothesis. we can construct a wf (; in prencx normal [orrn such that l- '_l {=} (~. Hence. l- -_.,(j <CO> -,I; hy biconditional negation. Thus. r-::1 ¢=} ,n, and, bv applying parts (c) and (f) of Lemma 2.29 and the replacement theorem (Proposition 2.9(0»). we can find a wf 'f, in prcncx normal lorm such that i- ") ~ ({. Hence,

We describe tile procedure connectives and quantifiers

PROPOSITION

2.31

>. I/"Y] is (/ :-;;. then. hy inductive hypothesis, we call lind wfs '}I and ;; I in prcncx normal /"orm such th.u 1 '/ .~c.;, '/1 and r- /; {=} nl. Hence. by a suitable tautology and Mil. f ('j' =c} Ii) <=> ('/1 =} 61) thai is. f--- :14 <=> (.71 =} Ii I)' Now. applying parts (a) (d) of Lemma 2.29 and the replacement theorem. we can move the quantifiers in the prefixes of'.? I and ,5' I 10 the front, obtaining a wf ft; in prenex normal form such that f--- fjj <=> 'i,'. Case 3. If:-Yl is (\Ix) 0/. then. by inductive hypothesis. there is a 11'1''01 in prenex normal form such that f--- 9 <=> 0'/1: hence. ~-:11 <=> (\Ix) 0) I by Gen. Lemma 2.8, and MP. But (\Ix) 071 is in prenex normal form.
Case

f---!Ii

<.oj

'r.,

I n a pure predicate calculus. there is an effective procedure assigning to each \Vf.1J another wf .'/' in Sk olcm normal form such that f--- ./J if and only if f--- ,'/' (1\1'. equivalently, by Godel's completeness theorem. such IhalM is logically \ nlid if and only if Y' is logically valid).

Proof

Examples I. Let 3d be (\IX) (A I (x) =} (\ly)(A~(x,y) =} ,(\lz)Aj( y,z))). By part (e) of Lemma 2.29: (\Ix) (A I (x) =} (\ly)[A~(x.y) =} (.3z)'A~(y.z)]). By part (d): (\Ix) (A I (x) =} (\ly)(3u)[A~(x,y) =} ,A3( Y. u)]). By part (c): (\lx)(\lu)(AI (x) =} (3u)[A~(x, v) =} ,A~(v, u)]). By part (d): (\lx)(\lu)(.3w)(AI (x) =} (A~(x. v) =} ,A~(v, w))). Changing bound variables: (\lx)(\ly)(.3z)(Al(x) =} (A~(x.y) =} -,AH v,z))). 2. Let fjj be Ar(x.y) =} (::Jy)[AJ(y) =} ([(3x)Aj(x)] =} Ai(_v))]. .' By part (h): Ar(x.y) =} (3Y)(A: (v) =} (\III) [A: (II) c> A~(I')]). By part (c): AT(x,y) =} (3y)(\lII)(A:(y) =} [11:(,.) ;. Ai(I')I) By part (<1): (111')(Af(x, I') > (V,.)[AI(II') > (AI(,.) > .1.~(1I"))!l By part (c): ( III')(V:)(A~(\. I') ;. [AI (11") ;. (.-1:(:) ;. :1.\(11"))))

1 Irst we may assume thatYJ is a closed wf, since a wf is provable if and only lilts closure is provable. By Proposition 2.30 we may also assume that .:11 is III prencx normal form. Let the rank r or 3d be the number of universal .juuntifiers in :11 that precede existential quantifiers. By induction on the r.i nk , we shall descrihe the process for finding Skolern normal forms. (k;lriy, when the rank is O. we already have the Skolern normal form. Let us ,1'Qlme that we can construct Sk olern normal forms when the rank is less 111:111 and let r be the rank of :?iJ.!J8 can be written as follows: r, Ill)." (3Yn)(\lU)(C(YI,''''Y'''U)' where (C(yl, .... yn'u) has only II ... y". u as its free varia bles. Let A';+ 1 be the first pred ica te letter of 11 + I .n uumcnts that does not occur in ::!a.Construct the wf
1/11

e:b·I) ... (=Jy,,)(l(liuWe()'I

•...

,y,,,u)

=}

A;+l(yl

•... ,Yn,II»)] •... ,)'n.u)

~ (liu)A;+I(Yl

1 ,'1 liS show that f--- .!/J if and only if f--- !J81. Assume f--- !J81. In the proof of /?iJt• 1,·pl:I\.·L'all occurrences or Ai I I (ZI' ... ,Z", 11') by "6'* (ZI , ... , Zn. IV)), where (C' I' obt.uncd [rom ff, hy replacing all hound variables having free occurrences III the proof hy new variables not occurring: in the proof. The result is a
1'1 \lll/" Ill'

I I()

Ql\NTIIICATION (i.l·I) ... (-ir,,)(((VIlj('('(.I·I' .r".II)

THFORY , '(,.\.1.1 .....

;. (\111)'(,'(.1'1 1.".11))) .... r".I1)1

I:-;O"v!ORPI-lISM 01

INTERPRETATIONS.

CATHiOR1CITY

OF THFORliS
". l.::)

III

We

repeat
.'1; (1'). Let
\ ~:\)(

this

Ai

process ag;lin: Let not occur ill (/. Form:

1')1
.c;. A;(Ll')il

(/(.\.r.::.I)

he

((('(X

=;.. A,~lx))

((,' \\a~ used instead of «(, so that applications or axiom (A4) would remain upplic.uions of the same axiom.) Now. hy changing the bound variables hack 'lgain. we sec that
i (])'I)

l!lz)('1/)('/('\.l.'::.

c> (\;!\·)I;'Cl.lj)
c.;.

(1\)(JI·)![(=]::)(';'I')('/(.\.\, . .::.I)1 (-,\)(::3l')(Cj:::j(VI')(['/(X.I·.::.r) (::lr)(]IHj.::)(\-Jr)(VI\·)(['J(.,.y.Z.l')

.: ~. ~

Ai(.I.

(\;\').1;(11)

~~ AZ(.ll·)1

=;. (VI·)/I;(\.I)\

2.29(a.hl
I\')i

... (-:1y,,)[(VII)((,(yl .. , .. ,\n.lI)

c>

'(,(1·1

1',.11))

=> Ailx.l·)l

~;. Ai(\.

2.29(C)

=-> (\:Iu)'f,(rl

)'".11)1

lh us, a Skolem

normal

form of ,11 is:

Since f- (\:III)('(,(YI ..... y(/.u) =} ((,(YI .... ,)'I/'u)), we obtain. by the replacement theorem. f-(3YI) ... (3yl/)('v'uyC;(YI ..... y(/.II). that is. f-;YJ. Conversely. assume that f- .1)]. By rule C we obtain ('v'l/yr;(hl ....• h".II). But, l- ('v'u)9 =* (ClJ'uWi =* 0') =* ('v'u)G) (see Exercise 2.27 (a)) for any wfs (/ and II. Hence. f-c(IJ'II)(((f(bl ..... b".II) =*A~+I(bl ..... h".lI))=* (\:III)A~II (hl, ... ,bl/'u), So. by rule E4. r-c (3,,) ... (3y,,) (1(lJ'uW('(hl . ... h".I1)=* A'j'I(Yl ..... Y(/.u))]=* ('v'u)A'tI(YI ..... Y".I/)), that is. f-c·YJI. By Proposition 2.10. f- .111, A prenex normal form of ·;81 has the form .Yh: (3.1'1) (3y(/)(3u)(Qlzl)'" (Q,z,)('v'v)(I}'. where 'I}' has no quantifiers and (QI. 21) (Q,::,) is the prefix of «(,. [In deriving the prenex normal form. first. by l.cmmn 2.2lJ(a). we pullout the first (\-jll). which changes to (311): then we pull out of the lirst conditional the quantifiers in the prefix 01'((,. By Lemma 229(a. h). this cxchungc-, existential <Inc! universal quantifiers. hut then we <lg,lin pull i hc:«: out of the second conditiounl 01'1111• which brings the prefix back to its original form. Finally. by Lemma 2.2lJ(c). we bring the second ('v'1I) out to the prefix. changing it to a new quantifier (IJ'v).] Clearly. (iih has rank one less than the rank of .YJ and. by Proposition 2.30, f- .'181 <--} .J!h. But, f- :YJ if and only if f- 381. Hence. 1- :'4 if and only if 13th. By inductive hypothesis, we can find a Skolem normal form for iJlh, which is also a Skolern normal form for .J4.

Exercises
2.N5
(;1) (h)

Find Skolem

normal

forms [or the lollowing

-. V)

wl».

-{3x)A:(x) =,' ('v'u)(~y)('1x)A;(u.x ('v'x) (3y)(lJ'u)(3v)Ai(x.v. II, 1')

Z.X6 Show that there is an effective procedure that gives. for each wf.11 of a I'lire predicate calculus. another wf (/ of this calculus of the form '1'1) ... ('1y,,)( 3zl) ... (::3Z(I/ )'ti. such that ((, is quantifier-free. 11. m > n. and .-'A is .uusfiablc if and only if 0' is satisfiable. [Hint: Apply Proposition 2.31 to --;.YJ.] :!.H7 Find a Skolem normal form Y for ('v'x)(3y)Af(x,y) and show that it is not the case that f- .(f ¢c} (Vr) (3y)AT(.x.y). Hence, a Skolem normal form for .1 "I'YJ is not necessarily logically equivalent to .0/1. in contradistinction to the l,rC!lex normal form given by Proposition 2.30.

!.II ISOMORPHISM CATEGORICITY

OF INTERPRETATIONS. OF THEORIES

Example
?8:('1x)('1y)(3z)'C(x.y,z). :?81:('1x)(('1y)(3z)'6'(x.y,z)

where
=}

(fj

contains no quantifiers
=}

\\ c'

A)(x))

('1x)A)(x),

where A) is not in 'C.

We obtain

the prenex

normal

form of .r:8I:
=}

shall say that an interpretation M of some language !i) is isomorphic an interpretation M' of if and only if there is a onc- one corres1'\ .ndcncc !I (called an isomorphism) of the domain D of M with the domain /,. "I'M' such that:
II 11 It
c~

(3x)([('1y)(3z)'6'(x,y,z) (::x)((3y)[(3z)'6'(x.y,z) (3x)((3y)(lfz)['6'(x.y,z) (3x)(\:Iy) [(lfz)(,{,'(x.y. z) (lr)(\:Iy)(=Jz)([«('(x.I'.::)~}

(1\)('11')(1::)('1")]((.(.\,1'.::)

A) (x)] A} (x)]

=}

('1x)A)(x)) ('1x)A) (x)) (\:Ix)A) (x))

('1x)III(I)]

2.2lJ(a) 2.29(a)

=}

=}

=> A)(x)]
=}

=}

2.29(h) 22lJ(h) 2.~I)(a )

A)(x))
A)(x)1

=}

..'} ('1x)Af(x)) ;.

~ ..,:(\))

..,:(,.1:

any predicate letter A'j of if and for any bl, ... , b; In M ilj[hl .... ,bn] ifand only if~M' Aj[g(bj), .... g(b,,)]. , I Ill' any function letter I;' of if and for any bl, ... , b; In I), !/(U;,)M(hl, ... ,h,,)) = Uj')M·(g(bl), ... ,g(b,,)). lor any individual constant at of:£, fJ((aj)M) = (a/)M·. I he notation M ~ M' will he used to indicate that M is isomorphic with \1'. Notice that. if M ~ M'. then the domains of M and M' must be of the s.unc cardinality.

n. i

I or

112

1PROPOSITION If
(<I)

QU;\NTIl-ICATIO;-";

TtILORY

C;1:-\ FR/\ Ll/L!)

1·1RS I-OR I)I·R

IH lOR II.S

II]

2 ..12

II

is

;111 ixomorphism
<Ill)

of M with M'. then:

<thle normal model of K:, is isomorphic wil h the model consisting of the set of mtional numbcrs under their n.uurul ordcriugj. Btlt one can prove that K2 i, not ll l " c.ucgorical for a nv 111 diilcrcnt lrorn No. Exercises
2.90/\ Find a theory with equality that is not Nil c.ucgorical hut is lI1--ca .. tcgoricul for all 111> NI}. [Hill/: COil sider the theory (i( or abelian groups (sec page 98). For each integer 11. let III· stand for the term ( ... + F) +- ... + y consisting or the SUI11 of n ys. Add to G( the axioms ( YJ,,): (Vx)(3Iv)(I1_1' = x) 1'01' all t1~2. The new theory is the theory of uniquely divisible abelian groups. Its normal models Me essentially vector ~r~ICCS over the field of

(h)

wfYl of i/', any scquencc v (hi. he .... ) of elements of domain 0 of M. and the eOITe'iplllldlng sequence !f(S) " (II{ hi ). !f{h~) .... ). s satisfiesYl in M if und oilly if Ills) sat istiesYl in M': hence, F'vl yj if and only if FM' 1J.

lor the

Proof Part (b) follows directly from part (a). The proof of part (<I) is by induction on the number of connectives and quantifiers in .YJ and is len as an exercise. From the definition of isomorphic interpretations and Proposition 2.32 we see that isomorphic interpretations have the same 'structure' and, thus, differ in no essential way.

Exercises 2.88 Prove that. if M is an interpretation with domain D and D' is a set that has the same cardinality as D, then one can define an interpretation M' with domain 0' such that Mi., isomorphic with M'. 2.89 Prove the following: (a) M i.s isomorphic with M. (b) If MI is isomorphic with Me. then Me is isomorphic with MI. (c) If MI is isomorphic with M2 and M2 is isomorphic with M" then MI is isomorphic with M.1. A theory with equality K is said to he 111 - categorical, where 111 is a cardinal number, if and only if: any two normal models of K of cardinality ttl are isomorphic; and K has at least one normal model of cardinality 111 (see Los, 1954c). Examples I. Let K2 be the pure theory of equality K, (see page 98) to which has been added axiom (E2): (::fxI)(3x2)(XI f X2 1\ (VX3J (X3 = XI V X3 = X2)). Then K2 is 2-categorical. Every normal model of K2 has exactly two elements. M ore generally, define (En) to be:
(3xI)
...

rational numbers. However. any two vector spaces over the rntionnl numhers of the same non-denumerable cardinulity arc isomorphic .. and there are denumerable vector spaces over the rational numberthat arc not isomorphic (see Bourbaki. 1(47).] 2.91/\ Find a theory with equality th.rt is III· Gltegorical for all infinite cardinals Ill. r Hint: Add to the theory CI( of abelian groups the axiom iVxl )(2.\1 = 0). The normal models or this theory are just the vector spaces over the field or integers modulo 2. Any two such vector spaces of the same curdinality are isomorphic (see Bourbaki. 1947).] 2.92 Show that thc theorems or the theory K" in Example I above are precisely the set or all wfs of K" that arc true in all normal models of curdinality n, 2.9]'\ Find two non-isomorphic densely ordered sets of cardinality 2~" with licit her first nor last element. (This shows that the theory K2 of Example 2 is not 2t<"=categorical.) a theory with equality that is Ill-categorical for some noncardinal III but not n-categorical for some other non-countable «ardinal It': In Example 2 we found a theory that is only No-categorical; in l.xcrcise 2.90 we found a theory that is III-categorical for all infinite 111 > ~o hilt not ~o-categorical, and in Exercise 2.91, a theory that is Itt-categorical l or all infinite 111. The elementary theory G of groups is not III-categorical l or any infinite Itt, The problem is whether these four cases exhaust all the I',)ssihilities. That this is so was proved by Morley (1965).
«ountable

Is there

(3xn)

1\
l~i<j~1I

x,

eft Xj

fI (Vy)(y

= XI

v ... v y

Xn))

where /\I~i<j~n Xi f Xj is the conjunction of all wfs Xi f Xi with I::(i < j::(n. Then, if K" is obtained from KI by adding (En) as an axiom, K" is n-categorical, and every normal model of K" has exactly n elements. 2. The theory K2 (sec page l)X) of densely ordered sets with neither lir.,t nor last clement is No categorical (sec Kamke. 19S0. p. 71: every dcnumcr-

l.12 GENERALIZED FIRST-ORDER THEORIES. COMPLETENESS AND DECIDABILITyt

1I. III the definition of the notion of first-order language, we allow a non,., iu nt n hie IlUI1l her of predica te letters, function letters, and individ ual 'Presupposed ,,'1<1111;11numbers (sec Chapter

in paris or this sccuon is a slender acquaintance with ordinal and 4; or Kamke, I <JSO; or Sicrpinsk i, 19SX).

114

QllANTIFICArtON

THEORY

(IENLRALlZfD

fIRST-ORDER THEORIES

115

consuuus. we arrive at the notion of a gl'lIcrofi:;ed/il'.I'/-ol'del' languag«, The notions of interpret arion and model extend in an obvious way to a generalized first-order language. A g('//('rali::.ctlfil'.I/-lIrt!cr thcorv in such a 1<111[!U,I1!l'is obt.iincd hv taking as proper axioms any set of wfs of the language. ()rdinarv lirst-()rd~r theo;ies are special cases of generalized first-order theories. ThL: render may easily check that all the results for first-order t henries, through Lemma 2,12, hold also for generalized first-order theories without any changes in the proofs. Lemma 2.1 J becomes Lemma 2,13': if the set or symbols of a generalized theory K has cardinality ~'l' then the set of expressions of K also can be well-ordered and has cardinality ~'l' (First. fix.a well-ordering of the symbols of K. Second, order the expressions by their length, which is some positive integer. and then stipulate that irCI and 1'2 are two distinct expressions of the same length k, arnd j is the first place in which they differ, then 1'1 precedes ei if the jth symbol of el precedes the jth symbol of (:'2 according to the given well-ordering of the symbols of K.) Now. under the same assumption as for Lemma 2.13', Lindenbaum's Lemma 2.14' can be proved for generalized theories much as before, except that all the enumerations (of the wfs ·YJi and of the theories J,) are transfinite, and the proof that J is consistent and complete uses transfinite induction. The analogue of Henkin's Proposition 2.17 runs <IS follows.

COROLLARY 2.34
(a)

(b)

(c)

II' the set of symbols of a consistent generalized theory with equality K has cardinality ~'l' then K has a normal model of cardinality less than or equal to If, in addition, K has an infinite normal model (or if K has arbitrarily large finite normal models). then K has a normal model of any cardinality N/;;:: Ny. In particular, if K is an ordinary theory with equality (i.c., N, = No) and K has an infinite normal model (or if K has nrbitrurily large finite normal models), then K has a normal model of any cardinality Nfl ({I ? 0).
~Y'

Proof (a) The model guaranteed by Proposition 2.:13 can he contracted to a normal model consisting of equivalence classes in a set of cardinality N,. Such a set 01' equivalence classes has cardinality less than or equal to N,. (b) Assume Nfl? N,. Let hI. h2, ... be a set of new individual constants of cardinality Nfl, and add the axioms b; "I hi' for ;, "I II. As in the proof of Corollary 2.27, this new theory is consistent and so, by (a), has a normal model of cardinality less than or equal to N.fi (since the new theory has Nfl new symbols). But. because of the axioms hi. "I b,l, the normal model has exactly Nfl clements. (c) This is a special case or (b). Exercise

PROPOSITION 2.33 If the set of symbols of a consistent generalized then K has a model of cardinality N~. theory K has cardinality N~,

Proof The original proof of Lemma 2.15 is modified in the following way. Add N2 new individual constants bv, b2, •.. , bi., .... As before, the new theory Ko is consistent. Let FI (Xii) .F, (x;J, ... ()o < wa) be a seq uence consisting of all wfs of Ko with exactly one free variable. Let (SiJ be the sentence (3x;J-Fi(X,J =} -,f';(bj;), where the sequence bj"b;" .. :bj;, ... ofdistin~t individual constants is chosen so that bj; does not occur 111 F)i(Xi,J for I/~/", The new theory K,x;, obtained by adding all the wfs (SiJ as axioms, is proved to be consistent by a transfinite induction analogous to the inductive proof in Lemma 2.15. Koo is a scapegoat theory that is an extension of K and contains N2 closed terms. By the extended Lindenbaum Lemma 2.14', K ... can be extended to a consistent, complete scapegoat theory J with N, closed terms. The same proof as in Lemma 2.16 provides a model M of J cardinality N,.
I •••

2.94 If the set of symbols of a predicate calculus with equality K has c.rrdinality N~, prove that there is an extension K' of K (with the same -vmbols as K) such that K' has normal model of cardinality N~, but K' has Iii) normal model of cardinality less than N~. lrorn Lemma 2.12 and Corollary 2.34(a, b), it follows easily that, if a \·"ncralized theory with equality K has No symbols, is Nfl-categorical for 'I )111e II? «, and has no finite models, then K is complete, in the sense that, l o r any closed wf {YJ, either r-K ~ or r-K -,.0/1 (Vaught, 1954). Ifnot -r-K !18and IIIlt-i K .....,.YJ, then the theories K' = K + {.....,.0/1} and K" = K + U~} are ,IInsistent hy Lemma 2.12, and so, by Corollary 2.34(a), there are normal IIJ"dds M' and M" of K' and K", respectively, of cardinality less than or cquul to N,. Since K has no finite models, M' and M" are infinite. Hence, by ( orollary 2.34(b). there arc normal models N' and N" of K' and K". rc'I'l'l'tlvcly. olcnrdinulity Nil. By the NfI"l'ate~oricity of K. N' and N" must be

or

or
isomorphic

,\~TI

fIC;\TION

TH FUR Y

(jl'~~FR.I\LlZ[D

FIRST-ORDER

THFORIES

117

1l1l1.,il1cl' '// I~ true III N' and.'!J I.>; true ill Nil. this is impossible bv Pmpl"iti(lll 2\2(11). Therefore. either f r; //01" i·r;·Yl. III particular. i!' K is an ordinary theory with cqualitv that has no finite models and IS N;i,cdlegorical for some li?-' O. then K is complete. As an cx.unplc. consider the theory K2 of densely ordered sets with neither first nor la~t clement (sec page <)X). K2 has no finite models and is (\II-cateogrical. II' all ordinary theory K IS axiomatic (i.c .. one C,11l effectively decide whether any wf is an axiom) and complete, then K is decidable. that is. there is a n effective procedure to determine whether any gl\"CIl wf is a theorem. To :iCC this. remember (sec page 86) that if a theory is axiomatic. one can effectively enumerate the theorems. Any wf.YJ is provable if' and only if its closure is provable. Hence, we may confine our attention to closed wl"sYl. Since K is complete, eitherYl is a theorem or ~.!8 is a theorem, and, therefore, one or the other will eventually turn up in our enumeration of theorems. This provides an effective test for theorcmhood. Notice, that if K is inconsistent, then every wf is a theorem and there is an obvious decision procedure; if K is consistent, then not both .Yj uud -1;Yl call show up as theorems and we need only wait until one or the other appears. II" an ordinary axiomatic theory with equality K has no finite models and is (-(fl-Cl tcgorical Ior some li.~ (). then. hy wha t we ha vc proved, K is decidublc. III parucul.u, till' till'nry K, discussed above is decidable. l n ccrtnin l·a.'l·'. there IS ~l III ore direct method 01" proving completeness or dccidability. Let us take a~ an example the theory K2 of densely ordered sets with neither first nul' last clement. Langford (1927) has given the following procedure lor K1. Consider any closed wfYl. By proposition 2.30, we can assume tha 1 -"YJ is in prenex normal form (QI YI) ... (Q" YII)'t, where «(, contains no quantifiers. If (Q"y,,) is (Vy,,) , replace (,1'y,,),(; by,(3y,,)-/t? In all cases, then, we have, at the right side of the wf, (3y,zl'l, where () has no quantifiers. Any negation x f y can be replaced hy x < y V Y < .r, and ,(x < y) can he replaced by x = y V Y < x. Hence, all negation signs can be eliminated from ::1). We can now put '0 into disjunctive normal form, that is, a disjunction of conjunctions of atomic wfs (see Exercise 1.42). Now (3y,,) (';21 V% V ... V'fid is equivalent to (3YII ).rz: I V (3y,,) (j)2 V ... V (3y" )0':,. Consider each (3Y")Yi separately. '2;, is a conjunction of atomic wfs of the form t < s and I = s. If(::?i does not contain Yn,just erase (3YII)' Note that, if a wf 0' does not contain YII' then (3Yn)(1ff II .~) may be replaced by ,r; II (3y,,),97. Hence, we are reduced to the consideration of (3y,,).Y, where ,'F is a conjunction of atomic wfs of the form t < s or I = .1', each of which contains YII' Now, if one of the conjuncts is YII = z for some z different from Y", then replace in ,,# all occurrences of YII by z and erase (3YII)' If we have .I'll = _VII alone, then just erase (3.1'11)' If we have VII 1'" as one conjunct among others, then erase .l~, = I'". If,;; has a conjullctl',,· .1'", t hen replace all of ("1.1',,).;; by 1'11'- 1'". II" .IF consist» ,)1" 1',,' :,,;\ (\ \',,' z, 1\111 'I'll 1\ ... 1\ II", '\'". then replace ( iI'" ).f hv till' coruunvuon of all till'

I\f"s II, < =1' for I ~i::;'111 and I <p c]. If all the liS or ,III the =/,s are missing. replace (Jr,,)f by r,,= 1"11' This exhausts all possibilities and. in every case, w,: have replaced (3r".I;1'- by a wfcoutaining no quantifiers, that is. we have .+iminut ed tile quantifier (3-",,). We arc left with (QIVI)··· (Q" IYII I v«, where 'fj contains 110 quantifiers. Now we apply the same procedure suel'l'ssivcly to (Q" IV" 1) ..... (QU'I)' Finally we arc len with a wf without quantifiers. built up of wfs of the form x = .r and x < .r. If we replace x = x 1)\ X = X C_? X = X and x < .r hy ~(x = .r ~ .r = .r ). the result is either an mstance of a tautology or the negation of such an instance. Hence, hy Proposition 2.1, either the result or its negation is provable. Now, one can c";l,ily check that all the replacements we have made in this whole reduction procedure applied to .~ have been replacements of wfs >If hy other wfs '/f -uch that I-K .j{ ¢=;I'll. Hence, hy the replacement theorem. if our final result /) is provable, then so is the original wf Yl. and. if" -,:;I is provable. then so is Y] Thus, K2 is complete and decidable. lhe method used in this prone the successive climinatiou of" existential .juantifiers. has been applied to other theories. It yields a decision procedure hc'C Hilbert and Bcrnays, 1934. ~ 5) for the pure theory of equality KI (see '\, I~e 9R). It has been applied hy Ta rsk i ( 1<)51) to prove t he completeness and ''''(Idahility of elementary algebra (i.e .. of the theory of real-closed fields; sec \,111 der Waerden, 1<)49) and by Szmielcw (1955) to prove the decidability of IIll' theory Gc of abelian groups.
vcrcises

~."~ (Henkin. 1955) If an ordinary theory with equality K is finitely axI' uu.uizuble and ~';:,-categorical for some IX, prove that K is decidable. 2.% (a) Prove the decidability of the pure theory K I of equality. (b) Give an example of a theory with equality that is N,-categorical for some IX, but is incomplete. \ 1a Ihematical
i

applications

vt

'I u: IL'I"Ill

I11.11
11.1"

I· he the elementary theory of fields (see page 98). We let n stand for I + I + ... + I, consisting of the sum of 11 I s. Then the assertion ,I field has characteristic p can be expressed by the wf (ep: p = O. A field characteristic 0 if and only if it does not have characteristic p for any

Then for any closed wf .'J8 of F that is true for all fields of charIC'II~ttc O. there is a prime number q such that f~ is true for all fields of , II.ILIC·lnistic greater than or equal to q. To see this, notice that, if Fo is ,d" .uucd from I: by milling as axioms ~(('2' ~({>.1, ... , ~((:f" ... (for all primes 1'1 IhL' 1I0rll1;11 models of 1:0 arc the fields of characteristic O. Hence, by I \c'I\'IW 2.77, I I" .fI. But then, for some finite set of new axioms
11\ 1111,' /1.
I,

II S
/(
) (f

QUAl\TIFIU\TIOl\
!(",.,.
-

THFORY
.,«(',/ "" . "("/

(iE~FR:\I.l/'Fl) Exercises

FIRST-ORIHR

HIFORILS

119

t--I ,YJ, Let (I be a prime greater th.m all 'l , ..... (I.' In every field 01 churucierisuc greater than or ClJU;t\ to II. the wi's ~«(,'II' ~(f,'f", .. , ~«(,"" arc true: hence. iJ] IS also true. (Other clpplications in algebra may he found In A. Robinson (1951) and C'hcrlin ( 1')7(1» ~, A gUlldlmay be considered as a set with a symmetric binary relation R (I.e: .. the relation that holds between two vertices if and only if they arc connected by an edge). Call a graph k-colourahle if and only if the graph c,~n be divided into k disjoint (possibly empty) sets such that no two elements 111 the same set are in the relation R. (Intuitively. these sets correspond to k colours. each colour being painted on the points in the corresponding set. with the proviso that two points connected by an edge are painted different colours.) Notice that any subgraph or a k-eolourable graph is k-eolourable. Now we can show that. if every finite subgraph of a graph (f) is k-eolourable. and if «(} can he well-ordered, then the whole graph ~fj is k-eolourable. To prove this. construct the following generalized theory with equality K (Beth. 1(53). There are two binary predicate letters, .AT(=) and A~ (corresFondin~ to the relation R on (f)): there are k monadic predicate letters AI·", ,Ak (corresponding to the k subsets into which we hope to divide the graph): and there eire individuul eOllst;lllb !I,. one lor each clement (' or the graph (/). As proper axioms. in addition 10 the usual assumptions (A(l) and (A7). we have the 1'oIlo\\'ill),! 1\'1<
/(,.
1• .

(I

II

we have

~«(,"

~,

II,.

297'\ (Los, 1954b) A group B is said to be ordcrabl« if there cxists a binary relation Ron B that totally orders B such that. II' xRv, then I.r 1- ~)R(I' +::) .md (:: 1- x)R(:: -~ r), Show. by a method similar to that used 111 Example ~ .ibove. that a group B is ordcrable if and on ly if C\l:r: finitely generated subgroup is ordcrablc (if we assume that the set n Gin he well-ordered) 2,98:\ Set up a theory 1'01' algebraically closed fields Ill' characteristic Ii ( .? 0) hy adding to the theory F of fields the new axioms I:,. where P', states that every non-constant polynomial of degree II has a root. <I' Wl:1Ias axioms that

(I) (II)

(III )
(IV) (V)

~A~(x,x) A~C\'.y) =} Ai(y,x) ('1x)(A: (x) V Aj(x) V ('v'x)~(Ai(x) !\Ajl(x)),

(VI) (VII)

(irrcflexivity or R) (symmetry of R) (division into k classes) ... V A~(x)) (disjointness of the k for I ~i <j~k classes) ('v'x) ('v'y) (A! (x) !\ A! (y) =} ~AHx,y)) for I ~ i ~k (two elements of the same class are not in the relation R) a" f (I" for any two distinct elements band c of '!f Ai(ah, ae). if R(b, c) holds in '!f

determine the churacteristic. Show that every wf 01' I' that holds for one .ilgebraically closed field of characteristic () holds [or all Ill' them. [/-/iIll: This theory is Nil-categorical for /i > (), is a xiomu tizahlc. ;tllli h;IS no finite models. See A. Robinson (1952).] 2.99 By ordinary mnthemutical reasoning. solvc the tinit: niarriag, , nrohlrni. ( ii ven a finite set M or 11/ men and a set N or women such that each man h 110WS only a finite number of women and. lor I :s Ii III. uny subset or /1'1 having k elements knows nt least k women or N (i,e .. there arc at least k II omen in N who know at least one or the k given men), then it is possible to IIIC1rry(monogamously) all the men of M to women in N so that every man is .u.nried to a women whom he knows. [Hilll (Halmos and Vaughn, 1950): "I ! is trival. For 111 > l, use induction. considering the cases: (I) Ior all k \ uh I ~k < 111, every set of k men knows at least k + I women: and (II) for «me k with I <k. < m, there is a set of k men knowing exactly k wornen.] 1 \Iend this result to the infinite case. that is. when M is infinite and well.'Idcrable and the assumptions above hold for all finite k . [Hill!: Construct '" .ippropriate generalized theory with equality. analogous to that in Ex'"'i~lc 2 above, and use Corollary 2,34(a),] ~.III() Prove that there is no generalized theory with equality K, having one I" ,'I!tea te letter < in addition to =. such tha t the normal models of K arc v.uily those normal interpretations in which the interpretation of < is a ,,'II-'l1-dering of the domain of the interpretation. he a wf in prcnex normal form. If;?/J is not closed, form its closure Suppose, for example, ;;yJ is (3yd ('v'Y2) ('v'YJ) (3Y4)(3ys) ('v'Y6) , I:, 1'",r,.Y4.Y5,Y6), where 'f,' contains no quantifiers. Erase (=:JYI)and re"I.I'l' .1'1 in If; by a new individual constant bl: ('v'Yl)('v'Y3)(::JY4) (3Y5) ('v'Y6) ( l'I,I',.1'1'Y4,Vs,YI,)' Erase ('v'Y2) and ('v'YJ) , obtaining (3Y4)(=:JY5)('v'Y6) 1'1,1",1".,1'4 . .1'5,)'6), Now erase (3Y4) and replace Y4 in C(j by g(Y2,Y3), where : I', ;1 new function letter: (3Y5) ('v'y(,)/&(bl ,Y2,Y3, g(Y2,Y3),Y5,Y6). Erase (3Y5) 111<1 replace ,I's hy h(Yl.V3). where h is another new function letter: ('v'Y6) \'.',\'1, U(I':,.F1).h(Y2,YJ),Y(,), Finally. erase ('v'Y6)' The resulting wf I 1'1, I" ,1'\, !/(1',' .1"). he!'} . .\'3) • .1'6) contains no quantifiers and will he denoted i., 1/' Thus, by introducing new function letters and individual constants, w r' "Ill chmin.uc t hc quantifiers from a wf.
;11,1<';111,
I I

1 l'IYJ

Now, any finite set of these axioms involves only a finite number of the individual constants ael, ••• , aen, and since the corresponding su bgruph {CI, ... , cn} is, by assumption, k-colourable, the given ~nite set of axioms has a model and is, therefore, consistent. Since any finite set of axioms IS consistent, K is consistent. By Corollary 2.34(a), K has a normal model of cardinality less than or equal to the cardinality of ~fj. This model is a kcolourable graph and, by (VI)-(VII), has ~Ij as a subgraph. Hence ~fj is also kcolourable. (Compare this proof with a standard ma thcmutical proof of the same result by Bruijn and Erdos (1951), Generally. usc or the method above replaces complicated applications of Tychonolf's theorem or Kiilli!!'s Uncndlichkeits lcmmu.)

"I,

120
LY{//ll/'/n

()lIi\~TIFICi\IION

THEORY

(jFN~.R.\LJZrD

riRSIOR1HR

f[[()RI!S

121

I. II

!lj

I, \'/I!

ii,

11~,)(Vl"d(\1r.j)(31',;)'f,CI·I.,·,.n.I·..I.h),

lrcc. t hcn IF i, the form '(,(,1'1. OCI'I)-.I'1,l'4.h(VI . ."1 .. 1'4)). -, l I '!j is (iI·i)i .)(VI'1)('v'14)(:3r,;Yf,(_I'I.I·>1'1.1.j ".I\), whcrc z is qua m ifierlrcc, then 1]' i, of' the form «(,(17. C.1'1. .I'4.1/(1'1.\·..I)I.

or

where

If,

is quuutilier-

IorM". Since M' dillcrs from \1 only in ILI\IIl~ iurcrprct.uion-, \11' the IlCW individual constants und function lcu cr«. :1III I <ince I dOL's nut contain anv

or Gcn and rule E4. (To he more precise, in the process of' obtuining

Notice that

:;J'

f·'!l. since we can put the quantificr«

hack by applications

drop all quantifiers and, 1'01' substitute a term 11(=1 .... ,zd, arc the variables that were universally quantified in the prefix preceding (Jv,l. If there arc no such variables 71-- __ .zA' we replace v, by a new Individual consta nt.)

iz". we each existentially quantified variable Y,. we where U is a new function letter <1I1d21···· .:,

those symbols, (/ is true fur M. '1 hus, '/ IS I nil' III l'VL'J'Y denuillenlbl~ model 01' K'. Hence. ~~K 'r . hy Corollary .2.20(:1) Since the ";IOI11S or Karl' axioms of K. we have I-K '.I. (1:01' a con-t rucuvc proof of an equivalent result, sec Hilbert and Bernuys (19:<9),) b) Clearly. K' is an extension or K. sin-:c Ii !l f lcncc. if K' is conI.c,t './ hC<lllywrorK.lf -istent. so is K. Conversely. assume K is conxistcn: K is inconsistent. t-K (./ 1\ ·,(i By (a), I .1-" '/ ,'/. coutradicting the consistency of K.
01
I

PROPOSITION

2.35 (SECOND ~-THEOREM)

(Rasiowa. 1956; Hilbert and Bcrnays. 1939) Let K be a generalized theory. Replace each axiom'!l of K by .'!l'. (The new function letters and individual constants introduced for one axiom arc to he different from those introduced I'llI' another .ix iom.) l.ct K' be the gelleralil.ed theory with the proper ;Jxiollls 1]'. ThL'II: (a) (h) If (./ is a wf or K and I K' '/. then f K 'I K is consistent if and only if K' is consistent.

Let LIS usc the term gCII('ra/i::ci/ COIIi/I/Ctl'ill'.\.\ thl'II/'I'1i1 1,)1' the proposition that every consistent generalized theory h.is » model. II'\\e :IS,lI111Cthat every set can be well-ordered (or, equivalently, the n x ron: 1)1' choice). then the ucnerulizcd completeness theorem is a con-cqucncc ,)1' l'I<)Jl(hltl()1l 2.33. By t~e maxima/ ideal tluon-m (MI) \\L' mc.m ihc PI<)p(lSlti(\1l that cvcrv proper Ideal ofa Boolean algcbru call he extended t o u 111:IXi111:iI ideal.' Thi's I" equivalent to t~le.Ro()leall representation theorem. which states that every Boolean algebra IS Isomorphic to a Boolean algebra or sets. (Compare Stone i 1<)16). For the theory of Boolean algebras. see Sikorski (1960) or Men.lclson (1970),) The usual proofs of the M I theorem usc the axiom of choice I ._. • ,'lit II IS a remarkable fact that thc MI theorem is equivalent to the aen",:di7ed completeness theorem. and this equivalence can he proved witl;out '''IIl~ the axiom of choice.

PIH)POSITION Proof (a) Let ry; he a wf of K such that f K 9. Consider the ordinary theory K" whose axioms ,'!ll, ... ,Mil are such that :](l~, ... , ,?4~ are the axioms used in the proof ofry;. Let K 0* be the theory whose axioms are ,q,f~, ... , .?4;'. Hence f--K, .. e;;. Assume that M is a denumerable model of K We may assume tha t the domain of M is the set P of positive integers (see Exercise 2.88), Let ,;IJ be any axiom of K ". For example, suppose that ;'fj has the form (3YI )(\fY2) (\fy,) (3Y4)'6(YI ,Y2,Y3,Y4), where (I) is quantifier-free .. 'fl' has the form «(i(b,.Y2,Y3,Q(_Y2,Y3)). Extend the model M step by step in the following way (noting that the domain always remains P); since :!d is true for M. (3YI ) (\fy:z)(VY3)(3Y4ye(YI ,Y2,Y3,Y4) is true for M. Let the interpretation h' of b be the least positive integer YI such that (\fY2)(\fY3)(3Y4Y(,(YI.V2.y~.Y4) is true for M. Hence. (3Y4)'tf(b,Y2,Y),Y4) is true in this extended model. l-or any positive integers .1'2 and Yl. let the interprctu tion of Y(,I'2. n) he the least posi tivc integer Y4 such that f(, (17. .1'2. Vl •. 1'4) is true ill the extended model. Hence. «(, (h. 1':'.,I'~.!I (_1'2 ..I'~)) is true in the ex tended model. I I' we do this for all the axioms.YJ III' K ,we obtain a model M' of K . SiIlL'C i " ' 'I. '/ IS true
O

2.36 complete-

[ I \Is, 1954a: Rasio~a and Sikorski. 1951: 1952) The generalized II,',,, theorem IS equivalent to the maximal ideal theorem.
Proof

J.

Assume the generalized completeness theorem. Let B he a Boolean al""IlLI Construct a generalized theory with equality K having the binary 11I11L'tIOIl letters LJ and n. the singulary function lctterf/ [we denotef/(t) by .' I. predicate letters = and A:. and, for each element b in B, an individual ,''!hlant "': By the .complete description of B. we mean the following "·[llcllces: (I) ai' 1= a.. If band c are distinct elements of B; (ii) a" U a; = ad if !, , d:1 rc clcrncn ts of 13 such that 17 U c = d in B: (iii) ai, n a; = a; if b. c. e Ill' clements 1)1' b such that h n c = e in B; and (iv) ill> = a, if 17 and care ,.1,'I\I<'lIls 01' Ii such that h = c: in B. where b denotes thc complement of h. As
II I

SlIln' {O} 1':1 proper

Iii,' PIOllll\IIIOII 111:11 l'wn

ideal 01' a Boolcun

11(\(liL'all alf!lohra

al).!chrao this implies

has a 1\1;1\1111;\1 Ilk:l!.

(und is implied

hv )
'

122~ I
__ ~_~ I

QI:ANTII'IC;\TION

THI'ORY

iLL:VIF:--.JT;\RY Exercisl'

1.<)I'IV!\LE!'\CT.

ELE:vIENTARY

LXTL:--.JSIONS

In

Ai

axioms ol' K we tukc a set of axioms for d Boolean algebra. ;IXIOIJ1S (A6) and (A 7) [or equality. the complete description of 13, and axioms asserting that AI determines" maximal ideal (i,e. A:(xri\), /t:rx) ,\It:(.I") 0=> A:(.rUr), (x» A:(x II\') Ai (x) V A: (x), and ~A: (x U\)). Now K is consistent. for. if there were a proof in K of a contradiction. this proof would contain only a finite number or the symbols ai; ae"" say, lih,,··, ,111>,,' The clements hi,. "h" generate" finite subalgebra Il' of B, Every finite Boolean algebra clearly has a maximal ideal. Hence. [3' is a model for the wi's that occur In the proof of the contradiction. and therefore the contradiction is ~rLJe ill B'. which is impossible. Thus. K is consistent and. by thc generalized cornplctcness theorem. K has a model. That model can be contracted to a normal model of K. which is a Boolean algebra A with a maximal Ideal l. Since the complete description of B is included in the axioms of K. B is a subaluebra of A, and then In B is a maximal ideal in B, (bjAssurnc the maximal ideal theorem. Let K he a consistent generalized theory, For each axiom ,1J of K, form the wf.!IF obtained hy coristrucung a prencx normal form for '1J and then eliminating the quantifiers through the addition of new individual constants and function letters (see the example preceding the proof of Proposition 2.35), Let Kli be a new theory having th~ wfs .YI'. plus all iustnnccs or tautologies. as its axioms, such that Its wls contain no quantifiers and its rules or inference arc modus poncns and a rule or substitution 1'01' v.uiahlcs (numcly. substitution or terms for variables), Now. K!i is consistent. since the theorems ill' K Ie arc also theorems of the consistent K' or Proposition 2.35, Let B be the Lindenbaum algebra determined by K # (i.e .. for any wfs '(. and 'J:. let (f, Eq 'j: mean that f-Ki' (f; <-c? .;t; Eq is an equivalence relation: Ict [It] he~e equivalence class of (e; define [(tl U ['PI = [(t V 9], [(6] n [,<;0] = l(f;'!\ ILl, [rei = l~(t]: under these operations, the set of equivalence classes is a Boolean algebra, called the Lindenbaum algebra of K#), By the maximal ideal theorem, let I he a maximal ideal in B, Define a model M of K # having the set of terms of K # as its domain; the individual constants and function letters are their oW,n interpretations, and, for any predicate letter .4,}, we say that .4'}(t, , : . , ,til) IS true in M if and only if [.4;(11"", til)] is not in L One can show easily that a wf (e of K # is true in M if and only if ['e] is not in L But, for any theorem 'j: of K ['1l] = I. which is not in L Hence, M is a model for K #, For any axiom ,'!Ii of K, every substitution instance of @'(YI, ' , , ,y,,) IS a theorem In K#; therefore, 2~'(yI"" ,Yn) is true for all y"", ,YIl in the model. It follows easily, by reversing the process through which (}'j* arose from .1J. thatYl IS

2.101 Show that the generalized completeness theorem sct can be totally ordered (and. therefore. that the axiom any set of non-empty disjoint finite sets),

implies that every or choice holds for

The natural algebraic structures corresponding tll the propositional calL'uIIlS arc Boolean algebras (see Exercise I.N!. and Rosenbloom, 1950. chaps I and 2), For first-order theories. the prL"L'IlCC llf' quantifiers illiroduces more algebraic structure. For example. ii' K IS d first-order theory, then. in the corresponding Lindenbaum algebra B. 'I( Ix)7J(x)] = I,i.YI(/)). where I, indicates thc least upper hound in B. and I 1';lnges over all terms of K that arc free for x in .1J(x) , Two types or aigehraiL' suuct urc have been proposed to serve as algebraic counterparts or qu.uu ilicauou theory, The lirst. cylindrical algebras, have been studied cxtcnsivc!v hv Turski. Ihompson , Henkin. Monk and others (sec Henkin. Monk .md Tarski. 1971), The other approach is the theory or polyadir algebras. invented and developed by Halmos (1%2),

2.13 ELEMENTARY

EQUIVALENCE.

ELEMENTARY

EXTENSIONS

=,

true in the model.

Hence,

M is a model

for K,

The maximal ideal theorem (and. therefore. also the gcncrulizcd cornplcteness theorem) turns out to be strictly weaker than the axiom or choice (sec Halpern. 19M).

I \\0 interpretations M, and M2 of a generalized first-order language Y' are ',lid to he elementarily equivalent (written MJ == M2) if the sentences or 2) Iruc for M I are the same as the sentences true for M2. Intuitively. M I == M2 II .md only if M 1 and M2 cannot he distinguished by means or the language I Of course. since !Ii is a generalized first-order language. 'f may have n.m-dcnumerably many symbols, Clearly, (I) M == M; (2) if M 1 == M2, then M2 == M J; (3) if M I == M2 and \1, M1• then MI == M3, 1\\/0 models of a complete theory K must be elementarily equivalent, ,IIIL'Cthe sentences true in these models are precisely the sentences provable III K. This applies. for example, to any two densely ordered sets without first ''i IOIstclements (see page 116), We already know. by Proposition 2,32(b), that isomorphic models are .-kIIlL'llt'lrily equivalent. The converse, however. is not true, Consider. for .v.uu plc. any complete theory K that has an infinite normal modeL By ( «rollary 2.34(h). K has normal models of any infinite cardinality ~a' If we l,il..L' two normal models of K of different cardinality, they are elementarily ,qlll\'alent hut not isomorphic, A concrete example is the complete theory t..:. ill' densely ordered sets that have neither first nor last element. The ,.IIIPllal numbers and the real numbers, under their natural orderings. are "klllL'Jlt;lrily equivalent non-isomorphic models or K2.

124 Exercises

()l

\,,1

uu

.\fiO'\J

I!lH)RY

I:LE\1LNTARY

FQLlVAI

1;\1('1·. EU:V1F,\;TAR\

LXll'\JSIO"S

Exercises

2.102 l.l't K,. till: theory Df infinite sets, c\lflsist 01' the pure theory, K,. or cqualitv plus the .i xiorn-, !J]". where !J]". <I~~crls that ther~ ~Ire '~t :east clements. Show t ha t ,In~,two models or K, arc ciellll:ntanly equivalent (sec
lxcrcrscs

,I:

2.1031)

2.M) and 2.9(J(a)). lf M \ and Me arc elementarily cquivalent normal models and M \ IS finite. prove that M and M~ are iSllmorphic. 2.104 l.ct K be .1 theory with equality having l'\./ symbols. "t\ (a) Prove that there are at most ,," !TIm 1 ISo. I' K I1) two of which are c l elementarily equivalent. . (b) Prove that there arc <It mo-t 2's mutually non-isomorphic models of K of cardinality (-\/i. where ;' is the maximum of (J. and fi. . . 2.105 Let M be any infinite normal model of a theory With .equahty K having (-\, symbols. Prove that. for any cardinal K.• :;d~'l'there IS a normal model M' or K of cardinality N, such that M == M .
1

A model M, of a language :;' (written

.

MI ( M.li
individual
.

If is said to be an ('XICIISiO/1 if the ]"ollowing conditions hold:

1 I~

of a model M I of of M2·
.\1.'

I The dUI1I,I!n iii 01 M

") lor
:111\

l'OII,t,\llt

a ~uh~l't u]" the dOlllain

(" 1)

Prove: Me:; M: (h) if MI Me and M2 c;: M1. then MI (_ Iv!;. IC) IrM\;~M2andM2C:;MI.thenMI M: 2.107 Assume MI c:; M2. (a) Let ..IJ(XI ..... ! X/J) be a wf of the form \. 111.1""')(1,(.1"1 1"". .1'1." .)j,,). where rl, is quantifier-free. Show ih.u . lo r .my hi h., III the domain of MI. if PM::8[hl ..... li; thell! \1 /llhl_ hl(j. In particular. any sentence (Yvl)'" (Ylj,,)((. (,"1" . I"m). II here '(, is quantifier-free, is true in MI if it is true in M2. (b) Let .:8(XI ..... X,,) be a wf of the Iorrn II-I).' ( 11""')'(,(1"\ 1.,_ YI, ... 'YIII)' where ((, is quantifier-free. ShOll t hu}. lor ;111\ /'1 _ 1>" in the domain of M \. il" 1=:1'1, :;jihl ..... 1>,,',.the11 i \\ /llhl 1>"1 III particular. any sentence (J.\'I)'" ( h"1II) '(,(\'1 _ .1'",). \lllere 'f. IS ljU;IIItifier-Iree, is true in M2 if it is true in MI. 2.108 (a) Let K he the predicate calculus of the languugc of field theory. Find a model M of K and a non-empty subset X of the domain D of M such that there is no substructure of M having domain
2.106
(a)

c:

/)2
\

I' " J.

<

.\1

(.

.\1,

vhcrc

CC(

and
b.,

eM,

are D.
D.

X.

the intcrp: L'!:ltllllh 01 c III M ',Ind M \. 3. For any tuuction letter f;' or '.J'
4. F~r (f"lItl'(bl ..... hll) =

1=

any MIAj[hl

predicate letter A'; of If and any •...• h,,] if und only if PM, ilj[hl, ... ,h,,].

un'l

and

any

h, ..... hl,···,

111

(hi .. ·· .hll)·

hn

In

When M I

c:; M1• one also says that M I is a substructure (or submadcl) of M2·

Examples . I. If .Sf contains only the predicate letters = and «, then the set of ~atlOnal numbers under its natural ordering is an extension of the set of integers under its natural ordering. , . 2. If 2) is the language of field theory (with the predicate lelther -fi-'ldluncl_-tlo~ letters + and x , and individual constants 0 and I), then tee _o rea numbers is an extension of the field of rational numbers, the ti~ld ()~ rational numbers is an extension of the ring of integers .. an.d the ring .of integers is an extension of the 'semiring' of no.n-negatl~e lI1teg~rs. I-o~ any fields FI and Fl. FI c:; F2 if and only If FI IS a subfield of h In the usual algebraic sense.
occ.ision 10
. t· \1'<' II 11'

(b) If K is a predicate calculus with 110 individual constants or function letters. show that. if M is a model of K and X is a subset of the domain D of M. then there is one and only one substructure of M having domain X. (c) Let K be any predicate calculus. Let M be any model of K and let X be any subset of the domain D of M. Let Y be the intersection of the domains of all submodels M' of M such that X is a subset of the domain DM• of M'. Show that there is one and only one submodel of M having domain Y. (This submodel is called the submodcl generated by X.) ;\ somewhat stronger relation between interpretations than 'extension' is u-cful in model theory, Let M I and M2 be models of some language Y'. We ,.1\ that M2 is an elementary extension of MJ (written MI ~c M1) if I I ) M 1 C M~ and (2) for any wf .'J&(yl .. , 'YII) of !f' and for any hi, ... , bll in i hr domain DI of M I, I=M, .18[bJ, .... bill if and only if I=Ml :!6'[bl, ... ,bill· (In 1,.llt icular. 1'01' any sentence .1jJ of !i), 38 is true for M I if and only if M is true 1"1 M~.) When MI ~cM2, we shall also say that MI is an elementary sllh11111</111"1' (or 1'11'1II1'/llOry submodeh of M2. It IS obvious, that. if MI ~cM2. then MI t;;: M2 and MI == M2. The con- \,'I~l' is not true. as the following example shows. Let G be the elementary I II,'" 1:- of groups (see page 9X). G has the predicate letter =. 1111ll·tion letter I. and individual constant O. Let / he the group or integers ,11111 F the grollp of even integers. Theil F ( I and I F. (The function 1/
»<;

reader will huvc incur-ion rcl.uron

IThl'

1]1\

l'''ll

11'"

"

\\'111, Ihal

t'or

hc

126

127

such that ,j(l) 2\ I'llI' all .r in / is ~1I1isomorphism 01' / with /:') Consider the wf /11\) ( II j{1 1 I I). Theil IC ,0121_ hut IWtI .11:21· Thu s, / is not a n elelllcllLlr~ extension or E. (This example slw\\s ihc stronger result that even asslIming MI (_ \'1:- and MI ~ Me docs not imply MI oS."M2-) The i'olillwing theorem prnvidc<in L',I~y ml,thod Ior showing that M! ~cM>

This completes

the induction

a w] that can he built lip tr orn .uornic t ionuls and existential quunufic.uions.

proof. since ~Iny \1 f is logically equivalent to wts hy forming negations, co ndi-

Exercises 2.109 Prove:

(a)

PROPOSITION

2.37 (Tarski and Vaught- 1957) the following

Ihe

(h) (c)

M~,.M: if M I ~cM2 and Me ~cM.,. then M I ~<,M \: ifMI~I.M and M2~cM and MI c: M2thl'n

MI

,.M,.

Let M I c::; M~. Assume

($)
1>1 •...•

condition: the
form (ly)'f,(\"I"
•..•

For every wf .. 1(.1"1 x.) ol' ; .... h,

..1,.)")

and

l'or all

in

domain

01

or

MI. if F:VI,;1]hl

.b, I·
.. hi·

then there is

SOIne d

in DI such that

~,\1' ((, ["I'"

ill·

2.110 Let K he the theory or totally ordered sels with equality (axioms (a) (e) and (e) (g) or Exercise 2.(7). Let M I and M,' be the models for K with domains the set of positive integers and the set olnon-ncgutivc integers. respectively (under their natural ordcrinp-, ill bot h ChC'). Prove that MI c:;: Me and MI ~ M2, but MI j{,.M,.

Proof l.ct
LIS

prove:
(;) 1\1,
'/(\"1
'/'1>1"

h,:
Id and

II'

alld

,)Illy

il

i
in

\1

'//11

.....

hll

1'\)1'

any wl'

ally "I,

.. h,

01.

The proof is by induction on the number III or conntctives and quantifiers in (./. II' III = 0, then (*) follows from clause 4 of the definition of MI c:;: M2, Now assume that (*) holds true for all wfs having fewer than III connectives and quantifiers,
Case 1,
~M,

Let M he an interpretation ora language 'f. Extend i/' 10 a iangual!e i/" adding a new individual constant ad for every member d or the domuin or \1. We C,1I1 extend M to an interpretation or '.r by taking d as the interl'l"eta t ion of (id. By the diagram or M we mean the set of a II truc sentences or \1 of' t~e forms A'!(Ud" .... a"..), ~A7(adl" ... ad..). and 11'((/,/" ... - ad..) = a"",. III particular, (fd, i ad, belongs to the diagram if d, i di. By the CO/lip/ell' .tiavram of M we mean the set of all sentences of!f/' that are true for M. Clearly, any model M# or the complete diagram of M determines an ,'kllll'l1tary extension MiFf' of M.t and vice versa.
Iw

q; is ,6, By inductive hypothesis, PMI g·[hl., ..• bk; if and only if If'[bl, ••. , hd. Using the fact that not - PM, t[bl, •• , • hd if and only if PMI ,If'[bl ••• · ,bk]' and similarly for M2, we obtain (*). Case 2. (!l is If =} .. . By inductive hypothesis, F PM, t'[bl"'" hd if and only if PM2 6"[bl, ... , bk] and similarly for .'F. (*) then follows easily. Case 3, .0) is (:3y)8"(xI'" .x",y). By inductive hypothesis,
(**)

~.III

(a)

~MI o[bl,
for any b.,

,bk,d] ifand only if pM,8[bl, ,bk,d in DI·

... ,h"dj.

(h)

DI.

Case 3a. Assume PMI (:3y)8(xI'" .Xk,y) [bl, ... , bkl for some hi, ... .li, In Then PM,6"[bl, ••• ,hk,dj for some d in DI. So, by (**), PM, 6'[bl, ...• bk,d]. Hence, PM, (:3y)I,"(XI, ... Xk,y)[hl ..... hk]. Case 3h. Assume PM~ (Jy)t (XI, ... Xk,V) [hi .. , .. hk I for some hi,· .. hk in DI. By assumption ($). there exists d in /)1 such that ICM. Ii Ihl , hk· cll· Hence, by (H), ~M, !.Ihl ..... hk.dj and therefore I \1, (jI·)l:(rl \k.V)

L~t M I be.a denumerable normal model of an ordinary theory K With equality such that every element of' the domain of M I is the interpretation of some closed term of K. (i) Show that, ifMI C;; M2 and MI == M2• then MI ~"M). (ii) Prove that there is a denumerable normal elementary extension M, of M 1 such that MI and M3 are not isomorphic. Let K be a predicate calculus with equality having two function letters + and x and two individual constants 0 and I. Let M be the standard model of arithmetic with domain the set of natural numbers, and +, x , 0 and I having their ordinary meaning. Prove that M has a denumerable normal elementary extension that is not isomorphic to M. that is, there is a denumerable nonstandard model of arithmetic.
extension "I' the 11,1". M
1111

. I he clcmcnturv
lit,' Illlnprl"latlollS

of M is obtained

from M /I hy Forgetting

about

1"1..... hAI·

12X PROPOSITlOi\' TlIEORF'\I)

()1.'\NTII-I(/\TION

T1IFORY

L:L'IR/\PO\VERS.

"'O'\J·S 1.'\"'l)\i{i)\;--..i,\1

't SIS

12'1

2.JX (l:P\VARO

SKOLEM-LOWENI-IEIi\1-TARSKI

Let K he a theory with equality having t-\, symbols, and let M be a normal model of' K \\ ith domain of' cardinality ~/i. Let ;' he the maximum of 'l. and Ii. Theil, for ~Iny '):?;'. there is a model M' olcardinu lit y t-\,) such that M i M' and :\'1 ';cM Proof Add to the complete diagram of M a set of cardinality N,) of new individual constants hr. together with axioms 17, -!= hi' for distinct T and fI and axioms b, 1= ad for all individual constants (fd corresponding to members d of the domain of M, This new theory K# is consistent, since M can be used as a model for any finite llUI11 bel' of axioms of K #. (I f b., , ..• br,. ad" , , .• ad,,, are thc new individual constants in these axioms. interpret hr, •.•.. hr, as distinct elements of the domain of M different from d, .. , .• dill') Hence. hy Corollary 2,34 (a). K# has a normal model M7't of cardinality N,) such that M <: M#, M f=. Mil. and M-'ScMil,

lirst and only member dol' /) such th.u ;,,\, (r;' (I l : ,. I,,) :Jd, . , , . , d.; ell. must belong to C;" C/, ,I C rr ,) Similarty. ~J!Iintcrprcuuions (11,/') of in.lividual constants are in D', Hence. D' dctcrnu nc-, ;\ substructure M' of" M, To show that M' -'ScM. consider any wf Ai,I'I' . , . , I'",~) <InJ any .d; in f)' such that I=M (C:J::)YJ(_I'I'" .I'".:-:l:dl ..... .l;', I here ex iSis C', such that "1,., .. £1" arc in C. Let d he the lir ... clement t or D such that '\, ,YJ[d d.: £II, Then £I E. C;'"' .c-c C,! I ; n' So, hy the Tarsk i Vaught theorem (Proposition 237) M' :'("M.
.~c

"I,,"

••

",

2.14

UL TRAPOWERS.

NON-STANDARD

ANAI.YSIS

I. AE1' ) HE,FI\CE.0=,>BnCE '. R E

,j:' 1\

c: C~ =;.

1~

C' (~ .j:

PROPOSITION

2.39 (DOWNWARD

SKOLEM-LOW£NHEI:VI-

TARSKITHEOREM)

L·t [J <: A, The set § R = {C I [J t:;:: C ~~ A} is ~Ifilter on A ,1'/1 consists of a II '1Ih~cts of A that include [J, Any filter 01" the form It; is called a principal uhvr. In particular. ·,1-'.1 = {A) and7v) = .1'(A) are principal filters. The filter l'i.l) is said to be improper and every other filter is said to he pro/ler.
I

t, umplcs

Let K be a theory having N, symbols, and let M be a model of K with domain of cardinality t-\:,): ~l' Assume A is a subset of the domain D of M having cardinality n, and assume ~/i is such that ~)'): ~/i): max(~" It). Then there is an elementary submodel M' of M of cardinality ~/i and with domain D' including A. Proof Since 1I-'S ~(I:( ~i" we can add ~/i elements of D to A to obtain a larger set B of cardinality ~rJ. Consider any subset C of D having cardinality ~/i' For every wf :%'(y, •... ,y,,, z) of K. and any c" ...• c., in e such that I=M (3z):!8(y" ... ,y",z)[c, •... ,cn], add to e the first element d of D (with respect to some fixed well-ordering of D) such that I=M (32 ).\'8[c, . ' .. , ('II' cll· Denote the so-enlarged set by c«. Since K has ~, symbols, there arc ~, wls. Since ~, :( ~{I. there are at most N{I new elements in e# and, therefore, the cardinality of e# is ~{I. Form by induction a sequence of sets CI). CI, " ' by setting Co = Band ell I , = C#. Let D* = U . , c", Then the cardinality of D' . . .. . n m 1\-1 IS Nil, In addition. D' IS closed under all the functions U;') , (Assume iI,. ' , , .d; in D': We may assume eI"",. d; ill (', for some k. Now I \1 ( 1:)(.1;'(11 .. , .1,,) :),ell" ,cI"J Hence. (1;,)\1("1, ,",,), he'lIl)! the
f) •• •

I vcrcises

Show that a filter .7" on A is proper if and only if 0 rtF, 2, I U Show that a filter I on A is a principal filter if' and only if the 111iL'1'\ection of all sets in .F is a member of J. ~,II.t Prove that every finite filter is a principal filter. In particular. any Irlll'!' on a finite set A is a principal filter. 2, II ~ Let A be infinite and let :7"7 be the set of all subsets of A that are ,''!llplclllents of finite sets: ,'F={C!(=JW)(C=A-WI\Fil1(W)}, where I 111111')means that W is finite. Show that .7" is a non-principal filter on A. 2,116 Assume A has cardinality ~fi' Let N, -'S ~/I' Let ,7 be the set of all ,lIh,,·ts of A whose complements have cardinality < ~,. Show that .'l7 is a ""II principal filter on A. 2,117 A collection Ifj of sets is said to have the finite intersection property if II tt . II, , , fl B; f 0 for any sets BI, B2 •. ' .• B, in ~fj. If ((j is a collection of
2,112

,'II

I Ii

"I. ,iI ,·1 )

l h« notion "I" a filter is related to thai of an ideal. A subset ,07 of,!'!'(A) is a filter .uul only if the sci '1/ ~A B I [J t J} 01" complements of sets in .j: is an '" llil' Huolcu n algl'llJ';J 1'(..1) Rcmcmhcr rh.u ,'I'(A) denotes (he set oLdl subsets

130

QU/\NTIFICATION

TI-HORY
0("

L'LTRAPOWI:RS.

NON-STANlMRD

I\~;\LYSIS

131

.:;:

subsets of II having the finite intersection property and jf is the set finite intersections BI II Be (1 ... (1 B, of sets In 'fJ. show {DI(IC)(H Yf /\ C c; D ~ Al} is a proper filter on A.
C~

all that

Proof Let :i be a proper f Iter on A. Let 1 be the corresponding proper ideal: (c. f if and only if A ._- B E .1-. By Proposition 2.36. every ideal can he extended to a maximal ideal. In particular. f can be extended to a maximal ideal Yf. If we let lf =-. {BIA - BE if }. then 11 is easily seen to he an ultrafilter andY c::; if. Alternatively, the existence or an ultruliltcr includingF can he proved easily 011 the basis of Zorn's lemma. (In fact. consider the set X of all proper filtersJ--' such that .1- c::; .s : X is partially ordered hy c. and any c-chain in X has an upper bound in X. namely. hy Exercise 2.123. the union of all filters in the chain Hence. by Zorn', lemma. there is a maximal clement .T' III X. which is the required ultrafiltcr.) However. Zorus lemma is equivalent to the axiom of choice, which is a stronger assumption than the generalized completeness theorem.
H

DEFI~ITION A filter i on a set A is called an ultrajilrcr on A if § is ,I maximal proper filter on A, that is. ..F is a proper filter on A and there is Ill> proper filter (fj on A such that § c :1. Example Let d « A The principal tilter .'F" = {Bid E B fI B r;: A} is an ultrafilter on A. Assume that rfj is a filter on A such that I" c (fj. Let C E ~I) -- .F". Then C c:;; A and d ~ C. Hence. d « A - C. Thus, A - C E .F" C 'I}. Since 'I} is a filter and C and A -- C are both in rl}. then 0 = C II (A - C) E ~fj. Hence, (r; is not a proper filter. Exercises 2.IIH Let § he a proper liltcr Oil II and asxume that H r;: A and A -- B ~ .9--'. Prove that there is a proper liltcr .:;;' J such that BE .'7'. 2.119 Let J he a proper filter on II. Prove that.'7 is an ultrafilter on A if and only if, for every B c:;; A. either B E § or A - B E /7. 2.120 Let."F he a proper filter on A. Show that .F is an ultrafilter on A if and only if, for all Band C in :iI'(A), if B ~F and crt .F, then B U crt .'7. 2.121 (a) Show that every principal ultrafilter on A is of the form .Fd = {Bid E B fiB < A} for some d in A. (b) Show that a non-principal ultrafilter on A contains no finite sets. 2.122 Let.'1' be a filter on A and let .j! be the corresponding ideal: B E f if and only if A - BE .'F. Prove that .F is an ultrafilter on A if and only if.f is a maximal ideal. 2.123 Let X be a chain of proper filters on A, that is, for any Band C in X. eithr B c:;; Cor C c:;; B. Prove that the union UX = {al(::JB)(B EX r. a E B)} is a proper filter on A, and B c:; UX for all B in X.

COROLLARY

2.41 ultrafilter on A.

11'11 is an intinite set, there exists a non-principal Proof I L't .F -u bscts I r.rtilter II .F" li {d}
proper.

he the tilter on A consistmg of all complements A - B of finite B of A (see Exercise 2.115). By Proposition 2.40, there is an ul'II ~ .F. Assurne w is a principal ultrafilter. By Exercise 2.121 (a). for some A. Then A - {eI} E iF c:; 'It. Also. {d} E 'II. Hence. II (A - {d}) E 111, contradicting the fact that an ultrafilter is

ue

Ih'uuced direct products \\l' shall l'll'dicate / kt M, .'''I)!lIing now study an important way of constructing models. Let K be any calculus with equality. Let J be a non-empty set and, for each J in he some normal model ofK. In other words, consider a function F to each j in J some normal model. We denote F(j) by Mj' l.ct J be a filter on J. For each j in J, let D, denote the domain of the 111(llkl M,. By the Cartesian product DjE.lDj we mean the set of all functions / II ii h domain J such that fU) E Dj for all j in J. If f E DjE.lDj, we shall 1t'IL-rto I(il as the Jth component of f. Let us define a binary relation =~ in II, .n, as follows: I"
II
WL'

PROPOSITION Every proper

2.40 (ULTRAFILTER

THEOREM) to an ultrafilter on
;II

filter .'F on a set A can be extended

.1/

if and only if

UlfU) = !lU)}

E .F

IWe .issumc

the gl'IlL'rall/l'lI

L'olllpktClll'"

IhL'llIl'1I1.

1'''111

think of the scts in _i: as being 'large' sets. then. borrowing a phrase measure theory. we read I i' If as ,/U) !I(/) almost everywhere'.

Ol AVIIIICt\TI()~

HIEORY

lJLIRAPOWERS. (Ai)"I!!I,.h;)

I\:ON-STAND;\Rj)

;\'\J!\LYSIS .<,!Ii).hlil'l

equivalence relation: (I) / = f: (2) if and (I· h, then / ~ j h. For the proof of (01). observe ih.u {ji/U) (/U)} (1 {i1/(1l flU)] r;; UI.lU) = h(j)]. If U:i(J) <Ill) J aud UluU)- h( i)] are in i. then so is their intersection and. therefore, alst) (j;./(il .~ flU)}· On the hasls of the equivalence relation ,. we can divide fI,c.lD; into cq uivu lcucc classes: for 'lI1Y.l in fI!,.! D,. we deli nc i(:.;cq uivalcnce class I,- as {!/I/ i Ill· Clearly. (1)/ eji: (2)/j ~,hf' If and only iff =j h; and (I) ifl, f. h«, then l; rl II = 0. We denote the set or cquivnlencc classes Ij by fI,uD,IF.lntuitivcly. n,:JD,IF is obiaincd Irom fI,c.lD, by identifying (or merging) elements of fI,e .D, that arc equal almost everywhere. Now we shall define a model 1\1 of K with domain fI,.IDJT. It IS casy to j I/thcll 'I
"T

that

IS

~11l
(/

,i: (_\) ir/

iralldolllyii'Ui it' ~IIHIonlyit

II

1-\1
,h

/~

if and only ii' {ji'l! Ii

hlf!}

;f

that is. if and only if II f ~ It F. Hence. the i ntcrprct ation (AT)~I is the Identity relation and the model M is normal The model 'VI just defined will be denoted 111/i'v1,/ 17 and will he called ~I ',(,(/lICcd direct product When] is an ultrafilter. II,I:'\~,/·;;;is called an uitraproduct. Whcnw is an ultrafilter and all the lVII' are the same model N. then flj:JM,I-T is denoted N'/] and is called un uhrapowcr,
!c·.\'(J!1Ip/CS

I. Let c be any individual constant of K and let Cj be the interpretation of c in M,. Then the interpretation of c in M will be I>. where l is the function such that I(j) = c, for all j in J. We denote I by {Cj }jE)' 2. Let be any function letter of K and let Ak be any predicate letter of K. Their interpretations and (A'j)M are defined in the following manner. Let ((II), ..... (!III) i be any members of fI,<.lDJY. (a) Unrvl((I/I)/ ..... (IIII),) fli.wherL'!1U) Ul')II'(!/1U) ..... YnU)) for alliin.!. IHllS I ~IIH oruy I II '1' I I '1' ( h ) (I",M(( /,1 III ) , 1(111),)

I. Choose

It

un"

til

Frvl, ;I~·i1/ilJ)

(/,,(/)i

l (·F.

Intuitively, Ut)"1 is calculated cornponcntwise, and (An]'Vl holds if and only if 14k holds in almost all components. Definitions (a) and (b) have to be shown to be independent of the choice of the representatives YI, ... ,gil in the equivalence classes (YI)§"",(YII)J: if 01 =.1- Yi,···,(jll =.1- g~, and h'U) = Ut)M,(y;U), ... ,Y,;,U)), then (i) hJ =f II',- and (ii) UI FM, Angl (i), .. . gll(J)I} E:.F if and only if UI FMI AA'[(fjU),···, i1~U)l} E .~. Part (i) follows from the inclusion

{Jlul (j)

0; (j)} r ... n Uly,,(J)

= u;,(J)} c;:
=

a fixed clement r of the index xct ,.'. and let I~ be the principal ultrafilter Ir = {Blr E B 1\ IJ Cc.l}. Theil. I'or allY/, II ill 11,/1>,./ '-!! if and only if Ulf(j) = 11(j)} c .F _ that is. if a nd ouly i l'Il /,) (j(I'). Hence. a member of n,u DdI consists of all I in Il, .If), t ha t hu vc the same rth eOll1ponen t. For any predicate letter Ak of K and any !II ..... !III in Il , JD;. FM Ak[(ifdJ''''(Y'')fl ifand only ifU! F M,AkIYIU),"·,!f,,(j)]} E: .F, tha t is, if and only if FM, Ak If/I (j), ... , !III (j)]. Hence. it is easy to verify that the function cp: fljEJDJT ---> Dr. defined by (p(y 1') = q(r) is an Isomorphism of njuMj/I with Mr. Thus, when J is a principal ultrafilter. the ultraproduct njcJMtI·~-;- is essentially the same as one of its components and yields nothing new. , Let.F be the filter {.1}. Then, foranylq in njUDj,f =;. {I if and only if UI/U) = flU)} E .'F, that is, if and only ifjU) = yU) for all j in,'. or if .ind only iff = if. Thus, every member of njuDJT is a singleton {II} for some q in n'E..IDj. Moreover, ((1,,),11 ((YI)f' .... (!I")i) = {if}. where II is such that gU) = UI/)MI(YIU), ... ,!fIlU)) for all j in .J. Also . ! M A'j [({It)J' ... , (0,,)1' I if and only if FM, A;: [!II (j) ..... fl" (j)] for all j ill .I. Hence. niuMj/.F is, in this case, essentially the same as the ordinary 'direct product' njEc./Mj, in which the operations and relations are de-

UIU;'),VI'(_ql(J), ... ,UII(J)) Part (ii) follows from the inclusions: UIYI(j)= U;(J)} n UI FM, A;:[YI (J), and {II FM, A;: [!II(j),.
...

un

lined componentwise.
Mi

(0; (J), ... , u~(J))}

n UI{/n(J)

= u;,(j)}

c;:
.... Y:,(J)]}

l.ct F be the improper filter PP(J). Then, for any /,0 in njE./D,, I =J y if only if UI/U) = {lU)} E .r, that is, if and only if UIIU) = 'I(/)} (= .JjJ(J). Thus, f =.1- Y for all I and q, and njEc./DJ'F consists of "Illy one clement. For any predicate letter A;:, FM AZL!F,"" IF] if and "Illy if {j FM, A%l!U), ... ,.r(j)])} E f/J(J); that is, every atomic wf is true.
.md I he basic theorem

, g,,(J)] if and only if FM, A~[!I;(j),

on ultraproduets

is due to Los (1955b).

""U)] J

rl

UI I

\I,

/1;: Iud))..

. ·u,'(J) I II' and

.11;,iJ)l}

only if f ...., A~I'li(j)· .... 1/:,(1)1 ( l

{ill \I·'~I!liU).

I'tH)I>OSlTlON 2.42 (LOS'S THEOREM)

1,'1
f be un

In the

C:ISl'

of the equality

relation

,wluch

I" all ahbrcvi.uiou

for :Ii',

ultrnfiltcr

on a set.! and let M

l l, 1M,!>"

he an ultraproduct

134
(a) let \

()L ,\NTIII('i\TI()~

TH!ORY

ULTRAPOWERS.

NON-STANDARD

ANALYSIS

1.15

II; ,/);/

(((/)I » : (Yc), .... i be a denumerable sequence 01" clements of i. l-or each j in .I. lei s, he the denumerable sequence

(h)

('II (Ii. '/~U)····) ill lr., Then. for any wf 1J of K. s satisfies J/J in M ir and ()Illy if {jis, satisfies.YJ in M,) f F. Ior ally sentence YJ of K. ilJ is true III fI,.,M;/-/-;if and only if {II 1'\1, _IIJ} E J. (Thus. (b) asserts that a sentence .YJ is true In ;111 ultraproduct if and only if it is true ill almost ;111components.)

arbitrary clement of D;- Let s" be the same asv except that its ith component is hi. Then "V ~ UI,I'1 satisfies (6 ill M;l E .s . Hence. by the inductive hypothesis, s" satisfies ((, in M. Therefore . .I" satisfies C-:lx;yt ill M. (b) This follows from part (a) by noting that a sentence .0' is true ill a model if and only if some sequence satisfies .YJ.

COROLLARY Proof We shall usc induction on the number 1/1 of connectives and quantifiers in can reduce the case m = 0 to the following subcases.! (i) . x;,,): (ii) x, = /1'(X;, .... ,x,J: and (iii) XI = ai: For subcase (i ), s satisfies A;' (Xii' ...• x,,,) if and only if 1="'1 Ak [(Y" ),. ..... (y,,,) T]' which is equivalent to UII=M, A~[fJ" (j), .... y;,(j)]} E f": that is UI .1', satisfies AA' (Xii'" .. x;,,) in Mi} E J. Subcases (ii) and (iii) arc handled in similar fashion. Now. let us assume the result holds for all wfs that have fewer than m connectives and qun nt ilicrs. ClIS£' I .. YJ is i(,. By induct ivc hypothesis. s satisfies ((, in M if and only if Uls, satisfies 'I, in M,) I 1;. S satisfies if, 'in M if and only if {i1.1, satisfies 'f, in M,} rI- j'. But. since.f is an ultrafilter, the last condition is equivalent, by exercise ~.II<). to {lIs, satisfies -/(, in Mi) E 1. Case 2 .. YJ is If, (\ 'Y. By inductive hypothesis, s satisfies If; in M if and only if Ulsj satisfies ({; in Mi) E ,F, and s satisfies 0/ in M if and only if UI.s i satisfies .r.t in Mj} E .F. Therefore,s satisfies Iff ;\ Ij; if and only if both of the indicated sets belong to .7. But, this is equivalent to their intersection belonging to .'17, which, in turn, is equivalent to Ulo5j satisfies ((/(\ ,')1 in MJ E .<?7. Case 3. :Yi is (=:lx;yt. Assume s satisfies (:3x;yt. Then there exists h in DiODj such that .1" satisfies Cf; in M, where 5' is the same as s except that hF is the ith component of .1". By inductive hypothesis.x' sa tisfies ((/ in M if and only if Ulsj satisfies '(1, in Md E .'17. Hence, Ulsj satisfies (=:J.,;),C in Mi} E .F, since, if sj satisfies Cf; in M{ then sJ sa tisfies (3x;)~ in Mi: Conversely, assume W = UlsJ satisfies(3x;)0' in MJ} E .'17. For each j in W, choose some sj such that 5') is the same as 5j except in at most the ith component and sj satisfies 0'. Now define h in DiEJDj as follows: for j in W. let hU) be the ith component of sj, and, for j~ W, choose hU) to be an
(a)

2.43
IS

If M is a model and .:7 MI j.-!F, then M' == M. Proof

an ultrafilter

011

J. and if M'

is the ultrapowcr

.YJ. We A~'(x;"",

Let .iJJ he any sentence. Then. by Proposition 2.4~(b).YJ is true ill M' if and only if UI,0' is true in M ) E §. IfYJ is true in M. UIYJ is true in M } = J E ,F. If';,8 is false in M. UI;?' is true in M } = Vl ~ 1. Corollary 2.43 can be strengthened considerably. For each c in the domain l) of M, let ('ff stand for the constant function such that c#(j) = c for all j ill .I, Define the function tjJ such that. for each c in D, I/I(C) = (c#)J E o' j?/--, ;1I1ddenote the range of tjJ by M#. M# obviously contains the interpretations In M' of the individual constants. Moreover, M# is closed under the o~ cr.uio ns Uk')M': for Uk)M'((c7)J, ... ,(ct)J) is hI, where hU) = Ut)' i('I····
/, >

,c,,) for allj inJ, (b#)-j7

E

and U;)M((CI,'"

,e,,) is a fixed element of M'.

hoI' D. So.

M#. Thus,

M# is a substructure

('OROLLARY

2.44 of M with Mil', and Mil' ~cM'.

I;' is an isomorphism
Proof

fA wf A;;(/I ..... I,,) can be replaced by (\lUI) ... (\lU,,)(1I1 /111 ... 11 = I" ~ AZ(UI ... , .u,,)). and a wf x = .1//(11.", .1,,) can be replaced by (\lzl)'" (\1:::")(:::1 ~c II II" , liz", I" ~ X = //.'(=1 ..... z,,)). III this way. L'VL'rY wf is equivalent to a wf huilt lip from wl"softhe forms (i) (iii) hy applyill).! ,'IlIIlIL'rlill:' and
lin

quantifiers.

By definition of M#, the range of tjJ is M# (b) ~J is one-one. (For any c, d in D, (c#)-:I' = (d#)JF if and only if f (/II, which is equivalent to U!c#U) = d#U)} E ,'¥; that is, I ii" iI} E .F. If C i- d, Ulc = d} = (/J ~ ,'¥, and, therefore, t(c) i- tjJ(d). M (c) lor any CI, ... , C" in D, ' (tjJ(CI) , tjJ(C/l)) = un . ((c7)-:I""" I(,:'),)~h'f. where hU)=Ui)M (c7U), ,c~U)) =unM(cl, ... ,c,,). l hux, h; Wt)M(CI,""C,,)) ;'<?7 = tjJ(Uf')M (CI, ... ,C,,)). (d) I M' A;,ltjJ(cI) .... tjJ(e,,)) if and only if UII=M A'k(tjJ(cl )U) .... , I/'I<,,)(j)j} ( .~. which is equivalent to UII=M A;:(cl ..... en)} E .F. that is. I \t .-IZ 1("1.. I· Thus. tjJ is an isomorphism of M with Mil,
1.1)

un

r-:

""'I

U6

QU;\NTII-ICATION

HILORY

1 1.1 I~;\ 1'0\\'1' RS 'JON-STA:\

D/\ R I) .\ N;\ lYSIS

U7

To sec that M":O:;CM', kt;1l be any wf and (c~i)i""'(c:)i EM". Then. by proposition 2.42(a). ~"'I·Yl[(c;')J, ... (('n,cl if and only if U[ f \liIJ:C:' (j) ..... e;i (i)I} E .F. which is equivalent to {i[ h1Yl[CI .. · ('1I]l ~_ .F. which. in turn. is equivalent to r·:-.IYl[cI ..... ('"j, that is, to f-'IYl:(C:') i····. ((';:)71, since ~J is un isomorphism of M with Mi'. Exercises 2.124 (The compactness sets of a set of sentences theorem again; see Exercise 2.54) II' all finite subr have a model. then r has a mood.

2.125 (a) A class 11' of interpretations of a language Y) is culled clctncnturv if there is a set r or sentences of .!f' such that 11' is the class of all models of r. Prove that if' is elementary if and only if 'II' is closed under elementary equivalence and the formation of uliraproducts. (b) A classil of interpretations of a language ![ will he culled .1'1'1111'111;(/1 if there is a sentenceYl of !!) such that if is the class of all models of .Yl. Prove that a class if' is sentential if and only if both il' and its complement iT (all interpretations or '.I' not in i/) arc closed with respect to elementary equivalence and ult raproducts. (c) Prove that theory K or lickls or characteristic () (sec page 117) is axiom.uizublc hut not finitcly uxiomatizablc. Non-standard analysis

Let.:i" he a nou-principnl ultrafilter Oil ihc sci I') ui' n.uurul numbcrs. We can then form the ultra power .:1/' =:I/"'/J. We denote the domain R"/ '1'- of .:1/' by R'. By Coroil.uy 2.4.1, .:1/' =:1/ and, therefore. fl' 11<Is ,Ill the properties Iorrnulizuble in K that .:1/ possesses. Moreover. b~ Corollary 2.44.:1/' has an elementary submodcl :I/tr that is .m isomorphic image 01':1/. The domain Rile of .:1/" consists of all elements «" \ corresponding to the constant functions c" (i) = C for all ; in OJ. Wcxh.i!l xomct imcs refer tu the members of R'" also ,IS real numbers: the clcmcn!-, pi R' R" will he culled non-standard teals. That there exist non-standard rculs can be shown hy c\pltl'ltly exhibiting one. Let IU) = j for allj in en. Then 1/ R'. However. (").. I 1,1'01' all c in R, by virtue of Los's IhCOl'C111 a nd the I'ael that {j[clt(j) < IU)} = Ulc < .i}. being the set or all n.uur.il numbers greater th,111a fixed real number, is the complement Ill' ,I finite set .md IS, therefore, in the non-principal ultrafilter .F. 1)- is an "in lim tcly large non-st.mdnrd real. (The relation .::: used in the a;;.'ierti()11 (c" ))I /- is t hc rcl.u ion on the ultrupowcr .f/I' corresponding to the predicate letter of K. We lise the symbol < instead or «);rin order to avoid excessive notation. and we shall often do the same with other relations and functions, such as 11+1'. l/ X c,
I

.ind

1111.)

From the invention of the calculus until relatively recent times the idea of infinitesimals has been an intuitively meaningful tool for finding new results in analysis. The fact that there was no rigourous foundation for infinitesimals was a source or embarrassment and led mathematicians to discard them in favour of the rigorous limit ideas of Cauchy and Weierstrass. However, about forty years ago, Abraham Robinson discovered that it was possible to resurrect infinitesimals in an entirely legitimate and precise way. This can be done by constructing models that are elementarily equivalent to, but not isomorphic to, the ordered field of real numbers. Such models can be produced either by using Proposition 2.33 or as ultrapowcrs. We shall sketch here the method based on ultrapowers. Let R be the set of real numbers. Let K be a generalized predicate calculus with equality having the following symbols: I. For each real number r, there is an individual constant a., 2. For every fI-ary operation qJ on R, there is a function letter /:/)' 3. For every n-ary relation <l> on R. there is a predicate letter A,.). We can think or R as forming the domain (lIr) !I' r, Up)" If', and (A,,,)" ell. of a moddif for K; we <implv let

Sincef/l' possesses all the properties of .YI Iormalizable in K, .f/I' is an ordered field having the real number field .:1/"" as a proper subfield. (.f/I' is non-Archimedean: the clement 1:/ defined above is greater than all the n.u ural numbers (11#)1' of .lI'.) Let RI, the set of 'finite' elements of R'. e'ontain those elements z such that [z] < 1/ for some real number 1/ in s«. (RI I~ easily seen to form a subring of R'.) Let RII consist or 0 and the 'inlinitcsimals' of R', that is. those elements z i- 0 such that [;:1 < 1/ for all positive real numbers 11 in R#. The reciprocal 1/11' is an infinitcsimal.) It is uo l difficult to verify that Ro is an ideal in the ring RI. In fact. since \I RJ - Ro implies that I/x E RI - Ro, it can he easily proved that Ro is a m.i ximal ideal in RI,

I·: vercises
Prove that the cardinality of R* is 2No. Prove that the set Ro is closed under the operations of -t-, - and x. Prove that. if x E RI and y E R(J, then xy E Ro. Prove that. if x E RI - Ro, then I/x E RI - Ro. .r ( RI. Let II = {ulu E R# 1\ u < x} and B = {ulu E R# 1\ u > .r}. Then I. JJ) is a 'cut' and. therefore, determines a unique real number r such that t I ) (VI)(\ C A ~ .r <; r) and (2) (Vx)(x f JJ 'c> x ~ r)-' The difference .r r is () . 2.126 Z.127 Z.12R 2.129 l.ct

13S or <In infinitesimal,

QUANTIFICATION

THEORY

ULTRAI'OWERS

NO~·STANf)"Rf)

ANALYSIS

(Proof: Assume .v - I" is not 0 or an Infinitesimal. Then 1.\ .- 1"1 .> 1"1 lor some positive real number 1"1. II' .v >- I" then x·- I" > 1"1. So x> I" i 1"1 '> 1". But then 1"'+ 1"1 E: A. contradicting condition (I). If.r <: 1". then I" .v > 1"1. and so I" > r - 1"1> .r. Thus. 1"- 1"1 E B. contradicting condition (2).) The real number r such that x - I" is 0 or an infinitesimal is called the stundard part of x and is denoted st(x). Note that. if x is itself a real number. then st(x) = .r. We shall use the notation x ~ .I' to mean st(x) c·=. st()'). Clearly . .I' ~ Y if and only if x - _r is 0 or an infinitesimal. If \' ~ v, we say that x and yare iI?/illileir clos«.

PROPOSITION

2.45

Let s be a denumerable sequence or real numbers and (' a real number. Let v' denote the function from (,J' Into R' corresponding to S In .#'. Then lims; = (' if and only irs'(n) ~ (' for all II in (The latter condition can he paraphrased by saying that v' (11) is infinitely close to c when n is infinitely la rge.)
(I)' (I).

Proof

Exercises 2.130 If x E RI, show that there is a unique real number r such that x - r is o or (In infinitesimal. (It is necessary to check this to ensure that st(x) is welldefined.)

Assume
number

Iimr, = c. Consider any positive no such that (Vk)(k E II) 1\ k ?I10

real

1:.

~-> I.I·A ('1'

2.131 If x and yare (a) (b)

(c)

in RI. prove the following.

st(x + 1') ~. st(x) st(.I1') ~ st(x)st(r) st( .r) st(x)

.1';,0 x:(y
C'>st(I)~()
=? st(x)

+ stir)
1\ ster .r )

stell

st(l)

(d)
(e)

the corresponding sentence (VA)(k Eo 1')' r. k ?II[) #'. For any 11 in (J)' - 1'), /7 :> Ill) and. therefore. 1.\'(II) (I" I:. Since this holds for all positive real I:. S' (/7) (' is () or an infinitesimal. Conversely, assume s (n) ~ c: for all 11 ( (I)' - t». Take any posi t ivc real I:. Fix some fl\ in (I)' - (I). Then (Vk)(k?1l1 ==} Is'(k) - ('I < /:). So the sentence (In)(n E (I) 1\. (Vk)(k E 1O/\k;'11 ==} 1.lk - ('I < I:)) is true for '/I' and. therelore. also for ./1. So there must be a natural number 1111 such that iVk)(k E' OJ 1\ k ?no =? !Sk -- ('I < f:). Since I: was an arbitrary positive real number, we have proved lim ,1'" = c.

By (,\.:), there is a natural I:) holds in# Hence, ; 1.1'(Al (j < I:) holds in

:(

st(y) l.vercise Z.132 Using Proposition 2.45, prove the following limit theorems for the Il'~d number system. If sand u are denurnera ble sequences of real numhn,.; and ('I and C2 are real numbers such that lims, = (', and lim u; = C2,
then:

The set of natural numbers is a subset of the real numbers. Therefore, in the theory K there is a predicate letter N corresponding to the property x E o). Hence, in R', there is a set co" of elements satisfying the wf N(x). An element IF of R' satisfies N(x) if and only if {jlfU) E lV} E ,9'. In particular, the elements n~, for n E lV, are the 'standard' members of co", whereas l:fi, for example, is a 'non-standard' natural number in R*. Many of the properties of the real number system can be studied from the viewpoint of non-standard analysis. For example, if s is an ordinary denumerable sequence of real numbers and c is a real number, one ordinarily says that lim s; = C if
(&) (lil:)(r.

(;))
1h) I,)

>

=?

(Cln)(n

(I)

1\ (lik)(k

{J)

1\ k:).n =? ISk -

cl < 1:)))

lim(s" + II,,) = CI + ('2; lilll(SlIlIlI) = ('le2; II C2 i- 0 and all u; i- 0, lim(s,,/lIn)

('1/C2.

Since S E RUI, S is a relation and, therefore, the theory K contains a predicate letter S(n,x) corresponding to the relation Sn = x. Hence, R* wiIl have a relation of all pairs (n,x) satisfying S(n,x). Since ,g;;' == .0/1, this relation will be a function that is an extension of the given sequence to the larger domain u/. Then we have the following result.

/I

l.ct us now consider another important notion of analysis, continuity. Let hL' a set or real num bers, let c E B, and let I be a function defined on Band Llklllg real values. One says that f is continuous at c if
i~)

(V';)(I

> 0 .~-} (3,))(,)

> 01\

(lix)(x

E B 1\ [x - cl

<b

=? If(x) -

f(c)1

< 0)))

140 PROPOSITIO;\: 2.46

()t::\;\J I I FlCAIION

HI FOR Y

____ J

SEMANTIC

TREES

. 141 L

Exercises 2.137 A real-valued function [ defined on a = {xl a :(1"':; h} is said to be uniforinlv continuous if
(\/::)(:::> () -> (3())()
=;.

Let f be a real-valued function on a set B or real numbers. Let r: E B. Let B" be the <ubxct of R' corresponding to B. and let f" he the function corresponding to [,' Then f is continuous at c: if and only if (Vx)(x E: B'
/, .r "" r ~. '(x) I
c:::

closed

interval

la. h]

((ell

>

0 r. (lix)(Vy)(a

!(\"'

h /\ a ""r:sh

1\

Ix -- .1'1 < ()

II(x)/(.1')1

< ::)))

Exercises
2.133 2.134

Prove Proposition 2.46. Assume f and yare real-valued functions numbers and assume that [ and i) are continuous Proposition 2.4(1. prove the following.

Prove that x::::::y=?F(x) defined on a set B of real at a point c in B. Using

2.138

I is uniformly
""F(v).

continuous

if and only if. I'm all x and y in [a. that anv function continuous

hi'.

la. b] is uniformly

Prove by non-standard continuous

methods on la. hi.

on

(a) (h)
2.135

I·

I + i} is continuous
q is continuous

at c. at c.

Let f he a real-valued function defined on a set B of real numbers and continuous at a point c in B. and let q hc a real-valued function defined on a set if of real numbers containing the image (If B under f. Assume that q is continuous at the point /(1"). Prow. hy Proposition 2.46. that the COI11position {/o{ is continuous at c.
2.136 Let C ( R. (a) C is said to hc closed if (l-jx)((V/:)I/: > 0 => (3y)(y E C /\ Ix - y~ < ::)] ~ x E C). Show that C is closed ifand only if every real number that is infinitely close to a member of C' is in C. (b) C is said to be open if (l-jx)(x E: C =} C:lci)(() > 0 (\ (,'7'y)(ly -xl < J =} Y E C))). Show that Cis open if and only if every non-standard real number that is infinitely close to a member of C is a member of C'.

2.15 SEMANTIC

TREES

Many standard theorems of analysis turn out to have much simpler proofs within non-standard analysis. Even stronger results can be obtained by starting with a theory K that has symbols, not only for the elements. operations and relations on R. but also for sets of subsets of R, sets of sets of subsets of R, and so on. In this way. the methods of non-standard analysis can be applied to all areas of modern analysis, sometimes with original and striking results. For further development and applications, see A. Robinson (1966), Luxemburg (1969). Bernstein (1973), Stroyan and Luxemburg (1976), and Davis (I 977a). A calculus textbook based on non-standard analysis has been written by Keisler (1976) and has been used in some experimental undergraduate courses.
tTl) he more precise.

Remember that a wf is logically valid if and only if it is true for all interprctations. Since there arc uncountubly many interpretations. there is no Simple direct way to determine logical validity. Godel's completeness theorcm (Corollary 2.19) showed that logical validity is equivalent to derivahility in a predicate calculus. But, to find out whether a wf is provable in a predicate calculus. we have only a very clumsy method: start generating the theorems and watch to see whether the given wf ever appears. Our aim here IS to outline a more intuitive and usable approach in the case of wfs without lunction letters. Throughout this section. we assume that no function letters '>CCLIrin our wfs, A wfis logically valid ifand only ifits negation is not satisfiable, We shall 11(lW explain a simple procedure for trying to determine satisfiability of a closed wf @.I Our purpose is either to show that gj is not satisfiable or to li11d a model for .1f1. We shall construct a figure in the shape of an inverted tree. Start with the II J"YJ at the top (the "root' of the tree). We apply certain rules for writing wfs below those already obtained. These rules replace complicated wfs by simI'ILT ones in a way that corresponds to the meaning of the connectives and 'i u.mtificrs.

is represented

where A, (x.\·J corresponds to t he relation (Ix) /1; ill R: dctcrmiucs a Iunction I" with dom.un

in the theory K hy a prcdic.uc I' Then the l"llrrl"Jl"lldlll~ /I"

leiter

..I,.
"" It

relation

'Remember that a wf is logically valid if and only if its closure is logically 'lIllin:' Lll consider only closed wI's.

valid.

142
Neg.uion:

QUANTIFICATION

THEORY
.('f,

SEi'vIA;\JTIC TREES
,(Vr)'f,,(~h)<(, ('3x ),((, (\;1'x) -,'(,

143

=«.
'(,

~(((,v I
~'(, ".'1

'/)

=> '/)
'(, -,'_/

BASIC PRINCIPLE

OF SEMANTIC

TREES

~('(, 'I) II

-,

.((f,
,,/

¢=)

v)
-,
(_/

If all branches become closed. the original wf is unsatisfiable. II'. however. a branch remains unclosed. that branch can be used to construct a model in which the original wf is true; the domain of' the model consists of the individual constants that appear in that branch. We shall discuss give examples the justification

of this principle

later on. First. we shall

of its use.

Conjunction:

,(, II (/

Disjunction:

'(, V {/

./
((,

-,
'_/

Examples
I. To prove that (\i.,y(j (x)
=}

({/(b) is logically

valid. we huild a semantic

tree

Conditional:
~'(;

(f,

=> 9

Biconditional:

./

"-.
!y; «(,

./
9 (x)

-,
~,(,
Ifj

starting from its negation. (i) ~((\fxYIi(x) =} (t(b)) (ii) (\fx)'li(x) (iii) ~((:(b) (iv) (6(b)
X

(i)
(i)

(ii)

Universal quantifier:

(\j.\")((,

I
'f,

(h)

(Rule U) [Here, b is any individual cunstunt already prescnt.]

The number to the right of a given wf indicates the number of the line of the wf from which the given wf is derived. Since the only branch in this tree is closed, ~((\fx)({:(x) ;;/(j(b)) is unsntisfiablc and.Thereforc, (\fx)'6(x) =} ({'(b)) is logically
1

l.xistcntial

quuntiucr:

(h),(.(,)
'f,

Ie

valid.
=}

(el

is a new individual constant not already in the figure.]

(i)

Note that some of the rules require a fork or branching. This occurs when the given wf implies that one of two possible situations holds. A branch is a sequence of wfs starting at the top and proceeding down the figure by applications of the rules. When a wf and its negation appear in a branch, that branch becomes closed and no further rules need be applied to the wf at the end of the branch. Closure of a branch will be indicated by a large cross x. Inspection of the rules shows that, when a rule is applied to a wf, the usefulness of that wf has been exhausted (the formula will be said to be discharged) and that formula need never be subject to a rule again, except in the case of a universally quantified wf. In the latter case, whenever a new individual constant appears in a branch below the wf, rule U can be applied with that new constant. In addition, if no further rule applications arc possible

~[(\fx)({G'(x) =} .~(x)) =} «\fx)(Ii(x) (\fx)(0'(x) =} C0(x)) (iii) -,«\fX)'&(x) =} (\fx)f0(x)) (iv) (\fx)(li(x) (v) ,(\fx) 'fl (x) (vi) (=3x),CX(x) (vii) ,Cj;(b) (viii) ((j(b) (ix) ((j(b) =} .~(b) (ii)
(x)

(\fx) (;t:(x))]

/ --,fli(b) X

'"

(i) (i) (iii) (iii) (v) (vi) (iv) (ii) (ix)

@(b) X

Since both branches are closed, the original wf (i) is unsatisfiable and, therefore. (\fxWli(x) =}@(x)) =} «\fx)'fo(x) =} (\fx)@(x)) is logically valid.
\. (i) (ii)

along a branch and no individual constant occurs in that branch, then \\'(' must introduce a new individual constant for lise in possible applications ofrule {l along that branch. (The idea behind this requirement is that. if we arc trying to huild a model. we must introduce a symbol for at least one object that can
belong to the domain of the modcl.)

(iii)
(iv) (v)

,[(3x)A:(x) (l r )A:(x) -l(\fx)Al (x) A: (/J)

(·Ix) ,Al(c)

=}

(\fx)A:(x)]
(i) (i) (ii) (iii) (v)

,AI (x)

(vi)

144

QU;\NTIFICATION

HIEORY

SLM 1\;\;11C TIU IS

No further applications or rules arc possible and there is still an open branch. Deline ~Imodel M with domain {Ii. c} such that the interpretation of ;/: holds for h but not for c. Th us. (3.r) ~A: (.r) is true in M bu t ('111').4: (v) is false in M. Hence. (3.,);/: (x) =c;, ('7x)A: (v) is raise in M and is. therefore. not logically valid.
4. (i) (ii) ,[(3y)('7x)Yl(xy) (3y)(Vx).Yl(x.y) -,(l-Ix)(=Jv).Yl(x.v) ('7x);;8(x. b) (3.r),(3y) 11(x,v) ~ (l-Ix)(3y).Yl(x.v)j
(i)

(vii) (~r) ~~A~((ll ,\,) (viii) ~-'/IT((/I' (12) (ix ) AT(III'{/:)

(x ) ,AT(a" (/~) (x i )-,(I-/1'I-A

(\ i) t vii) (\ I i I)
(I il

(/2.1)

(iv)
(\1 )

(Iii)
(iv) (v)

(i l (ii)

(xii) (::lv)nAT(02 -.1') (xiii) ,-,AT(ac. (/,) (xiv) AT(02- (/1)

(xii)

(xiii)

(iii)
(iv) (v) (iv)

(vi) 21J(h,h) (vii) ,(3y),$([',y) (viii) ;11(c.h) (ix) (Vy)';Yl(c,y) (x) ,.Yl(c, h)
X

(vii)
(ix)

We can see that the brunch will never end and that we will obtain a sequence ot'constantslll.il2.". with wfs AT(all,(I", I) and.l;i(/II'(/II)' Thus, we construct a model M with domain {a;,(l2" .. } and Ill' dcliuc (.'i)M to contain only the pairs ((11/' (/111 I)' Then. (Vx)vIT(\'\) IS true ill M. whereas (:ix)Cv'v)-.AT(x,y) is false in M. Hence. (\1x) ,,1;(\\) ; (I\)(VI) -,AT(x.F) is not logically valid, Exercises 2,139 Use semantic c:Illy valid.
(;I) t h) (c)

Hence. (3y)('7x).Yl(x,y) =c;, ('7x)(3y),Yl(x.v) is logically valid, Notice that. in the last tree. step (vi) served no purpose but was required by our method or constructing trees. We should be a little more precise in describing that method. ;\t each step. we apply the appropriate rule to each undischarged wltcxccpt universally quantified wfs). starting lrorn the top of the tree. Then. to every universally quantified wf on a given branch we apply rule U with every individual constant that has appeared on that branch since the last step. In every application of a rule to a given wf, we write the resuiting wl'(s) below the branch that contains that wf, 5. (i) (ii) (iii)
(iv) (v) ,[ (If x )qa(x) ('7x)24(x) ,(3.,)88(x) ('7x),M(x) 24(h)
=c;,

trces to determine

whether
V (Vx)Ai(x)

the following

wfs arc logi-

«l)
I c) Ii') I,l!)

(3.r )g&(x) 1
(i) (i)

Ih)
(I)

(Vx)(A: (x) V Ai(x)) ('1x)A\ (x)) «(Vx),Yl(x)) /\ (I-Ix)'(,(x) =c;, (Vx)(.!d(x) (\fx)(;Yl(x) /\ ((,(x)) =c;, «(Vx);!Ii(x)) /\ (3x)(A: (x) =c;, Ai(x)) =c;, ((3.,,)A:(x) (]x) (3y )AT (x, y) =c;, (=Jz )ATlz, z) «(Vx)A: (x)) V (Vx)Ai(x) =? (Vx) (A: (3.r)(=Jy)(AT(x,y) =c;, (Vz)At(z,y)) The wfs of Exercises 2,24. 2.31 (a. The wfs of Exercise 2.21(a, b, g).

'*

/\ ((,(x)) ('7x)((,(x) =c;, (3x)Aj(x)) (x) V A 1(x))

e. j), 2,39 and 2.40.

(vi)

-'(JJ(b)
X =c;, (3.r)JB(x)

(iii) (ii)t (iv) is logically valid,

(i)

I'HOPOSITION 2.47 \"ume that F is a set of closed wfs that satisfy the following closure conditions: (a) if -.-,:!Ii is in I", then 88 is in F; (b) if -,(,!IJ V (e) is in F, then ,:$ ,11ll1/(, are in I"; (c) if -,(:]8 =? '1/) is in I", then .r}4 ami -,(!; are in F; (d) if iVx).Yl is in F, then (3.r)-,aY is in I"; (e) if -,(3.r).;4 is in I", then (Vx)-"r}4 is in I: (f) if -'(.11/\ (e) is in I", then at least one of -,:J4 and ,({; is in I'; (g) if t 11 {=> ((,) is in F, then either .oj] and -,((5 are in I", or -,:]8 and 'I;' are in I"; (h) II 11/\ '(, is ill F, then so are :'!lI and (/3'; (i) if fj) V (/3' is in F, then at least one of 1/ and ((, is in 1. (jl ifYl =c;, ,tf: is in F. then at least one of ,:~ and (1;' is in F: I~)ir.l1 <> ((, is in F, then either ,Yl and ({;arc in r or ,:11 and -.(() are in F: (I) II V\).:8(\) is in I", then .iII(h) is in r (where b is any individual constant that "lULl'S III some wl' or 1'); (m) ir ( h),l1(x) is ill I', then .iII(h) is ill I' for some

Hence, (l-Ix)88(x) 6. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

(v)

(vi)

-.[('7x)-.AT(X,X) (Vx)-.Ai(x,x) ,(3.r) (Vy),Af(x,y) (Vx)-,('7y),AT(x,y) -.Af(al, al) -,(Vy)-,Af(al,Y)

=c;, (3.r)('7y)-.At(x,y)]

(ii) (iii)
(ii)t (iv)
ror us, with rule II xmcc.
all)

'Here, we must introduce a new individual const.nu otherwise, the branch would end and would not l'OIlI;1I1l

nuhvidu.rl

,'Ollst;1ll1\

146

()I:i\NTIIICi\TIUN

THEORY

()li\NflFICATION

THFORY

ALLOWIN(;

FMPTY DOMAINS

147

individual cnnst.uu h. II' no wf and its ncuation both belonu to I" and SOllie wfs III r cont.un individual constants. tl~l'n there is a l1lo~lcl for r whose domain is the set f) of individual constants that occur in wfs of I". Proof Define ,I model M with domain D hy specifying that the interpretation of any predicate letter A'j in I" contains an II-tuple (hl ..... hllj if and only if AI/(h: ..... hll) is in r. By induction on the number or connectives and quantifiers in any closed wf 1,. it is easy to prove: (i) if I: is in F. then (; is true in M; and (ii) if-,(;. is in F, then (; is false in M. Hence. M is a model for I'. If a branch of a semantic tree remains open. the set I' of wfs of that branch satisfies the hypotheses of Proposition 2.47. If follows that, if a branch of a semantic tree remains open, then the set F of wfs of that branch has a model M whose domain is the set of individual constants that appear in that branch. This yields half of the basic principle of semantic trees.

For the sake of brevity. our exposition ha, been loose and imprecise. A clear and masterful study of semantic trees ,1I1d related matters can be found in Smullya n (I %8).
2.16 QUANTIFICATION THEORY ALLOWING EMPTY DOMAINS

PROPOSITION

2.48

If all the branches nf a semantic the tree is unsatisfiablc. Proof

tree arc closed. then the wffl

at the root of

From the derivation rules it is clear that, if a sequence of wfs starts at .'fI and continues down the tree through the applications of the rules, and if the wfs in that sequence are simultaneously satisfiable in some model M, then that sequence can be extended by another application of a rule so that the added wl(s) would also be true in M. Otherwise, the sequence would form an unclosed branch, contrary to our hypothesis. Assume now that ::8 is satisfiable in a model M. Then, starting with ::8, we could construct an infinite branch in which all the wfs are true in M. (In the case of a branching rule, if there are two ways to extend the sequence, we choose the left-hand wf.) Therefore, the branch would not be closed, contrary to our hypothesis. Hence, ::8 is unsatisfiable. This completes the proof of the basic principle of semantic trees. Notice that this principle does not yield a decision procedure for logical validity. II" a closed wf 3§ is not logically valid, the semantic tree of -,.flmay (and often does) contain an infinite unclosed branch. At any stage of the construction of this tree, we have no general procedure for deciding whether or not. at some later stage. <Ill branches of the tree will have become closed, Thus, we have no general way or knowing whether .!A is uns.uistiublc

Our definition in Section 2.2 of interpretations of a lnnguugc assumed that the domain of an interpretation is non-empty. This was done for the sake of <implici ty. I I' we a 1I0w the em pty domain. questions arise as to the righ t way "I' defining the truth of a formula in such a domain. Once thai is decided. the corresponding class of valid formulas (that is. lormulus true in all interpretations, including the one with an empty dornaiuj becomes smaller. .md it is difficult to find an axiom system that will 11<Iveall such formulas as It- theorems. Finally, an interpretation with an empty domain has little or 11\) importance in applications 01' logic. Nevertheless. the problem or finding a suitable treatment or such a more Inclusive logic has aroused some curiosity and we shall present one possible ,Ipproach. In order to do so, we shall have to restrict the scope of the uivcstigation in the following ways. lirst , our languages will contain no individual constants or function letters. The reason for this restriction is that it is not clear how to interpret mdividuul constants or function letters when the domain of the interpreta11,)n is empty. Moreover, in first-order theories with equality, individual ,,)nstants and function letters always can be replaced by new predicate hr t crs. together with suitable axioms.l Second, we shall take every formula of the form (lix).f6'(x) to he true in the "Illpt)' domain. This is based on parallelism with the case of a non-empty .lomuin. To say that (lix):f6'(x) holds in a non-empty domain D amounts to ",crt ing
(*)

for any object c, if ('

D, then .14(c)

vv'hcn D is empty, 'c E D' is false and, therefore, 'if c E D, then 38(c)' is true. "IIILe this holds for arbitrary c, (*) is true in the empty domain D, that is, \ ).;1(x) is true in an empty domain. Not unexpectedly, (3.x).%'(x) will be t,rI'L' in ,111 empty domain, since (3.x)J8(x) is equivalent to -,(lix)-,3b'(x). lhesc two conventions enable us to calculate the truth value of any closed 1,'IIllLlla in an empty domain. Every such formula is a truth-functional ",mhination of formulas of the form (lix).%'(x). Replace every subformula

11<1"

, I or example. should a formula of the form (\fx)(A: (x) /\ ~A: (x)) be considered III till' cmpry domain'! 11-<11' cx.unplc. an individual constant h can be replaced by a new monadic
(ll'l(\fI')(/'(x)
{>

1"",IIL'atL' letter 1', tl)!!ethcr with the axiom .11"111.1he replaced hy (V\)(I'(\) ;.. ;f(\))

.r - F), Any axiom

,;f(h)

14X

l)1 A;-'!TII· IC'\TIO:'\jI

mOR

Ql;\NTI~IC\T10N

THEORY

ALLOWING

EMPTY

DOMAINS

14')

(Vr)l1(r) b~ the truth value T and then compute the truth value olt he whole formula. It I, Dot clear how we should define the truth value in the empty domain (;1';1 lormula co ntuining free variables, We might imitate what we do in the l'<ISCof 1l0IH':1l1pt~ domains and take such a formula 10 have the s.unc truth values as its universal closure. Since the universal closure is automatically true In the empty domain. this would have the uncomfortable consequence of dccluring the Iormula (x) ;\ (x) to be true in the empty domain For this reason. we shall confine our attention to sentences. that is. formulas without free varia hies. A sentence will be said to be inrlusivclv valid if it is true in all interpretations. including the interpretation with an empty domain. Every inclusively valid sentence is logically valid, but the converse docs 110t hold. To see this. let f stand for a sentence (f, !\ _,ff,. where (f, is some fixed sentence. Now. f is false in the empty domain but (lix)f is true in the empty domain (since it begins with a universal quantifier). Thus the sentence (Vx)f ~ f is false in the empty domain and, therefore. not inclusively valid. However, it is logically valid. since every formula of the form (Vx).71 => .11 is logically valid. The problem DI' dcrcrmining thc inclusive validity of a sentence is reducihlc tll that of dl'lelllllnillg ih 10gic,iI vulidity, since we know how to determine whethera sentence is true in the empty domain. Since the problem of determining logical v.rlidil y will turn out to be unsolvable (by Proposition 3.54). the same applies to inclusive validity. Now let us turn to thc problem of finding an axiom system whose theorems are the inclusively valid sentences. We shall adapt for this purpose an axiom system pp# based on Exercise 2.28. As axioms we take all the following formulas (see the Logical Axioms on p. 69):

A:

-,A:

logically vulid formulas in PP. Exercise 2.28 shows first that Gen is a derived nile of' inference of' PP", that is. if t-pp' (./. then f- PI' (Vx)(./. and second that PI' and 1'1'.1 have the same theorems. Hence. the theorems of PI''' are the logically valid formulas. Let PI'S" be the same system as ppH except that. as axioms. we take only the axioms of' ppi; that arc sentences. Since MP takes sentences into senicnces. ull theorems of PPS# are sentences. Since all axioms of pPSif <Ire axioms of PI"'. all theorems of PPSi' are logically valid sentences. Let us show thut the converse holds.

PROPOSITION

2.49 valid sentence is a theorem of PI'S".

lvcry logically

Proof

(AI) (A2) (A3) (A4)

;J/J~

(AS) (A6)

C(; =*.71) (.il =* (((; =* 9)) =* ((M =* (1;) =* (lid =* C/)) (~(e =:'> --,iYJ) =* (( ~((;' ~~) ~ 0') (Vx)24(x) =:'> :Id(y) if 28(x) is a wf of ._If and y is a variable that is free for x in :38 (x) . (Recall that, if y is x itself, then the axiom has the form (Vx).'0' ~ PlI. In addition, x need not be free in Ja(x).) (Vx)(Ja ~ (e) ~ (:~ ~ (Vxytf) if;JIJ contains no free occurrences of'.r, (VYI)'" (Vy,,)(.c?4 =* (e) ~ [(VYI) ... (VYn)'~ ~ (VYI)'" (VYI1)((>]

be any logically valid sentence. We know that .;1 is a theorem of pp/l. show that .11 is a theorem of PPS#. In a proof of A in PP#. let I ..... II" be the free variables (if any) in the proof, and prefix (VUI) ... (Vu,,) I, 1 all steps of the proof. Then each step goes into a theorem of PPS#. To see IIIIS. first note that axioms of pp# go into axioms of PPS#. Second. assume hu t f./ comes from (e and ((i =:'> () by MP in the original proof and that II[) ... (Vul/)(1; and (VUI) ... (Vu,,)(,e =:'> <;?) are provable in ppS# Since III)'" (Vul/)('1; =*01) =:'> [(VIII) ... (lilil/)'(; =? (VUI)'" (1i1i1/)r.0! is an in,LII1Ce of axiom (A6) of PPS#, it follows that (VUI) ... (Vu,,}'); is provable in I'I'S'I. Thus. (VUI) ... (liul/) !a is a theorem of PPS# Then 11 applications or 1\10111 (A4) and MP show that PIJ is a theorem of PPS4. Not all axioms of pPSi~ are inclusively valid. For example, the sentence \)f => f discussed earlier is an instance of axiom (A4) that is not in, luxi vcly valid. So, in order to find an axiom system for inclusive validity. we 11111,1 modify PPS#
c'l /jJ

i l·t

liS

together with all formulas obtained by prefixing any sequence of universal quantifiers to instances of (A I )-(A6). Modus ponens (MP) will be the only rule of inference. PP denotes the pure first-order predicate calculus, whose axioms arc (AI) (AS), whose rules of inference arc MP and Gen. and whose language contains no individual constants or function letters. By (iiidel's completeness theorem (Corollary 2 19), the theorems of 1'1> art' the sa lilt' ;IS the

J f P is a seq uence of varia bles U I , ... , Un, then by VP we shall mean the \I'lcssion (VlIl) ... (Vun). Ict the axiom system ETH be obtained from PPS# by changing axiom 111 to:
\.,)

\1')

'I"II

All sentences of the form VP[(lix):;@(x) =* .01(y)]' where y is free for x in .11(r) and x is free in .18(x). and P is a sequence of variables that includes all variables free in .38 (and possibly others).
I, IS

the only rule of inference. ohviou-, th<lt all axioms or ETH arc inclusively

valid.

ISO
_~I

QUANTIFICATION

THEORY

_J
I
of variables that

QUANTIFICATION COROLI.ARV

THEORY ALLOWING

EMPTY DOMAINS

151

LEMMA 2.50
If
1-

2.54
rEfllYJ

contains
Proof

is an instance of ,I tautology and P is (1 sequence all free variables in .T. then r-LTII 'IIPI.

If.xl has no free varia hies, then

=>

(Iix)./I.

LEMMA 2,55 If x is not free in .YJ and P is a sequence vuriablc-, variables free in .-Y1. then r-LTH VP[,(Vx)f => ((VI).YJ ;YJ)i.

By the completeness of axioms (AI)- (A3) for the propositional calculus. there is a proofof I using MP and instances of (AI)· (A3). If we prefix 'liP to all steps of that proof. the resulting sentences are all theorems of ETH. In the case when an original step .}J was an instance of (A I )-(A3), 'IIP'YJ is an axiom of ETH. For steps that result from MP. we use axiom (A6).

or

that

includes

all

Proof I--LTH 'IIP[,.;;] '-* (:f1 => f)j by Lemma 2.50. By l.cmrnu 2.53. filii VP '(YJ => f) => (Vx)(:>1 => f)j. Hence. by Lemma 2.52. I I1I1 VPI ,Yj c; (Vr) (YJ => f)]. By axiom (A6). I-ITII VP[('II.1)(.>1 => f) .~ (Vr).YJ ~> (Ii.l)f)] Hence, by Lemma 2.52. I-ITII VP[,.:1 => (Vr)->1 => (Vx)f)J. Since [-,YJ => (('1.1).>1 => ('IIx) f)] => [.(Vx)f ((Vx);YJ =>M)] is an instance of a tautology, lemmas 2.50 and 2.51 yield ~TTH VP[,(Vx)f '-* (Vx):M =;.>1)1.

LEMMA 2.51
If P is a sequence of variables that includes all free variables VP./J and r-FTII 'IIP[:?Ij => «(/]. then r-FTH VP«(:. of.->1

=>

«(/. and

r-ETH

Proof Usc axiom (i\(l)

,111<.1 MP.

PROPOSITION

2,56

LEMMA 2.52
If P is a sequence of variables that includes all free variables of .@, ({;,S(;, and r-ETH 'IIP[.:f6'=> (6'] and r-ETH VP[(C =? c:0], then r-ETH'IIP[.@ => .91)1. Proof Use the tautology Lemma 2.51 twice.

ITH -I- {,('IIx)f} is a complete axiom system for logical validity, that is, a -entcnce is logically valid if and only if it is a theorem of the system.

PfOuf of the system are logically valid. (Note that (Vx)f is false in all tions with a non-empty domain and, therefore, ,(Vx)f is true in all -uch dornains.) By Proposition 2.49, all logically valid sentences are pro\;1 ble in PPS#. The only axioms of PPS# missing from ETH are those of the l<1rl11 VP[('IIx).~ => .@], where x is not free in .rJIj and P is any sequence of v.rriahlcs that include all free variables of .'!II. By Lemma 2.55, I III VP[,('IIx)f => «'IIx).'!II => !:YJ)j. By Corollary 2.54, 'IIP[,('IIx)f] will be .lvrivablc in ETH -I- {'('IIx)f}. Hence, VP[('IIx).@ => .qa] is obtained by using .1\/(1111 (A6).
I

\11 axioms
ntcrprcta

(.%'

=> (6') =>

W6' => .~)

=>

(.<?8

=>10)),

Lemma

2.50.

and

LEMMA 2.53
If x is not free in !:YJ and P is a sequence varia bles of .%', r-ETH 'II P[.<?4 ('IIx ).%']. => Proof By axiom (A5). r-I'TII 'IIP[(\J\)(B => R) => (H ~> (Vx)B)I. .11)1. Now lise Lemma 2.51. By Lemma ~.5(), of variables that contains all free

U:\'IMA 2,57
It l' is a sequence variahles that include I III V/'!(Vx)f :. ((Vr).l1 < > Ili, where t is ,f

f-ITII VPI(Vx)(.l1~

or

all

free

variables

of .11.

152 _I Proof Since

1-

QIJ,\NTIFICATION

THEORY must he truth-functionally equivalent to either I or f. Since It IS valid In the empty domain, it is truth-functionally equivalent to L Hence f-ETHYr. Therefore by (%). f-ErH (lix)f=? )11. This, together with (+)' Yields f-ETH )11. ~ . So,.~· The ideas and methods used in this section stem largely, hut not entirely, from a pa~er by Hailperin (1953).1 That paper also made use of an idea in Mostowskl,(1951b). the idea that underlies the proof of Proposition 2.5lJ. Mostowski s approach to the logic of the empty domain is quite different :rom ,Hallpenn's ancl results in a substantially different axiom system for ~ncluslve validity. For example. when .0 docs not contain .v free. Mostowsk i I~terprets (lix).Id an~ (3x):$ to be ,0 itself This makes (V\)f equivalent to f. rather than to t, as In our development.

153

f c':,YJ is an instance or a tautology, Lemma 2,50 yields Vf'(Vx)If =;.,YJj, By axiom (A6), frTfI Vp[(Vx)if =?;1] ~, [(Vx)f 1111 .=;. (Vx)YJ!I, Hence. f-UH VP[(Vx)f =? (V\};1] by Lemma 2.51. Since (Vx)YJ> I(V,\)A ,(=} t] is an instance of a tautology, Lemma 2.50 yields filii VPI(Vx),YJ =? [(Vx);1 {.~ tll, Now, by Lemma 2.52, f-ETH'v'P[(Vx)f

=;, [(Vx)YJ

<-=>

til,

Given a formula ,YJ, construct a formula .Yt in the following way. Moving from len to right. replace each universal quantifier and its scope by t.

LEMMA

2.58
of variables that include all free varia hies of :YJ, then

If P is a sequence

hTH Proof
Apply

VP[(Vx)f =? [,YJ 8 :!1']].

Lemma

2,57 successively

to the formulas

obtained

In the stepwise

construction

or YJ', We leave the details

to the reader:

PROPOSITION ETH is a complete is inclusively

2.59 axiom system for inclusive validity, that is, a sentenee::.1

valid if and only if it is a theorem

of ETH.

Proof
Assume (JjJ is a sentence valid for all interpretations. We must show that f-ETH {iJ. Since gIj is valid in all non-empty domains, Proposition 2.56 implies that .14 is provable in ETH + {-;(Vx)f}. Hence, by the deduction theorem, (+) Now, by Lemma 2.58,
(%)

f-ETH -;(,vlx)f

~ rJ8.

hTH

(Vx)f ~

[:$

{c}

.91']

(Since .:.1 has no free variables, we can take P in Lemma 2.5X to be cmpty.) Hence. [(Vx)f =? [.1!9 ¢} .18']] is valid for all interpretations. Since (Vx)f is valid in the empty domain and .18 is valid for all interpretations .. f!" is valid in the empty domain. But .11" is a truth-functional ctllllbination of Is.

I TI~~ name. F'~H ~~JIl~esfrom 'empty domain' and 'Theodore Huilpcrin'. My 1I1IJlIrIi~.lllon 0' 1lu ilpcr 111 s aXIOm system was suggested bv a similar simplilicutio 1

III

Qumc

(19)4).

-'

'I

AN ;\XIOM

SYSTEM

~I

155

L-__

F_o_rm_a_I_N_u_m_h_e_r_T_h_eo_r_y __

hn'i1,I.y,:;),t~l"S three fu.nctioll let,ter;,and /{ We shall ~\~Itql ) instead ul I, (I). it + v) instead oj 1,-(/,.1), and (I· s) instead of h-(I.s). However. we shall write 1'.1 +.1'. and I s instead of (I'), (1+ .v}. and (I· s) whenever this Will cause no confusion. The proper axioms of S are: (SI) (S2) (S3) (S4) (S5)
XI =.1:2 =} =}

ro~:~/~

Ii J?

x, = .1.'2 0 f. x~
.l~

x', = X~

(x, =x.l

=}X2

=x,)

XI XI
XI'

= x; =} x, = X2 + 0 =- .11
+ x; = 0=0
(xl!'

(S6) 3.1 AN AXIOM SYSTEM

(S7) (S!l) (S9)

(x, -+ xd
(XI'

xI'

X2)

+ XI
=> .;1(x'))c;
(1/\').:4(\))
1'01'

Together with geometry. the theory of numbers is the most immediately intuitive of all branches of mathematics. II is not surprising, then, that attempts to formalize mathematics and to establish a rigorous foundation for mathematics should begin with number theory. The first semi-axiomatic prescn ta tion of this subject was gi vcn by Dedek ind in 1879 and, in a slightly modified form, has come to be known as Peuuos postulates.' It can be formulated as follows: (PI) 0 is a natural number.' (P2) If x is a natural number, there is another natural number denoted by x' (and called the successor of x).~ (P3) 0 of. x' for every natural number x. (P4) If x' = y', then x = y. (P5) If Q is a property that mayor may not hold for any given natural number, and if (I) 0 has the property Q and (II) whenever a natural number x has the property Q, then x' has the property Q, then all natural numbers have the property Q (mathematical induction principle). These axioms, together with a certain amount of set theory, can be used to develop not only number theory but also the theory of rational, real and complex numbers (see Mendelson, 1973), However, the axioms involve certain intuitive notions, such as 'property', that prevent this system from being a rigorous formalization. We therefore shall build a first-order theory S that is based upon Peano's postulates and seems to be adequate for the proofs of all the basic results of elementary number theory. The language 2'A of our theory S will be called the language ojurithmrtic. 2'A has a single predicate letter AT- As usual, we shall write 1= s for A~(t,s). ':/',1 has one individual constant al. We shall usc () as all ultcru.uivc nutation historical inforrnation. sec Wang (11)57) "lhc natural numbers arc supposed to he the 'lTIll' 1I111ll11lt' II1l',lI1ll1lo: I' " I I 1 ,)1'
I lor

':4(0) ~

(\fx)(.j8(.x)

allY wl':4(x)

of S. that pro-

We shall call (S9) the principii' ofmathcmaiical induction, Notice axioms (SI)-_(S8) are particular wfs, whereas (S9) is an axiom schema viding an infinite number of axioms."

Axi~ms (S3) and (S4) correspond to Peano postulates (P3) and (P4), re:'ipect, vely. Peano's axioms (P I) and (P2) are taken care of by the presence 01 0 as an In~lvldual constant and II' as a function letter. Our axioms (S I) and (S2) furnish some needed properties of equality; they would have been assumed as in.tLIitively obvious by Dedekind and Peano. Axioms (S5}--(S8) are the recursion equations for addition and multiplication. They were not assumed by Dedekind and Peano because the existence of operations + and . satisfying (S5)·-{S8) is derivable by means of intuitive set theory, which was presupposed as a background theory (see Mendelson 1973 chapter 2 lhcorerns 3.1 and 5.1). '" Any theory that has the same theorems as S is often literature as Peano arithmetic, or simply PA. From (S9) by MP, we can obtain 'i8(O), (lix)(U(x) It will be our immediate
I',

referred

to in the

the induction rule:

=> J1J(x'»)

I-s (lIx)ed(x).

aim to establish

the usual

rules of equality;

that

we shall show that the properties (A6) and (A 7) of equality (see page 95) ,IIC lknv,:ble III S and, hence, that S is a first-order theory with equality. lirst. for convenience and brevity in carrying out proofs, we cite some
unmcdiatc, trivial consequences of the axioms.

Ilnll'llqpllH

IIlll'"Wrs () I. ,'.

I "o~vevcr, (S9) cannot fully correspond to Peano's postulate (PS), since the L'IIl'r rl'fer'.lllllllllVl'ly 10 the 2N" properties or natural numbers, whereas (Sl») can Ll~~ carl' "~I onlv the dellulIlocrahlc number "I' properties defined h~ wI's of :/'1

56

FORMAL

NUMl3ER

THEORY (n)
(0)

AN 1'1"

AXIOM

SYSTEM

157

LEMMA 3.1
For any terms (SI') (S2') (S3') (S4') (S5') (S6') (S7') (S8')
I I. s.
I"

1"·1

l=r~_;'S·I=.I'·1"

of 'I)". the following

S =} I"

wfs are theorems

of S.

r c=? (I =

= .\")

1= r =>

I' = 1"'

Proof
I. 2. 3. 4. (b) I. 2. J. (e) I. 2.
(a)

Oil'
I' = r' =} 1 = r 1+0 = I 1+ r' = (I -t- r)' I· 0 = 0 I· r' = (I· r) + I

1+0=1 (I + 0 = I) => (I 1+0=1=>1=_'1

1 =1

+0
r r

~?

= I)

1=

=}

(I

Proof
(S I'HSS') follow from (S I ) (S8), respectively. First Iorrn the closure by means of Gen, use Exercise 2.48 to change all the bound variables to variables not occuring in terms t :r.s, and then apply rule A4 with the appropriate terms t r,»,'
c

3. (d) I.

2. 3.
4.

= t) l=r=}I"=1 r=/=}(r=S=}/=s) I=r=}r=! 1= r=> (r = s =} I =.\') r = I =} (/ =.\' =} r =.\') /=s=}(r=/=}r=s) S=/=}/=s .I' = I =} (I" = / =} r = s) I=I
=} (/ =}

=I =r

=}

= /)

(S5') (51') I.:!. MP 1.3. MP (SI') I. tautology. (SI') Part (h) I.:!. tautology. Part (e) l.tautology.MP Part (h) 2,3, tautology. MP MP

2. part (a). Mf>

MP

(e) Apply

the induction

rule to (14(z) : x

= y =>
(S5') (S5')

.r f- z = Y t z.

PROPOSITION
For any terms

3.2.
/,5,1",

(i)

the following

wfs are theorems

of S.

(a) I = I (b) / = r =} r = I (c) 1 = r =} (r = s =} 1= s) (d) r=t=}(s=/=}r=s) (e) I = r =} / + s = r + s (f) 1= 0 + I (g) I' r = (I r)' (h) l+r=r+t (i) t = r =} s + t = s + r

I. x+O=x 2. y -j 0 = y J. x = Y 4. x + 0 = y 5. x+O=y+O 6. f--s x = Y =} x

Hyp
1,3, part (c), MP 4,2.part(d),MP 1--5, deduction theorem

+0 =y +0

Thus,
(I')

I-s ;38(0). Hyp

Hyp (S6') (S6') 1,2, MP 5, (S2'), MP 3, 6, part (c), MP 4, 7, part (d), MP 1-8, deduction theorem

(k) t = r =} I· s = r . s (I) o I = 0 (m) /' . r = I . r + r

(j)

(t + r) + s

1+ (r + s)

I. x=y=}x+z=y+z 2. x =y 3. x +z' = (x +z)' 4. y + z' = (v + z)' 5. x +z =y+z (,. (x + z)' = (y + z)' 7. x + z' = (y + z)' X. x + z' = Y + z' 9. f--s(.x=y=}x+z=y+z)=} (x = y =} x + z' = Y

+ z')

twice

'The change of bound variables is necessary in some cases. For example, if we want to obtain X2 = X, =} = from = .1'2 =} .I, = we first obtain ('Ix, )(VX2)(X, = X2 =} x~ = xS). We cannot apply rule A4 to drop ('Ix,) and replace x, hy X2, since X2 is not free for x, in ('1.\"2)(.1', = X2 .> x', x;). l-rom now on. we shall assume without explicit mention that the reader is uwurc that we sometimes have to change hound variables when we use (jell and rule 1\4

x; x~

x,

x;.

In

f--s .31(z) =} 18(z'), and, s (V:::).31(:::) by the induction is1 /'-? I + ,I' = r + s. l.ct .~(x) he .r = 0 +x. Thus.
I

by Gen, f-s (\fz)(.'?1(z) =} 18(z')). Hence, rule. Therefore, by Gen and rule A4,

Ii)

IsO

(J I () by (S)'),

part (h) and

MP: thus, I-s .~(().

158

FORMAL

NUMBER

TI-IEORY

-__

AN AXIOM

SYSTEM

i_~9

(ii) I. ")

3. 4. 5.

x= 0 + .r 0 + x' ~~ (0 + .r)' x' = (0 + x)' x' = 0 + x' f-s x = Of·x:=} .r'

I-Iyp

(S6')
I. (S2'), MP 3, 2, part (d). MP 1- 4, deduction theorem

Thus, f-s11(y) =} .:8(/) and. hy Gen. f-s (V\')(.%(v) =} ,;1(v')). So. by (i), (ii) and the induction rule. ~s (Vy)(x +: v = y + .r). Then, by rule A4, GCI1 and rule A4. I-s 1 -/- I' = I' -I- I.
(i)

=0

+01'

Thus, f-s .J(J(x) ~ ;;1(x') (ii) and the induction

,LS 1=

and, rule,

by Gen. f-s (\1x)(;1(x) =} .1& (.\J) ). So. by (i), f-s (\1.1) (x = 01 .r). and then, hy rule A4,

I.I=r=;'l+s=r-/-s 2. 1 + s = S + 1 3. r + s = s -I r
4,
1=

Part (e) Part (h) Part (h)

+ I.
be x' + Y = IX + y)'. x' + 0 = x' x +0 =x
(S5')

(g) Let%(y)

(i)

I.

5.1 6. s 7, s (S5') 2, (52'), MP

I, 3, part (d), MP

+s =r +s +1 = r +s + 1 -= s + r
=}

Hyp 1, 4. MP
2.5, (SI') MP 6. 3, part (e), MP I 7, deduction theorem

2.
3. 4. Thus. (ii)

8. f-s 1 = r

(x + 0)' = x' x' + 0 = (x + 0)'

f-s 31(0). Hyp

l. x' +y = (x +Y)' 2. x' +.1" = (x' +.1')' 3. (x' + .")' = (x + v)" 4. .r' + ,,' -c (x + .I·j"
5. 6. 7. 8. x

(j) Let ;j/j(z) (i) I. (x 2. y+ 0 =.1' 3. x + (y +- 0) = x 4. (x + y) + 0 = x Thus, (ii) f-s .%'(0). I. (x -/- y) + z 2. (XI-y) +z'

+1= s +r be (x + y) -+ z = x + (_I' + z). -/- y) -/- 0 = x + y

s

(55')
(S'i') 2. part (j), M P L 3, part MP

+v
+
(v

+ 0) + z)

«n.

(S6') I, (S2'). MP
2. 3, part (e), MP (S6') 5, (S2'), MP 4,6, part (d), MP 1·-7, deduction theorem

= x-/=

(y

Hyp

+ F'=

f-s x' + y = (x} y)' x' + y' = (x + y')'

(x x'

+ )" = (x +

+ v')'

(x f 1")'
=

(x+

_v)"
=}

1")'

Thus, f-s M(y) =} 18(y'), (i), (ii) and the induction A4,f-s 1'+r=(/+r)'. (h) Let 88(y) be x + y = y (i) I. x + 0 = x 2. x = 0 +x 3. x + 0 = 0 + x Thus, f-s 88(0).

and. by Gen. f-s (Vy)(88(y) =} M(y')). Hence, by rule, f-s (Vy)(x' + y = (x + y)'). By Gen and rule

((x+y) +z)' 3. «(x+y)-/-z)'=(x+(y-/-z))' 4. (x + y) + z' = (x + (y + z))' 5. y + z' = (y + z)' 6. x } (y + z') = x + (y + z)' 7. x-/- (_y + z)' = (x + (y + z))' 8. x + (y + z') = (x + (y + z))' 9. (x + y) + z' = x -/- (y + z') 10. f-s (x + y) + z = x -+ (y + z) (x + y) -/- z' = x } (y + z')

(56') I, (S2'), MP
2, 3, part (c). MP

(S6')
5, part (i), MP

(S6')
6, 7, part (c), MP 4, 8, part (d), MP 1-9, deduction theorem

=}

+ x.
(55')
Part (I) I, 2, part (c), MP

Thus, f-s ,14(z) => :14(z') and, by Gen, r-s (Vz)(.~(z) (ii) and the induction rule, f-s (Vz).'?6(z), and then,
Is

* (.'18 (z')),

So, by (i), by Gcn and rule A4,

(I+r)+s=t+(r-/-s).
(k)--(o) are left as exercises.

Parts

(ii) I. x + y = y + x 2. x+y'=(x+y)' 3. y' +01 = (y +x)' 4. (x -/- y)' = (y -/-x)' 5. x-/- y' = (V + x)' 6. x -/- y' = y' -/- x 7. f-s x + y = y + x =}
.r +\1==

Hyp

(OROLLARY
S
IS

3.3
with equality.

(56')
Part (g) a theory

I, (S2'), MP
2,4, part (c), MP 5, 3, part (dl, MP I 6, deduction theorem I'm()f II, Proposition 2.25, this reduces p"~lti(l11 .1.2, and (S2'), to parts (a) (e), (i), (k ) and
(0) of pro-

Ix

160 Notice

FORMAL NUMBER THEORY that the interpretation in which:

l_---·

---~_~=
3.5
1 II,,\'

=--AN AXIOM SYSTEM

101

PROPOSITION
The following (a) 1 + 1 /' = (b) /·1=1 (c) /·2 =- / + (d) / + s = 0
(e)

(a) the set of non-negative integers is the domain (h) the integer 0 is the interpretation of the symbol 0 (e) the successor operation (addition of I) is the interpretation of the' function (that is, off/) (d) ordinary addition and multiplication are the interpretations of + and· (e) the interpretation of the predicate letter = is the identity relation is a normal model for S. This model is called the standard interpretation or model, Any normal model for S that is not isomorphic to the standard model will he called a non-standard model for S. If we recognize the standard interpretation to he ,1 model for S, then. of course, S is consistent. However, this kind of semantic argument. involving as it does a certain amount of set-theoretic reasoning, is regarded by some as too precarious to serve as a basis for consistency proofs. Moreover, we have not proved in a rigorous way that the axioms of S are true under the standard interpretation, bUI we have taken it as intuitively obvious, For these and other reasons, when the consistency of S enters into the argument of a proof, it is common practice to take the statement of the consistency or S as an explicit unproved assumption. Some important additional properties of addition and multiplication are covered by the following result.
.1/(//1I1([rd

are theorems

of S.

(f) (g) (h)

(i)
(j)

*t =0 =0 1 i' 0 * (.I' . 1 = 0 ~_;, = 0) s / + s = 1 * (/ 0 i\ .\'= I) V (/ = I· s = 1 * (/ 1 i\ s = I) = t i' 0 * (3Y)(1 = /) si' 0 * (I· s = r . * t r) 1 i' 0 * (/' I * (3Y)(1 = .\"'») i
S =

1 i\ s

~=

0)

Proof
(a) 1. / 2. /

3.
4.

+ ()' = (/ + 0)' +0 =t (t + 0)' = /' / + 0' = l'

+ 1=
/'

(S6')
(S5') 2, (S2'), MP L 3, Proposition 4, abbreviation

3.2(c),

MP

5. t

(h) LI·O'=I·O+t

PROPOSITION

3.4 wfs are theorems

of S.

For any terms t, r, s, the following

3. / . 0 + / = 0 + 4. t· 0' = 0 + /

2. / . 0

=0

(S8') (S7')
2, Proposition 3.2(e), MP 1,3, Proposition 3.2(c), MP Proposition 3.2(f,h), MP 4, 5, Proposition 3.2(c), MP 6, abbreviation

(a) l : (r + s) = (I. r) + (/. s) (distributivity) (b) (r + s) -t = (r· /) + (s· t) (distributivity) (c) (/. r) . s = / . (r . s) (associativity of .) (d) t

+s = r +S

* /= r (cancellation

law for

+)

I e)

5.0 + / = / O. 1 ·0' = / 7. /·1 = / I. / . (I)' = (I . I)

+/

(S8')

Proof
(a) (b) (c) (d) Prove f-s Use part Prove f-s Prove f-s first time, The terms (a) and Proposition by induction on z. 3.2(n). (x· y) . z = x . (y . z) by induction on z. x +z = Y +z x = y by induction on z. This requires, use of (S4').

x· (y

+ z) = (x· y) + (x· z)

for the

Part (b) 2, Proposition 3.2(e), MP 1, 3, Proposition 3.2(c), M P 5. / ·2= t + t 4, ahbreviation Ill) Let .M(y) be x + y = 0 x = 0 Ay = O. It is easy to prove that f-s 99(0). Also, since r s (x + y)' i' 0 by (S3') and Proposition 3.2(b), it follows by (S6') that f-s x + y i' O. Hence, f-s.r~(y') by the tautology

2.1·1=/ 3. (/. I) + / = t + t 4. / . (I)' = / + /

0, T, 2, 3, ....

0,0',0", Om, ... we shall call numerals and denote by More precisely, 0 is 0 and, for any natural number 11.11+'1 is (n)'. In general, if n is a natural number, ii stands for the numeral consisting of () followed by n strokes. The numerals can be defined recursively by stating that 0 is a numeral and, if /I is a numeral, then /I' IS abo a numeral.

'01 c=} (A B). So, f-s .<?4(y) :16(/) by the tautology A (B A). Then, by the induction rule, f-s (Vy).<?4(y) and then, by rule A4, Gen and rule A4, we obtain the theorem. t r ) The proof is similar to that for part (d) and is left as an exercise. II') USC induction on y 111 the wf x+y= I ((x=OAy= I)V (x T i\y .= 0)). (!~) I lse induction Oil l' in .v . v T -> (v T ,\ v = I).

**

162 (h) (i)

FORMAL

NUMHER

THEORY

AN AXIOM

SYSTEM

Perform induction on .r in .r # 0 ~ (JH')(x = w'). LctYl(y) be (lfx)(:: # 0 ~ (x· Z = F':: => .r = v)). (i) I. z # 0 Hyp 2. x . z = 0 . z Hyp 3. 0 . z = 0 Proposition 3.2(1) 4. x·:: = () 2 . .I Proposition 3.2(c). 5. x = 0 I. 4. partie). MP 6. ls z # 0 => (x· z = O· z ~ x = 0) 1-5. deduction theorem 7. r-s (lJ'z)(z # 0 ~ (x· z = 0 . z 6. Gen ~x =0)) Thus. r-s 38(0).

(i) If III in. then ~s m f ti. (ii)f-s m+/l = in -t- Ii and f-s III '/1 = ni· ii. (h) Any model for S is infinite. (c) For any cardinal numher Nil. S has a normal MP Proof (a) (i) Assume

model

of cardinality

Nil.

I.m=n umcs
III

/I.

Either

<

II

or

/I

<

111.

S'IY.

III

<

II.

2. 0" ... ' = 0'" ... '

=

'-v--'

'-v-'

n times

Hyp I is an abbreviation MP
111

( i i) I. (lfx)( z

2. z f 0 3. x· z = y' . z 4. y' i- 0 5. y'. z i- 0

# 0 ~> (x· z

y .z ~ x

y» H y P (.16' (y ) )
Hyp Hyp (S3'), Proposition 3.2(h). MP 2.4, part (e), a tautology. MP 3.5. (SI'). tautologies. MP 6. (S7'). Proposition 3.2(0.n), (SI'). tautologies. MP 7. part (h). MP X. rule C 3. Y. (A 7), MP 10, Proposition 3.2(m.d), MP II, Proposition 3A(d), MP I, rule A4 2,13, MP 12, 14, :vIP 15, (S2'), MP 9, 16, Proposition 3.2(c), MP 1-17, Proposition 2.10 18, ded uction theorem twice 19, Gen 20, deduction theorem

3. Apply
II -

(S4')

and
/I

times

m-

I. Since

6. x·z f 0 7. x f 0
X. (=Jlr)(x

4. 0 # I' 5.0 = " 1\ 0 f I' 6. /Ii = Ii r-s 0 = (' 1\ 0 7. r-s m f n

>

m.1I - m -

I'

in a row. We get 0 = 0" ... '· Let' I ~O. Thus. we obtain o·~ I'. (S3') 3.4. conjunction introduction I5 1-6, proof by contradiction

If-III

tunes

of 2 be

~- \\/)

9. x

h'

10.h'·z=y'·:: II. h·z+z=y·z+z 12. h . z = y. z 13. z # 0 => (b· z = y . z 14. h· z = y. z => b = Y

=> b = y)

15. b = y 16. b' =y' 17.x=y' 18. 18(y),z#O,x·z=y'·z f-sx=y' 19.. @(y) r-s z # 0 => (x . z = y' . z => x = y') 20 .. '?a(y) r-s (lfx)(z i- 0 => (x . z = y' . z => x = y'» 21. r-s .@(y) => .'?4(y')

A similar proof holds in the case when II < m . (A more rigorous proof can he given hy induction in the metalanguage with respect to /I.) (ii) We use induction in the metalanguage. First, In + 0 is iii. Hence, s In +- 0 = /Ii + 0 by (S5'). Now assume r-s m+n = m + Ii. Then I s (In + 11)' = m + (/1)' by (S2') and (S6'). But 111 + (n + I) is (Ill + 11)' and 1/ ~ is en)'. Hence, r-s 111 + (11 + I) = m + /I + I. Thus, f-s In + 11 = m + ii. Ihe proof that r-s 111 . 11 = in· Ii is left as an exercise. t h) By part (a). (i), in a model for S the objects corresponding to the numurals must he distinct. But there are denumberably many numerals. Id This follows from Corollary 2.34(c) and the fact that the standard model 1\ an infinite normal model.
I

An order

relation

can be introduced

by definition

in S.

In:F1N ITIONS

Hence, by (i), (ii), Gen, and the induction rule, we obtain and then, by Gen and rule A4, we have the desired result.

"s

(lfy).;d(v)

1< s for (31V)(w i- 01\ I ~s for I < .I' V 1= s , > s for .I' < I
'~sfors~' , 1- s for ,(I
III

IV

+ 1= .1')

U) This is left as an exercise.

the first definition.

< s),

and so on w to be the first variable not in

PROPOSITION
(a) Let
III

3.6
he any natural numbers.

as usual.

we choose

and

11

164 PROPOSITION
For any terms
(a) (e) (c) 1(1 I

FORMAL NUMBER THEORY

-I 13. c+ h ej 0

AN AXIOM SYSTEM 12. Proposition 3.5(d), tautology, MP Il, II, conjunction introduction 14, rule E4 Abbreviation of 15 1-15, Proposition 2.10, deduction theorem

16."i~J

3.7
/.1',1',

the following

(b) l<scc;.(s<r=>l<r)

<

I'

=>

S(

(d) 1<.s~/,r<s+r
1:(1

(I) 1:(.1" => (s:(r => I:(r) (g) l:(s~l+r:(s+r (h) 1:(.1' => (.I' < r => I < r) (i) 0:(1

are theorems. (0) lcjr=>(I<rVr<l) (p) l=rV/<rVr<1 (q) I:(r V r:(1 (r) l+r?;1 (s) r cj 0 => I + r > I (t ) r cj O~.;, I· r>: (u) rcjO{o}r>O (v) r > 0 (I> 0 => r· I > 0) (w) r cj 0 cc;. (I> I => I· r > r)
c~

14. c _j_ b ej 0 i\ (c + h) + I = r 15. (::Iu) (I( # 0 /\ II + I = r) 16. I < r 17. rs 1< s => (.I' < r => I < r)

Paris (c) (z') are left as exercises.

PROPOSITION
(a)

3.8
numher number

(j) 0 <
(I)

I'
{o}

(k) 1< r

I':(r

(x) r # 0 => (I < s {o} 1 . r < .I' . r) (y) r # 0 => (/:(.1' {o} 1 . r:(s· r)
(z) I/-O
(z')/:(r/\r:(I=>I=r

l:(r{O}/<I/

(a') For
{o}

For any natural any natural

k, rs x = 0 V ... V .r = /.: x:( /.:. <=> k and any wf .n. 1-.,:1(0) /\ .0'(1)

i\ ...

i\.fl(7:)

(m)I<I' (n) 0 <

Proof (a)

T, T < 2, :2 < 3. .

(h) For any natural number k > 0, f-s .r = 0 V ... V .r = (k I) ¢=> x < 7: (b') For any natural number k > () and any wf .n, rs .!6'(O) i\ .fl(!) /\ .
(c)

('v'x)(x:(k

=> .fl(x».

i\:!6'(k - I) {o} ('v'x)(x < k => )1(x». rs (('v'x)(x < y => :!6'(x» i\ ('v'x)(x~y

=> (e(x»)

=> ('v'x)(fl(x)

(t(x»

2. (3w)(w # ()i\ IV + 3. b cj 0 i\ b + I = 1 4. b+1 = 1 5.1 = 0+ I 6. b + 1-= 0 + I 7. b = 0 8. b 1= 0 9. b = 0 i\ b # 0

I.

<

I = I)

10.0=0i\OejO I I. 1 < 1 rs 0 = 0 i\ 0 ej 0 12. h I (I (b) I. I < s 2. s < r

Hyp I is an abbreviation of 2 2, rule C 3, conjunction rule Proposition 3.2([) 3,4, Proposition 3.2(c), MP 6, Proposition 3.4(d), MP 3, conjunction elimination 7, 8, conjunction elimination 9, tautology: B i\ oB => C. MP 1-10, Proposition 2.10 1- I I, proof by contradiction Hyp Hyp I is an abbreviation of 3 2 is an abbreviation of 4 3, rule C 4, rule C 5, conjunction elimination 6, conjunction elimination 7, Proposition 3.2(i), MP 9, 8, Proposition l2(e), MP 10, Proposition l.~(j,e), MP ), conjunction elimination

Proof We prove rs x = 0 V ... V x = k {o} x:( k by induction in the metalan!'lIage on k. The case for k = 0, rs x = 0 {o} x:( 0, is obvious from the defininons and Proposition 3.7, Assume as inductive hypothesis rs x = 0 V ... r= k {o} x:(I. Now assume x = 0 V ... V x = I V x = k+T. But rs x = /, II => x :(k + I and, by the inductive hypothesis, rs x = 0V ... V x = /, ;.x:(k. Also f-sx:(I=>x:(k+1. Thus, x:(k+1. So, I-sx=ov ... k V x = k + I => x c k + I. Conversely, assume x~k + I. Then V x < k + I. If x = k + I, then x = 0 V ... V x = k V x = k + I. If k+l, then since k + I is (I)', we have x:( k by Proposition 3.7(1). By the u.ductivc hypothesis, x = 0 V ... V x = I, and, therefore, x = 0 V ... V x = /, • . v = f+T. In either case, x = 0 V ... V x = 7: V x = k + I. This proves ~\,;f+I => x = 0 V ... V x = I V x = k + I. From the inductive hypoth\'~I~, we have derived f-s x = 0 V ... V x = k + 1 {o} x c.k + I and this comI,le-te, the proof. (This proof has been given in an informal manner that we ,/i:i11 generally use from now on. In particular, the deduction theorem, the vluuinuhility of rule C, the replacement theorem, and various derived rules .inc] ta urologies will he applied without being explicitly rnentioned.) 1':lrt, (a'), (h), and (b') follow easily from part (a). Part (c) follows almost uumcdiatcly from Proposition 3.7(0), using obvious tautologies. There arc several stronger forms of the induction principle that we can pr ovc at this point.
1;1)

f+T

3. (~w)(w ej 0

i\ IV

+ t = s)

4. (:Jv)(vejOi\v+s=r) 5. b ej 0 i\ b I = s 6. c ej 0 i\ c + s = r 7. b + 1 = s

8.c+s=r + (b + I) 10. c + (h -I I) II. (c + h) f- I

9. c I~.h/()

= c+s
=
~

r r

166 PROPOSITION
(a) ('(I/Ilp/ell'

FORMAL

NUMBER

THEORY

AN AXIOM

SYSTEM 5. change of bound variable

3.9
induction,

6, ,(:=Jx),)1(x)
7, f-s ,(3,}')(.I,I)(y) /\ (\I'z)(z

f-s (\I'X)((Y2)(Z < X ~ ,;8(z)) =};8(x)) c~, (Yx),)1(x), language. consider a property P such that, for any .v, if P holds for all natural numbers less than .r. then P holds for .v also, Then P holds for all natural numbers, (b) Least-number principle. f-s (=.Ix),)1(x) =;. (=.Iy) (,)1(v) /\ (\I'2)(Z <I' =} -,,;8(z))), If a property P holds for some natural number. then there is a least number satisfying P.

<v

=}

-;,)1(z)))

=} ,(

3x ),)1(x)

III ordinary

1- 6. deduction 7. derived rule

theorem

8, f-s (=],x),)1(x) =} (3y)(.f8(y)/\ (Yz)(z < y =? -,,0'(z))) Exercise

3.1 (i'v/cllioi/ of' infinite descentv Prove I-s (Vr)(0'(x) =:> (=iy)(y
Another define. important

< x /\ ,)1(.1')))
theory

=?

(Vx),,)1(x)
which we now

Proof (a) Let (6 (x) be (Yz)(z~x =} ,:I8(z)), (i) I. (\I'x)((Yz)(z < x =} '5I1(z)) =} !5I1(x)) 2, (\I'z)(z < 0 =} :;,1(z)) =} :)1(0) 3, z 1: 0 4, (Yz)(z < 0 =} :5I1(z)) 5, A(O) 6, (Y:.:)(z~O ~ ,:8(.::)) i.e .. (f,(O) 7, (\1'\')((\I'z)(:.: < .r =} .:6'(:.:)) ~ :6'(x)) h (f, (0) (ii) I. (\I'x)((\I'Z)(2 < X =} ,:8(.::)) =} ,)1(x))

notion

in number

is divisibility.

Hyp I, rule A4 Proposition 3.7(y) 3, tautology, Gen 2.4. MP 5. Proposition 3,8(a') I6 Hyp Hyp 2, Proposition 3.7(f) 1, rule A4 3,4, MP Definition, tautology 3, rule A4 5, axiom (A 7), Proposition 2,23(b), tautologies 6,7,8, Tautology, Gen

DEFINITION PROPOSITION Ihe following

(u )

11,\ for (=.Iz)(\' 3.10

= I, c). (Hcrc.c

is the first variable

not in

or ,I,)

wfs are theorems

for any terms

t .»:r,

IiI

2, (6(x), i.e. (\I'z)(z~x =} ,)1(z)) 3, (\I'z)(z < x' =} 38(z)) 4, (Yz)(z < x' =} 38(z)) =} ,'18(x') 5, i!4(x') 6, z ~x' =} z < x' V z = x' 7, z < x' =} 24(z) g, z = x' =} ,<?4(z) 9, (\I'z)(z~x' =} ,@(z)) i.e., (6'(x') 10. (Yx)((\I'z)(z < x =} 18(z)) =} ;14(x)) f-s (\I'xW6'(x) =} (e(x'))
By (i), (ii) and

(b) (e) (d) (e) (I) (g) (11)

111 110
.I' =} I ~s lis /\ s II =} s = I lis =} 11(1" s)

Ils/\sll'=}/lr i 0/\ tis

Ils/\/lr=}/l(s+I')

Proof Gen
1,1) I h)
(l') (d)
(l')

1-9, deduction

theorem,

I
I

=
=

the induction rule, we obtain I'j) f-s (\I'xY6(x), that is. ::a(z)), where ';t/ is (\I'x)(\I'z)(z < x=} &4(z)) =} ,)1(x)). Hence, by rule A4 twice, @ f-s x~x =} :?6(x). But f-s x~x. So, (:) f-s .)1(x), and, by Gen and the deduction theorem, f-s';t/ =} (\I'x)::a(x).
I'j) f-s

Hence, Tit. 0 = I . O. Hence, tiO. If s = I· z and r = s· w, then r = t· (z' w). Irsj.Oandtls,thens=t,zrorsomez.Ifz=O,thens=O.Hence, z i O. So. z = u' for some u. Then s = I . (u') = t . u (h) These proofs are left as exercises.

1,1.

I' T. Hence,

tit.

(Yx)(Yz)(z~x

=}

(b) I. -(3y)(18(y)

2. (Yy),(!5I1(y) 3, (\I'y)((Yz)(.::
4. (VI')-dl'(v) S, .( 1,1').:6'(,1')

/\ (\I'z)(z < y /\ (Yz)(z < y < y ==> ,.:8(z))

In

+t~

I,

=} =}

,;14(z))) ,.%'(.::)))
,.!d(y))

=}

Hyp I. derived rule for negation 2, tautology, replacement .1, part (a) with 0.11 instead of ,M 4. dcnvcd rule for nq.~atlon

Lxl'fciscs .'.2 .\ ..\ Prove Prove I

sill

:- I
11.\")

I.

I s (lis /\

:-

I.

16t-)

FORMAL

NUMBER

THEORY

!/'1 II 1'1 < v. Now, u= Proposition 3.4(d). If III

/I

AN

AXIOM
II

SYSTFM

169 If'

It will he useful for later purposes quotient and remainder upon division number y,

to prove rhc existence of a unique of one number x by another nonzero

PROPOSITION f-svclO~>(:=JII) VI <y) =? u Proof

Let ,~(x) (i) I. y be y

3.11 (::Jv)[x=y·u+vlll'<yll(Vul) II v = VI)] (Vl'l) ((x=y,ul+t:11I

til

cI

=-c}

(::Ju)(::Jv)(x

= y.

II

+v

II v Hyp

< y).

0 ,0+ 0

2. 0

=y

3. () <y 4. 0 = y . 0 + 0 II 0 5. (3u)(31')(O = l'

(t. ,I'

(S5'), (S7') I, Proposition

<y
II

Ie 0->

+ l'1I

l'

(-=J/I)(J/')(O

= v· u

< r) + l'

2, 3, conjunction 4, rule E4 twice I 5, deduction

3.7(t) rule

(ii)

1\ r ,I') I .. >9(\) i.c ... 1' f 0 ~, (::Ju)(::Jr) (x = v . 1I + l'1I l' < v) 2. y cI 0 3. (::Ju)(::Jv)(x = y. 1I + v II v < y) 4. x = y . a + b II b < y 5. b < y

theorem

6. b'~y 8. b' < y =? (x' = y. a + b' lib' < y) 9. b' < y o.c? (::Ju)(3v)(x' = y. u +vllv<y) 10. b' = Y =? x' = y. a + y. T II. b' = y =? (x' = Y . (a + T) +OIlO<y) 12. b' = y =? (::Ju)(::Jv)(x' = y. u + v II v < y) 13. (::Ju)(3v)(x' = y. u + I'll v < y) 14. 3&(x) ==} (y i- 0 ==} (3u)(3v) (x' = y. II + v II u < y)) i.e., rd1(x) ==} !?8(x')
By (i). (ii), Gen and the induction rule, existence of' a quotient 11 and a remainder as follows. Assume ,I' I II. Assume .r 7. b'

<y

V b' = Y

Hyp Hyp 1,2, MP 3, rule C twice 4, conjunction elimination 5, Proposition 3.7(k) 6, definition 4, (S6'), derived rules 8, rule E4, deduction theorem

1I = III, then t: = 1'1 by for some II' # O. Then y,u+l'=v'(U+W)+I'1 =Y·II+Y·II·+l'I. Hence, l'cc,v·II·+l'I. Since IV f O,y' \V~y. So, i: = F' II' + 1'1 ~y, contradicting I' < \'. Hence, II fill. Similarly, III f u. Thus, u = III. Since y. II + I' cc X = r· UI +- 1'1. it follows that t: = 1'1. From this point on, one can generally translate into Sand prove the results from any text on elementary number theory. There arc certain number-theoretic functions, such as Xl' and x'. that we have to be able to define in S, and this we shall do later in this chapter, Some standard results of number theory, such as Dirichlet's theorem, are proved with the aid of the theory of complex variables, and it is often not known whether elementary proofs (or proofs in S) can be given for such theorems. The statement of some results in number theory involves non-elementary concepts, Stich as the logarithmic function. and, except in special cases, cannot even be formulaied in S. More information about the strength and expressive powers of S will be revealed later. For example, it will be shown that [here arc closed wfs that are neither provable nor disprovable in S, if S is consistent: hence there is a wf that is true under the standard interpretation hut is not prov able in S. We also will see that this incompleteness of S cannot be uttributcd to omission of some essential axiom but has deeper underlying causes that apply to other theories as well.

< III,

or

<

III

or

til

II.

then

lil =

1/

+ II

Exercises .'.4 Show that .ixioms of S. the induction principle (S9) is independent

of the other

.'.51 )
Show that there exist non-standard models for S of any cardinality ~x. l.hrenfeucht (1958) has shown the existence of at least 2l{o mutually nOI1isomorphic models of cardinality Nx. Prove the special case that there are 2No mutually non-isomorphic denumerable models of S. 1 '-( ) Give a standard mathematical proof of the categoricity of Peano's 1'<1,tulates, in the sense that any two 'models' are isomorphic. Explain why i lu-, proof docs not apply to the first-order theory S. '-71) (Prcsburger, 1929) If we eliminate from S the function letter for nruu iplication and the axioms (S7) and (S8), show that the new system S+ IS l'lillplete and decidable (in the sense of Chapter I, p. 34),
(;1) I h)

4, (S6'), Proposition

3.5(b)

10, Proposition 3.4, 2, Proposition 3.7(t), (S5') II, rule E4 twice, deduction theorem 7,9, 12, disjunction elimination 1-13, deduction theorem

Ii

f--s (VI'),1d(x).
1'.

To prove
I I'll 1"

I' '1/

This establishes the uniqueness. proceed \' a III I \ \' ' 111I

that, for every closed term I of S, we can find a natural number n that I-s I = Ii. t h) Show that every closed atomic wf 1= .v of Sis decidable - that is, either IsI .I' or I s I I s. I,) Show that every closed wl' (\1' S without quantifiers is decidable. t .r) Show
such

'.K

170 3.2

FORMAL NUMBER THEORY NUMBER-THEORETIC FUNCTIONS AND RELATIONS

NUMBER-THEORETIC

FUNCTIONS AND RfLATIONS

171

A number-theoretic function is a function whose arguments and values are natural numbers. Addition and multiplication arc familiar examples of number-theoretic functions of two arguments. By a IIl1m/J('I"-I/I('OI"Clic I"I'/({tion we mean a relation whose arguments are natural numbers. For example. = and < are binary number-theoretic relations. and the expression Xi" Y < 2 determines a number-theoretic relation of three arguments.' Number-theoretic functions and relations are intuitive and are not bound up with <my formal system. Let K be any theory in the language sPA of arithmetic. We say that a number-theoretic relation R of 11 arguments is expressihk: in K if and only if there is a wf .;&(XI .... ,XII) of K with the free variables Xi .. ·. ,XII such that, for any natural numbers kl, ••. , kll' the following hold:
I. If R(kl, 2. If R(kl ,kll)

Let K be any theory with equality in the language-'l)il of arithmetic. A number-theoretic function I of n arguments is said to be rcprcscntobl« in K if and only if there is a wf ·;f(xl,'" ,xl/.r) of K with the free variables xi···· 'XI/'V such that. for any natural numbers kl, .... kll' 111, the following hold:
I. If((kl .... , k_,,) = '": then r-K .11(kl' ... 2_ I--K (:3lv);&(kl, _ .. ,k",)').

.I ;

ni).

It', in this definition,

we replace condition

2 by

~'. I--K (:=:JJy).:0'(XI"" ,xll,y) then the function f is said to be SlrOI1f{1r I"Cprl'.II'llI({/J/C in K. Notice that 2' Implies 2, by Gen and rule A4. Hence. strong rcprcsentability implies representability. The converse is also true, as we now prove.

is true, then I--K .11(kl, k,,) is false, then iK,.11(kl

••.•

k,,). .... , 'I,,).

PROPOSITION

3.12 (V.H. DYSON)

For example. the number-theoretic relation of identity is expressed in S by the wf XI = 1'2. In Iuct. irkl -- k2• then kl is the same term ask2 and so. by Proposition .\.~(a). is "I -= Ie. Moreover, if k, f k:_, then. by Proposition 3.6(a), I--s k, f Likewise. the relation 'less than' is expressed in S by the wfr, < X2. Recall that XI <X2 is (3X3)(X3 fOAx] +XI -=X2)' If kl < k2, then there is some non-zero number IJ such that k2 = IJ + k-: Now, by Proposition 3.6(a)(ii), I--s k2 = ii + 'II. Also, by (S3'), since ti f 0, I--s Ii f 0. Hence, by rule E4, one can prove in S the wf (3w)(w f A w + II = k2): that is, I--s kl < /(2. On the other hand, if k, 1. ka, then k2 < k, or k2 = k-, If k: < kl' then. as we have just seen, f-s k2 < 'II. If k2 = kl' then I--s k2 = 'II. In either case, f-s 12 ~kl and then, by Proposition 3.7(a,c), f-s II 1. /(2. Observe that, if a relation is expressible in a theory K, then it is expressible in any extension of K.

If/(xl,
Proof

... ,XII) is representable

in K, then it is strongly

representable

in K.

"2.

\ssume
-irongly

I representable

in K by a wf ;~(XI, ... ,XII'Y)' Let us show that.r represen ta ble in K by the following wf «(J'(x I, ,XII, y) :
.... ,x".y))
V

is

([(:i,y);:0'(XI, ... ,xn·Y)]/\:J8(XI

1!lkl

(~[(:i,y);"?a(XI

,x",y)]l\y

0)

Exercises 3.9 Show that the negation, disjunction, and conjunction are expressible in K are also expressible in K. 3.10 Show that the relation x + y = z is expressible in S. of relations that

I Assl~me l(kl, •.• , kll) = m. Then I--K .qJ(kl, ••• .k,lO m) and f-K (::IIY) .. _.,kn,y). So, by conjunction introduction and disjunction introduc111111. get f-K '?J(kl, ••• , k m)_ we :!_l We must show I--K (::Ily)yji(XI, ... ,xn,y). (11.1"(' I. Take (::Ily).'1?(XI, ... ,x,,,y) as hypothesis. (i) It is easy, using rule ( 10 obtain?8(xl, ... ,X,ll b) from our hypothesis, where b is a new in,1,\ idual constant. Together with our hypothesis and conjunction and dis111I1L·t introd uction, this yields (6'(XI, ion , Xn, b) and then, by rule E4, 1)'(,(XI, ... ,XII,y). (ii) Assume (6'(XI, ,Xn,U)AY6'(XI, ... ,Xn,v). From I I,I XII' u) a nd our hypothesis, we obtain ,%'(."1, ... , Xn, u), and, from I I\I XII' v) and our hypothesis, we obtain ,@(XI,' .. .x,; v). Now, from iii \ I ,XII' u) and :;&(XI, ... ,XII, v) and our hypothesis, we get U = v. The dniliction theorem yields (6'(xl, ... ,xn,u)AY6'(XI, ... ,Xn,v)=?u=v. From II) .uid (ii), (::It_V)(t(XI,''' ,xn,y). Thus, we have proved f-K (::IIY) ,@(XI,""
ll , I,

II
(',/SI'

:-( I I \')'f,(x

I ,'"

,xn,y).

'w,
propcrtv

lullow the custom or J"l'g.'!"lling a numhcr-thcorcuc of being even, a, a ''-''Iatinll' of one aJ"~lIll1l'l1l

l'J"nl'l'J"tl, 'lI"h

.1'

the

l. Take -,(3Iv).!d(XI,"" XII' y) as hypothesis. (i) Our hypothesis, 1"I-'l'tlH:r with the theorem () = n, yields. by conjunction introduction. I 'I 1).i'I(XI,· ... 1'",1') 1\ 0 O. By disjunction introduction. '(. (rl' .... 1'",0).

172 aud.
(('(XI

I'ORM;\L

NUMBFR ,I1'.\·).

THEORY

NUMBER-THEORETIC

FUNCTIONS
I" -.1'1) II ... ;\

AND
I .....

RELATIONS .1'".1'",)
1\ '(, (l'l . .. . )"". 1/) )

hv
..... II
-r-

rule
-'I/.I").

LA.

(-].1')((,(X}

that
1/

1".

lrom

n. Likewise. from ((,(XI By the deduction theorem. ((,(.\'1 (i) aud (ii). (31.1')'(,(.\"1, ... ,xl/'Y)'

Irom ((,(,1,'1

:.:".11)

(ii) Assume ((,(xl.· ... -'I/.II)A and our hypothesis. it follows easily X". 1") and our hypothesis. I' = O. Hence.
....

("")( 1.1'1) ... (::i.l~,,) (·J11 (x

I ......

YJ", (.'

and
([])( 3.n) ... (:h~")(')'/1 (XI .....
.1',,·.1'1) II ...

,xl/.lI)

(('(XI,

'"

.xl/,r)

Thus

we have proved

~ II = f-K ~(3IY)

1'.

1\ .Yl",(XI .....

x".y",)

II ((, (YI

....

,.I'm.

1"))

YJ(XI .... .I"I/'.I')~"} (31)')«(,(.\"1 .. ·· ,XI/,l') By case I and ease 2 and an instance of the tautology [(D ~ E) /\ (,D=> E)] => E. We can obtain f-K (::1IY)'(,(XI, ... ,X".F). Since we have proved them to be equivalent, from now on we shall use

By(~). using rule C

·!Ill (Xi ....

III

times.
II ... 1I.J1",(XI, ....

,xI/.hl)

x". lim) II '(,(hl .....

h",. II)

By( 0) using rule C again,

·J11 (x\ , .... x". ('I) II ...
II :J1", (XI, ....

rcprcsentability and strong Observe that a function tension of K. Examples In these examples.

representability representable

interchangeably. in K is representable

x". cm) II (t(

CI , ...

em. r)

in any ex-

let K he any theory with equality

in the language

l(l.j.

I. The zero function. Z(x) = O. is representable in K by the wf XI = XI Ay o.~ O. For any k and m, if Z(k) = m, then III = 0 and f-K 7: = k A () = 0: that is. condition I holds. ALso, it is easy to show that )-K ('3 I _I')(\'I = XI AI' 0). Thus. condition 2' holds. 2. The successor function. N(x) .v + I. is representable in K by the wf v ~'x~. Foranyk and III. ifN(k) = III. then III k + I; hence, !nisI'. Then f-K !n = It is easy to verify that r-K (31.1")CF x'I)' = 3. The projection function, Vj'(XI ....• XI/) = Xi, is representable in K by XI = XI AX2 = x2_A .. .:._ = x''- Ay = xi.~f Vi'li I ,'" .k,,) = m, then m = ki· Hence, f-K k , = k., A A2 = k : A '" A A" = k; t\ m = k, Thus, condition I holds. Also, f-K (3Iy)(xl = XI A x2 = x2 A .. , A x" = XII Ay = Xi), that is. condition 2' holds. 4. Assume that the functions g(xl, ... ,xlIl),hICXI,''''X,,), ... , hm(XI, .... XII) are strongly representable in the theory with equality K by the wfs (6(XI' ' .. ,Xm, z), 3111(XI, ... , X"' YI ), . , . ,'18", (XI, ... ,x",Ym), respectively. Define a new function f by the equation
~c

Since f-K (31y!),.YJ,(XI," "xlI,'yi), we obtain from .71'(XI .... ,.X". hj) and .... XI/,c,). that bi=ci' From ((,(hl .... ,h ,u) and hi =('1 .... , hili = ('m, we have ((;(cl, ... , C u). This, with f- K (3Iz)'(,(XI .... , x,,, z) and ((;(('1, ... ,em• u) yields u = 1'. Thus. we have shown f-K (./(.\"1 ..... x". u) A '7/(XI"" ,Xr" 1') => II = 1'. II is easy [0 show that f-K (3::)(/ (Xi •... ,XI/'Z), Hence. f-K (::1JZJ!/(\I .... ,x".z).
8,(XI,
l1l III,

Exercises ,,_II Let K be a theory with equality in the language ';/'.4' Show that the Iollowing functions are representable in K. (;1) Z,l,I· ... x,,) = 0 [Hill! :ZII(XI, ... ,XII) = Z( V;'(XI, .. " XI/))'] I h) q(.xl ....• xII) = k . where k is a fixed natural number. [/-lint: Use mathematical induction in the metalanguage with respect to k.J tl2 Prove that addition and multiplication are representable in S.

r.

C~

=«

"dined

If

R is a relation

as follows:

of n arguments,

then the characteristic if R(xi , if R(xi ,

x,,) is true ,.1'1/) is false

function

C'I is

/(.'1""

XII) = g(hl

(XI, ...

,x,,), ... ,h",(XI,'

.. ,XI/))

is said to be obtained from g, hi,., ., hm by substitution. Then strongly representable in K by the following wf <Zl(XI, ... ,x",z):
(3YI) ... (3Ym)(·"I6'1 (XI, ... ,xn,ytl
II ... II

f is also

PUOPOSITION

3.13 2!,J such that f-K 0 i= T. in K if and only if CN is

88m (XI , ... , xlI,Y",)

II

'4lVI, ... ,y"" z l)

I ,'I K be a theory wit~ equal!ty in the language l hcn a number-theoretic relation R is expressible

condition I, let f(k], .. "k,,) =p. Let hj(kl, ... ,k,,) =1', for j ~j~m; then g(rl, ... , I'm) = p, Since rrJ, ,CfBI, ... , J§m represent q,hl,., .• h.; we have f-K ,qJ/kl, ... ,kll,l}) for I ~j~m and f-K ((,(1'1 •.... /"m,P)' So by conjunction introduction, f-KYlI (II, .... k", r}) A /\ .YJ", (k I, ...• k"J'm)N(,'(rl ... r",.p), Hence, by rule f:'4')K ~/(kl k",p). Thus, condition I holds. Now we shall prove condition 2'. Assume (1(.\'1 ... , • .\",11) A (/(.11,'" ,.\", 1'). that is To prove

"'presL'ntable
Prouf

in K.

II N is expressible in K by a wf '71(XI ..... xn). it is easy to verify that CN is rvprcxcntublc in K by the wf (,71(xl,. ... xl1)Ay=0) V ('.71(XI Xn) t: J). Conversely, if is rcprcscutnble in K by a wI' «(, (XI \·n,r) •

en

174

H)RiVtAL NUMBER

THEORY

___ .

PRIMITIVE

RECURSIVE

AND

RECURSIVE

FUNCTIONS

17)

then. lISlllg the assumption that expressible ill K hy the wf ((,(XI Exercises

I-K

()

# T, we can easily show that R

IS

1/1' 0).

/(XI ....

of a function f(.I"I' ... ,'\/1) is the relation Show that I(xl,'" .x,,) is representable in S if and only if its graph is expressible in S. 3.14 If Q and R are relations of n arguments, prove that (',ll" R = I - CR. C(Q or R) c=c C{!· CR. and CWandRj = C(! + Cli - C{!' CR· 3.15 Show thatf(xl, .... x,,) is representable in a theory with equality K in the language 51'..1 ifand only if there is a w]' :;8 (x I , ••• ,x",y) such that, for any /"1, ... ,kn.lIl, iff(kl ..... kn) = m, then t-K (\ly)(:$(/(I ..... /(",.1') ¢:> y = m).
gmfJh = X"l
X/I)

3.13

The

I.

3.3

PRIMITIVE

RECURSIVE

AND RECURSIVE

FUNCTIONS

The study of represent ability or functions in S leads to a class of numbertheoretic lunclions that turn out to be of great importance in mathematical logic and computer science.

DEFINITION

I. The following functions are called initialfunctions. (I) The zero function, Z(x) = 0 for all x. (II) The successor junction, N(x) = x + I for all x. (III) The projectionfunctions, U;'(XI, ... ,X/I) = Xi for all Xi •. · .• X". 2. The following are rules for obtaining new functions from given functions. (IV) Substitution:
/(XI •. ,. ,x,,) = g(lIl(xl,

We shall say that / is obtained from y and It (or. in the case II ,= O. trorn by recursion. The parameters of the recursion arc II ..... .1'1/' Notice that l is well defined: /(XI ....• \'".0) is given by the first equation, and if we already k now '/'(.11, .... x",r). then we can obtain /(XI .... x".y + I) by the second equation. (VI) Restricted u-Opcratar, Assume that 1/(.11 .... ,xl/,r) is a Junction such that for any .1'1 ..... .r., there IS at least one y such that 1f(xl.··· ,x",y) = O. Wc denote by IlY(Y(\'I· .... .\",1') = 0) the least number y such that U(XI •...• x".y) = O. In general. for any relation R(xl .... ,x",y), we denote by /lyR(XI ..... XI/'Y) the least y such that R(xJ,'" ,x,,,y) is true, if there is any y at all such that R(XI' .... x".y) holds. Let f(XI, ... ,xn) = ILY(y(XI ....• x".v) = 0). Then I is said to be obtained from y by means of the restricted II-operator if the given assumption about q holds. namely, for any XI.· ... .1'", there is at least one y such that Y(XI,'" .X",F) -r: O. , A function l is said to be prunitivc 1'('1'111'.1';),1' if and only if it can be obtained from the initial functions by any finite number or substitutions (IV) and recursions (V) - that is. if there is a tinite sequence of functions /;) ... , '/;, such that ;;, = f and, for 0 ~; <n. either h is an initial function 01'/; comes from preceding functions in the sequence by an application of rule (IV) or rule (V). ~. A Iunction j" is said to be recursive if and only if it can be obtained from the initial functions by any finite number of applications or substitution (IV), recursion (V) and the restricted IL-operator (VI). This differs from the definition above of primitive recursive functions only in the addition of possible applications of the restricted II -operator, Hence, every primitive recursive function is recursive. We shall see later that the converse is false.
h alone)

.. ,xII),···

,hm(XI •. ,· ,XII))

I is said to be obtained
(V) Recursion: /(XI .... /(XI," . ,XII'Y
11

by substitution

from the functions

, h,.(xl •...• x,,)

g(YI, ... ,Ym), hi (XI, ... ,x,,) ....

We shall show that the class of recursive functions is identical with the of functions representable in S. (In the literature, the phrase 'general i ccursive' is sometimes used instead of 'recursive") I'irst, let us prove that we can add 'dummy variables' to and also permute "lid identify variables in any primitive recursive or recursive function, obi.uning a function of the samc type.
,LISS

,x,,, 0)
+
k

= q(XI,

,XII) ,xll,Y,f(XI •... ,x,,,y»

I) = h(XI,

I'HOPOSITION

3.14

Here, we allow

=
I)

0, in which case we have

where Ii is a fixed natural number h(v,/(I'))

frO) =
I(v +
-r-

I ct </(1'1 .. , .. Yk) be primitive recursive (or recursive). Let XI, ... x; be distinct \ .m.iblcs and. for I ~i ~k, let z, be one of XI, ... , Xn. Then the function j '1llh '!wt /(.11, .... X/I) = Y(ZI, ... ,zd is primitive recursive (or recursive).

176

FORMAL

NUMBER

THEORY

PRIMITIVE

RECURSIVE

AND

RE(l:RSIVI-

H:'JCflONS

177

Proof LLl::,
XI.'

PROPOSITION

3.16 functions
arc primitive

where I

~j,~I1.

Then z,
X,,)
=

= U;;(XI

..

' . .\"1/)' Thus. U;:(XI .....

XII))

/(XI .....

q(U;:(XI

.....

X,,) .....

The following
(a)

recursive.

and therefore
!/

U;', ..... U;;

/ is primitive hy substitution.

recursive

(or recursive).

since it arises

from

x +y
X·

(0) (c) (d)

_Ii

x' ()(x)
= {~I

Exumplc:
I. Adding
/('>:1 • .\"2 • .\",)

dummy variables. If Y(XI.X,) = q(xi ,X1). then }(.\"I.X2,X,)

Proposition 3.14, let 21 = XI and 22 = X3. 'dummy variable' since its value has
/(XI,X2,X3)· 2. Permuting f(xi ,X2,X,)

is primitive recursive and is also primitive recursive. The new varia ble Xl is called no influence on the value

if In a of

if.\" > 0 if X= 0 function. ifx:?y ifx<y

(i is called
IC)X-Y= II')

. {x-v
O·
X {

the predecessor

variables. If U(.\"I.X2,X,) is primitive recursive and if ~ rJ(X,.XI.X2). then I(xl,x2,x3) is also primitive recursive. In Proposition 3.14, let 21 = x,.22 = XI and 2, = X2· 3. Identifying variables. If U(XI,X2.X3) is primitive recursive and if .ll1:"I,X2) = 0(XI,X2,XI). then /(XI.X2) is primitive recursive. In Proposition 3.14. let n = 2 and 21 =XI.22 =X2 and Z1 =XI·

Ix - YI

y- x

if x:?y if x < y

I)!)

sg(x) =
=

o1

h) sg(x)

I {0

if x = 0 if xi 0 if x = 0 ifxi=O

COROLLARY

3.15

(a) The zero function ZII(XI, ... ,XI/) = 0 is primitive recursive. (b) The constant function CZ(Xl, .... XI/) = k , where k is some fixed natural number, is primitive recursive. (c) The substitution rule (IV) can be extended to the case where each hi may be a function of some but not necessarily all of the variables. Likewise. in the recursion rule (V), the function g may not involve all of the variables XI , Xn.Y, or f(Xl, ...• xlI,y) and h may not involve all of the variables XI, ,xn,y, or f(XI,'" ,xlI,y). Proof (a) In Proposition 3.14, let g be the zero function Z; then k = I. Take 21 to be Xl· (b) Use mathematical induction. For k = 0, this is part (a). Assume C; primitve recursive. Then Ck+1 (XI, ...• XII) is primitive recursive by the substitution Ck+1 (Xi •... ,xn) = N(Ck(XI, ... ,XII))' (c) By Proposition 3.14, any variables among XI ..... XI/ not present in a function can be added as dummy variables. For example. if h(\"I. xll is primitive recursive, then h·(XI.X2.xd ~ 11(.\"1.\·\) h(lIi(ll.X.,.xd. 11\'(\:1, X2.X1)) is also primitive recursive. since it is obt.uncd hy a substitution

II) x! I I) min(x,y) = minimum of x and y I~) minl.rj , .... X II) max(x,y) = maximum of X and v Illljmax(XI.···.x Ill) r111(x:y) = remainder upon division ofy hy 1,,) qt(x.y) = quotient upon division ofy by x
I1) ll)

I'roof
1.1)

Recursion x x+(y+

rule (V) or f(x,y or f(X,O)

+0=x
I) =N(x+y)

+ 1)=

vi (x)
N([,(x,.v))

Ih)
.v .
I,)

(y

+
=

x·O=O I) = (x· y) I (x..).x

+x

g(x,O) = Z(x) (x,y+ I) =f(u(x,y),x) where f is the addition

function

xJl=
1',11

1.1)

(i(O)=0 ,i(l'

+ I) =.1' + 1'1x'O=x I) = ()(x":'v)

X.

I,,)

v . (.I'
I I) I).')

1\

s~(t)

(x":'y) ,i(\')

~ (I' x)

(suhstitution) (substitution)

17H

FORMAL

NUMBER

THEORY

PRIMITIVE

RECURSIVE

AND

RECLRSIVE

Fl NCTIONS

i
,

179

(h)
(i )

sg(r)

O!(If

I' sg(x) I

(suhstitution)

PROPOSITION II' /(x,

<urns

3.17 is primitive recursive (or recursive). then all the hounded defined above arc also primitive recursive (or recursive).

I)' = (y!) . (y

I)

(j)

(k )

min(x.v) = x_:_(x_:_y) Assume min(.r" min(x"

.....

xlI.y)

,XI/) 'XI/,XI/'

already
,) =

shown primitive min(min(x' ....

recursive.
,XI/)'.\'I/,')

and products

Proof l.ct U(XI .. , "XI/'Z)

=

(I) (m)

(n)
(0)

tnax(x.y) = v + Cr_'_y) m<lx(x" ... ,XI/,XI/+I) _c- max(max(x, .... ,XI/),XI/ rm(x.O) = 0 rIn(x,y + I) = N(rm(x,y)) . sg(lx - N(rm(x,y))I) qt(x,O) = 0 qt(x,y + I) = qt(x,y) + sg(lx - N(rm(x,y))I)

L/(X'

.. , .. x",v). Then we have the following

,x".O)=() I) -IJ(XI ....

recur-

,) q(xl .... Y(XI,""X".z+

x".:)

1 /(1'1

....

.r., . z )

lI'h(xI,,,,,XI/'Z)

In justification of (n) and (0), note that, if q and r denote the quotient qt(x,y) and remainder rm(x,y) upon division of y hy .r, then y = qx + rand O~r<x. So, y+l=qx+(r+I). If r+I<x (that is, if Ix-N(rm (x, y)), > 0), then the quotient qt(x, y + I) and remainder rm(x, y + I) upon division of Y I- I by x are q and r + I, respectively. If r + I = x (that is, if Ix-N(rm(x.v))I=O). then v+I=c.(q+l)x. and qt(x,y+l) and rm(x.v+ I) arc (I +-1 and O. respectively.' DEFINITIONS
LI(x"
,I'<Z

)' .::;z lI(xl ..... 1'".z)

= L /(x"""XI/'v).
=Y(XI .....

then
X".:
1

I)

(suhslitulion)

lhc proofs for hounded lie left as exercises.

products

and doubly

bounded

sums and products

t.vanipl« I l·t ,(x) be the number of divisors of x. if x > 0, and let ,(0) = I. (Thus. ,(x) ,. the number of divisors of x that are less than or equal to x.) Then T IS 111llitive recursive. since
f1

... ,x".y) .... x"y) ... ,x"y)

0
=

if z
,

r(x) =

L sg(rm(y,x))
r ,(x

(x" ... ,X". 0) I(x" if

Z .~

+ ... +-.! ,\" ...

'( .

,x"z--I,

if z > 0

LI(x"
y
~z

=L
y<z+1

... ,x,.y)
0 ' ...

I'<Z

n f(x"

I ={

. }(x"

... ,x"O)·

-ft», ...

,xll,z-

J)

if z > 0

y~z

Il f(x"

... ,xn,y) = Il /(x"

y<z+1

... ,x",y)

These bounded sums and products are functions of XI, ... ,xlI,z. We can also define doubly bounded sums and products in terms of the ones already given; for example,
L
14

Given expressions for Humber-theoretic relations, we can apply the , .mncctives of the propositional calculus 10 them to obtain new expressions I,,, relations. For example, if R1(x,y) and R2(X,1l,V) are relations, then I,' I I.F) 1\ R2(X, 1I, v) is a new relation that holds for x,y, u, v when and only ,\ hen both RI(x,y) and R2(x, 11, v) hold. We shall use (\fY)vcR(xJ"" ,xn,y) I" cx press the relation: for all y, if y is less than z; then R(Xt, ... ,x" ,y) holds. w, shall use (\fy)y,;;z' (3y)y<z and (3y)y,;;z in an analogous way; for exunplc, (3Y)I'<zR(xJ,'" ,xn,y) means that there is some y < z such that 1,11 .... ,x".y) holds. We shall call (\fY)v<z,(\fY)v,;;z(:JY)r<z and (3y)',;;z ;'''"II''cd quantifiers. In addition, we define a bounded p-operator:
11I\·zR(XI ....

/(XI, ... ,x",y) = f(xl, L

Y<O("_:_II)

... ,x"'

I)

+ ... + f(xl,
I)

.. , ,x"' P - I)

<y<t.:

,x",)')

I(xl,""x",y+-u+-

the le~st y < ~ for which R(x" ... ,x"' holds If there IS such a y { z otherwise

y)

'Since one cannot divide by O. the values of rm(O.I') and qt(O.,\·) have no intuitive significance. It can he easily shown hy induction Ihal the given definitions
yield nn(O.v)

and qt(O. r)

0,

z is chosen in the second case because it is more convenient in later this choice has no intuitive significance. We also define //\"1 .Rt», ..... x".y) to be I(Vy<= 'IR(Xll'" ,xn,y). t\ relation R(.I·, ..... Xl/) is said to he primitive recursive (or recursive) if and "ltiV .1' its characteristic Iunctlon ('R(X, •.. , .x,) is primitive recursive (or rcI Ill' v.iluc

1111l"rs:

IXO
cursive).

IORMAL

NUMBFR

THEORY

PRIMITIVE

RECURSIVE

AND

RECURSIVE

FUNCTIONS
~ __ ~ __

I J

181

In particular. a set A or natural numbers is primitive recursive (or rCClirSIIC) if and only itits characteristic function C,(x) is primitive recursive

counts

such that R(xl ....

(or recursive).

of integers from 0 up to but not including the first y holds and is z if there is no such r; thus. it is equal [011)" ,R(XI.··. ,xI/'v) and so the latter function is primitive recursive (or recursive) by Proposition 3.17.
,XI/'.I')

the number

XI = X2 IS pnrmuve recursive. Its characteristic function is :;g(l\1 - x21). which is primitive recursive, by Proposition 1.16(f,g), ') The relation XI < .\'2 is primitive recursive. since its characteristic function is sg(X2":-XI). which is primitive recursive, by Proposition 3.16(e,h). 3, The relation XI ixc is primitive recursive, since its characteristic function is sg(rm(xl.x2)), 4, The relation Pr(x). (x) is a prime. is primitive recursive, since C,.,(x) = sg(lr(x) - 21). Note that an integer is a prime if and only ifit has exactly two divisors; recall that '[(0) = I.

1,'.1 .unpk-» I The relation

Evampk» I. Let 1'(.1') he the X{1r prime number in ascending order. Thus. 1'(0) = 2. p( I) = 3. p(2) = 5, and so on. We shall write Px instead of ,,(x). Then 1', is a primitive recursive function. In fact.
Po = 2
p,
tI

= JI)".

(I'. I': I

(p,

." /\

1'1'(".))

PROPOSITION

3.IH

Relations obtained lrom primitive recursive (or recursive) relations by means or the propositionul connectives and the bounded quantifiers are also primitive recursive (or recursive). Also. applications of the hounded ii-OPerutors JlV\ c and 11.1', . lead from primitive recursive (or recursive) relations to primitive recursive (or recursive) functions.

Notice that the relation u < y!\ Pr(!') is primitive recursive. Hence. hy Proposition 3.18, the function JI.I',. I (/I < l'!\ [>r(.I')) is a primitive recursive function [flu, I')' If we substitute the primitive recursive functions z and z! + I for u and 1'. respectively, in y(u. 1'), we obtain the primitive recursive function
h(z)
=

IIY), '"

:''-1

(z < y

1\

Pr(y))

Proor

Assume R,(xl,,,,,x/I) and R2(XI,,,,,x/I) are primitive recursive (or recursive) relations. Then the characteristic functions CR, and CR, are primitive recursive (or recursive). But C-'R1 (XI,'" ,.In) = I_:_CR, (XI, ... ,xn); hence -,R, is pnrnruve recursive (or recursive). Also, CII\VII,(XI, ... ,x,,) = CR,(XI, ... ,XII) ·CII,(XI, ... ,Xn); so, RI VR2 is primitive recursive (or recursive). Since all propositional connectives are definable in terms of -, and v, this takes care of them. Now, assume R(XI,'" ,xn,y) is primitive recursive (or recursive). If Q(XI,'" ,xn,z) is the relation (:3y))'<zR(XI, ... ,x,,,y), then it is easy to verify that CQ(XI, ... ,x,,,z) = n)'<zC~(XI"" ,x,,,y), which, hy Proposition 3.17, is primitive recursive (or recursive). The bounded quantifier (:3y))'~z is equivalent to (:3Y))'<z+I' which is obtainable from (:3y))'<: by substitution. Also, (\ly),,<z is equivalent to -,(:3y)!,<z -', and (\ly),. c: is equivalent to -,(:3y)v~:_;' Doubly bounded quantifiers, such as (=iv)". ,. " can be defined by substitution, using the hounded quantifiers already mentioned. Finally, Fl., )'CR(XI ..... x.: II) has the value I for a llr such that R(xi ..... x". u) is false for all /I ~v; it has thc value 0 as SOOIl as there is some 1I~';\'sU\:h that R(XI .... ,X".II) holdsv Hcnce. :(11". ,C/I(\I ..... \.".u))

and the right-hand side of the second equation above is h(1',); hence. we have an application of the recursion rule (V). The hound (P.r)! + I on the first prime after P, is obtained from Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes (see Exercise 3.23). . Every positive integer x has a unique factorization into prime powers: .v = p~Op'I'1... pf'. Let us denote by (x). the exponent ai in this factor. . J. izauon. If .r = I, (X).I· = 1 for all j. If x = 0, we arbitrarily let (x)./ = 0 for .. ;111 j, Then the function (x). is primitive recursive, since (x). = v I ... I ),·f J I IIF\<x(PilxA-'\Yj [x)). For x > 0, let fli(x) he the number of non-zero exponents in the factorizution of x into powers of primes, or, equivalently, the number of distinct primes that divide x. Let fJi(O) = O. Then eli is primitive recursive. To see this, let R(x,y) be the pnrmuve recursive relation I'r(v) Aylx Ax ¥ O. Then f!1i(x) = 2:yU sg(CR(x,y)). Note that this viclds the special cases fli(O) = f!1i( I) = O. The expression 'f1i(x)' should be read 'length of X'. II' the number .1= 2a03'" " .p~k is used to 'represent' or 'encode' the -cq ucncc of positive integers ao, ai, ... ,ak, and y = 2bo 3hl ... P~" 'repi cscnt s the sequence of positive integers ho, hi, ... , bill, then the number

>:,.

'represents' iuxtnpusing

the new sequence the two sequences.

ao.al,

....

ac.be.b«,
I'h(x)

Note

that

"k+

... .b ; ohtained by I. which is the

JS2
length second

FORMAL

NUMBER

THEORY L which is the length of the

Dr

PRIMITIVE

RECURSIVE ANI) Rf'ClJl~SIVE ;0N-c-r'!-(-;NS--~--~--

the first sequence, ('h(y)., 1111 sequence, and hi~" (V)l' Hence,
.r .. y == x·

lSI

PROPOSITION Let

3.19

(PII,iI',

'" is a primitive recursive function. culled the juxtaposition function. It is not difficult to show that x", (y '" 2) = (x", Y) * z as long as r of 0 (which will be the only case 01' interest to us). Therefore. there is no harm in omitting parentheses when writing two or more applications or *. Also observe that x * 0 = x '" I = x.

<Ind. thus.

(II

(1'1..

. x,,) x,,)

irt?1 (\I

X,,)

'( . / Xi··

...

x,,)

=
{

(j,(xl

....

irR'(II,

;'o(dl .x;: hollis.'

Exercises 3.16 Assume

lation. Prove (a) (3y),,<,
i.

yd'\I ..... 1,,) ifRdxl ..... \·"J holds If the functions . . I··· .. Uk <In d tth c rclation , R (I . . R,...·· . . (01' recursive), and '1' t' '. .. I····. k arc pnrrunvo recursive I. 01 any 'I t eX'I'11 1N1(XI, .... Xn) .... R. . .,' ....... ".'.,c y one 0 the relations , k(.\I ...... In) IS true, then I IS primitive recursive (or recursive).

that R(xI •... ,xn.y) the following:

is a primitive

recursive

(or recursive)

re-

Proof
1(11 ....• Xn)=.iJI(XI, ...• Xn)·sg(CI/I(.XI ...
(.\1 .....

.... X".F)

.. ,R(xl •...• x".y), (3Y)/1 '" I'';;,R(XI •... , xlI,Y) are primitive (or recursive) relations.

and

(3Y)1/ ';;"<IR

(XI,

(b)py" .. ,.R(XI' .... x".v). I(VII .-,,: IR(XI .... ,x,,, F) and JIYII'~ ,.' IR (XI .... , x" ,y) arc primitive recursive (or recursive) functions. (c) H. for ,ill nu tural numbcrs Xi ....• XII' there exists a natural number y such that R(xi ..... .r., . .1'). then the function f(xi ....• x,,) = pyR(xl' xlI,y) is recursive. [Hillt: Apply the restricted II-operator to CR(XI, x".y).]
3.17

ydxl .... I· xcrcises

,X,,)· sg(C/i,

)) "Xn x,,)).

L I ...

U4 Show that in Proposilion 1 19 ·t . l'IJlllitive recursive (or recursive) . I IS not necessary U5 Let .
I(x) l'I,)\,e 1.20 that c Let h(x) = {;
I, t, primitive
.

to assume

that R,

IS

(a) Show that the intersection, union and complement or primitive recursive (or recursive) sets are also primitive recursive (or recursive). (b) Show that every finite set is primitive recursive. 3.18 Prove that a function f(xl, ... ,xn) is recursive if and only if its representing relation f(xl, ... ,xn) = Y is a recursive relation. 3.19 Let [01] denote the greatest integer less than or equal to 01, and lei n(n) denote the number or primes less than or equal 10 n, Show that 101] and D(n) are primitive recursive. 3.20 Let e be the base of the natural logarithms. Show that [ne], the greatest integer less than or equal to ne, is a primitive recursive function. 3.21 Let RP(y, z) hold if and only if y and z are relatively prime, that is, y and z have no common factor greater than I. Let rp(n) be the number of positive integers less than or equal to n that are relatively prime to n. Prove that RP and rp are primitive recursive. 3.22 Show that, in the definition or the primitive recursive functions, one need not assume that Z(x) = 0 is one or the initial functions. 3.23 Prove that Pk II oS; ~IPI ... I'd + I. Conclude that Pi; I I oS;jJk! f- I. l-or usc in the further

f"IS

prrmrtrve

' ..

{xl .1'+1

if x is even if .r is odd

recursive.

if Goldbach's If Goldbach's

conjecture conjecture

is true is false

recursive?

II is often important to have available a '" . "lJTL'~r()ndence between the set or d d . prrrmtrve recursive one-one .,'1,)1' natural numbers W 'h 11 ,or ere. pairs or~atural numhers and the . e s a enumerate the pairs as rollows: '(0,0). (0.1).(1,0)'(1.1). (0,2).(2,0),(1,2),(2,1).(2,2), we have enumerated 'Ill the .' h c pairs avmg compon tI h to A. we then add a new gr r II h . en s ess t an or I I "oup 0 ate new pairs havi ,'" I Ian or equal to k + I in th f 11 mg components I" i 1).(,( 11,1) ..... (k.k+I),(;/I,~~tn}\O~der: (O.k+I),(k+I,O), l)o\.'\.'lIr,ncfi)rc(II)'llIdh)(h h) (( .k+I). If x<y, then \lln
qlJ,t!

theorem on definition

study of recursive by cases.

functions.

we prove

the following

,1.111

. ." trom I III (,Olllltlllg • r) 1', 'he (2\ I I )tl

(arc In t C I' + I )th group (N t h groups) TI f' . 0 e t at we ).' ." . ic 1I'."t .1' groups contain y2 pairs. and p.ur 111 the (I' I I )th group. Hence, (x .. i-) is the

IX4

FORMAL

NL':vJ HER TH[ORY

PRIMITIVF

RFCLRSIVr:

/\1\1)

Rut

RSIVI-

It'.!CrJO'JS

IX)

and (_I'.x) i, the (I·e ,- 2x + 2)th pair. On the other hand. ifx=.,·.(x.r) is the ((., + 1)'Jlh pair. This justifies the following definition. in which (T\\'.v) denotes t he place of the pair (x,v) in the .ibovc cnumcrurion. with (0,0) considered to he in the Oth place:
(I'~ I 2, I luh pair in the ordering.
a:(x.y) ~

sg(x':__I')

(x"

+ 21' +

I) f- sg(\'~_I')

(ye

l 2.1')

It will he essential in later work tll define functions bv ;1 recursion In which the value or /( 'I·'. '11.1' + !) depends 11'.>t(>IlI} UPO'1l /(.\1 ..... x".r) hut abo upon several or all values olf(.II. . In. u) with /I Sr. This type of recursion is called a 1·(}{lr.\I'-Or),U/II(,\ recursion Let 1#(-"1 ..... X", 1') = .. IT r Pi,1(,,-- .. \".11) N ore t I1al. f' CI n I1C () I,t;1I !ICl !' Irom J .# as follows:
II

Clcurly.

(T2 is primitive

Let us define functions ()'T and ()'~ such that ()';(()'"(.I.r)) = x, (T~(()'2(x.y)) = y and ()'2(ITf(z). ()'~(z)) = z: Thus. ()'f(z) and ()'~(.::)are the first am] second components of the zth ordered pair in the given enumeration. Note first that ()'T(O) = O. ()~(O) = O.
, a,(n)
= a~ (II) t7~(n) + I

recursive. inverse

I(XI

.....

XII.Y)

= (/#(.\'1 .....

\11.)'-"-1)),.

PROPOSITION

3.20 (COUnSE-OF-V:\I.I'ES recursive

then

HUt

RSIOI")

If h(xl
=h(XI

,x".y, z) is primitive
,X".v./#(xl ..... x".v)).

if aT(n) < a~(n) if aT(n) > a~(II) if aT(n) = a~(nJ

cursive). Proof

I"

(or recursive: and f i», ..... x.; 1') ptu ni t ivr recursive (or re-

and
a,(11

> ) _ { t7T(n) + I -- a] 11 + I '() -

if' aT(II) if aT(")

cI
=

ahll) a~(I/)

1#(.\'1

T".O)

f#(xl

-"".\'

I)

Hence.
ai(1/
I I)

a;(I/)
\p(

(sg(r;;(l/i'

a;(II)))

I i.a~(II)

t I)· (sg(a~(I/)':IT~(I1)))

IT; (1/i. IT; (1/))

IT;(II)I))

lhus. by the recursion

11.11 ..

rule.
.....

I#
X".I'+

is primitive
1))1

recursive

(or recursive),

and

,x".y)

= (/'#(XI

a3(n

I) = aT(n) . (sg(la~(n)

(al (n) -t- I) . (sg(la~(I1) - t7~(I1)I))

= I/f(a~(n).

a~(I1))

I. \ (1/1/[1/('
II A

where (p and I{I are primitive recursive functions. Thus, ()'T and ()'~are defined recursively at the same time. We can show that ITT and O'i are primitive recursive in the following devious way. Let h(u) = 2,,;(u)3"j(lI) Now, h is primitive recursive, since 11(0) = 2°;(0) 3"j(O) = 2° . 3° = I, and 1I(n + I)
= 21T;(nll)yi(llll) = 2,p(ai(n).ai(n»3,/;(ai(ll)'uj(II» = 2,p((h(II))II(h(I1)),)
3""((h(n»,,.(h(I1)),)

I Ill' Fibonacci + 2) = I(k) fen)

=

+ I(k +
sg(n)

sequence

is defined as follows: /(0)= I) for k ~O. Then / is primitive

-- II) -+- ((/#-(n))"
I

1./( I) recursive,
2)'

I. and since

+ sg(11I

+ (/#(11))"
(z)._~)

sg(n':' I)

! he function h(y, z) = sg(y)

i-,

+ sg(ly

J I)

+ ((::),_ + I

. sg(v':' J)

Remembering that the function (X)i is primitive recursive (see Example 2 on page 181), we conclude by recursion rule (V) that II is primitive recursive. But cry(x) = (h(x))o and crHx) = (h(x))I' By substitution, crt and (J'~ are primitive recursive. One-one primitive recursive correspondences between all n-tuples of natural numbers and all natural numbers can be defined step - by - step. using induction on n. For n = 2, it has already been done. Assume that. for n=k, we have primitive recursive functions ()'k(XI, ... ,Xk),cr1(x), .... (J'~(x) such that 0'7(<I(xl, ... ,xd)=x; for I~i~k. and O'k(cr1(x), ()'~(x)=x. Now, for n=k+l, define o*+I(XI,,,.,Xk,Xk'l) =IT2(d'(XI, xd,.\'klil. ()'7+I(x)=()'~((J'T(x)) for l~i~k and ()'~::(x)=()'~(x). Then (),k'I.(J'1'1. are all primitive recursive. and we leave it as an exercise til verify that (J'~'I(()'kll(XI ..... Xkll))c=x,forl<j" ••k I I.and (1k((J'~.I(X) .....

primitive

recursive,

and /(n)

l1(n./#(/I)).

\.27
11\,11"

Let (/(0) = 2, y( I) = 4. and y(k + 2) is primitive recursive.

= 3y(k

+ I) - (2y(k)

+ I). Show

... ,()'!::

COROI.LARY 3.21 (COlJRSE-Of-VALlJES lOR RELATIONS) II III

N"I ..
II. '" \'".".::)

RECURSION

(J'~ : : (I))

X.

I".I')

holds

is a primitive it and only

recursive

(or

recursive)

if 1I(11 ...

·.I".I·.(('/I)H(I\

rclnt ion and ... ·.III.I·)).

IR6 where
('Ii

FORMAL NUMBER THFORY is the characreristic function or R. then R is primitive

PRIMITIVI::

RECLRSIVE

AND RECURSIVE

FUNCTIONS

un

recursive

(or

Proof k,,) and let (~f'. Consider the numbers no two ofthem have a factor in common other than 1. In fact. if p were a prime dividing both I t (i +- I)c and I + (1/11 l)c with 0 ~ i < 11/ ~ fl. then p would divide their difference (nt ... i)c. Now. p docs not divide c, since. in that case J! would divide both (i + l)c and I + (i -r I )c. and so would divide 1. which is impossible. Hence, p also does not divide (111-- i); for m - i~n~j and so. iii i divides), = c. lfp divided 1/1i, then p would divide c. Therefore, p docs not divide (11/ - i)c. which yields a contradiction. Thus, the numbers 11/. (),~ i -: II. (Ire relatively prime in pairs. Also. for O~i ~ l1,k/~i~i!= c < I ~(i + ,)c U' that is k, < u Now, hy the Chinese remail1lier·theorem(secExercise] ..30).th~r~ IS ~ number b < ueu I ... 11" such that rm(u/. h) = k, for 0 ~i ~11. But II(h.c,i) = rm(l + (i+ l)c.l» = rm(lI,.b) k,. Lemmas 3.22 and 3.:21 enable us to express within S assertions about finite sequences of natural numbers, and this ability is crucial in part of' the proof of the following fundamental theorem. Let j=max(n.kll.kl
U, .~.

rccu rSI vc).

.....

(i+ Ik rorO~i~fI;

Proof x",y) = ('fI(XI ..... x",y. (CR)#(XI ..... X",y)). Since ('Ii is primitive recursive (or recursive). Proposition :1.20 implies that ('II is primitive recursive (or recursive) and. therefore, so is R. Proposition 3.20 and Corollary 3.21 will hc drawn upon heavily in what follows. They are applicable whenever the value of a function or relation for v is defined in terms of values for arguments less than y (by means of a primitive recursive or recursive function or relation). Notice in this connection that R(XI, ... , X"' II) is eq uivalent to eR (.'(1, ... , X", u) = O. which, in turn, for II < y, is equivalent to (( eli )#(XI, ... , x",.v))" = o.
CI!Crl .....

=c.

.=c

Exercises 3.28 Prove that the set of recursive functions is denumerable. 3.29 If /iJJI./2.' .. is an enumeration of all primitive recursive functions (or all recursive [unctions) or one va ria hie . prove that the function /;(v) is not primitive recursive (or recursive).

PROPOSITION l.very recursive

3.24 function is representable in S.

LEMMA

3.22 (CODEL'S

P-FUNCTIOI'i)

Proof lhe initial functions Z, Nand are representable in S, hy Examples 1·-3 on page 172. The substi tution rule (I V) does not lead out of the class of representable functions, by Example 4 on page 172. For the recursion rule (V), assume .uc representable in S by wfs 38(XI" uvcly. and let
(I)

Let {3(XI,X2,X3) = rm(1 + (X3 -I- I) ·X2,XI). Then fJ is primitive recursive, by Proposition 3.16(n). Also, (J is strongly representa ble in S by the following

U,n

wf Bt(xi ,X2,X3,Y):
('3W)(XI Proof By Proposition 3.11 f-s (::Jly)Bt(XI,X2,X3,Y). Assume {3(kl,k2,k3) = m. Then kl=(I+(k3+1)·k2)·k+m for some k, and m «: 1+(k3+1)·k2. So. f-s II = (I + (IJ + I) . I2) . I + m, by Proposition 3.6(a). Moreover, f-s m < 1 + (I3 + I) . I2 by the expressibility of < and Proposition 3.6(a). Hence, f-s II = (I + (I3 + I) . k2) . I( + m /\ m < 1 + (k] + I) . k2 from which by rule E4, f-s Bt(II, 1(2, k}, m). Thus, Bt strongly represents fi in S.
= (I

(Xl

I) . X2) .

I\'

+ y!\y < I + (Xl +

1) . X2)

that Y(XI , ... , xn) and h(XI, ... , X,,, y, z) .. ,X,,+I) and (6'(XI, ... ,Xn+3), respec,Xn) ,xn,y,/(XI, ... ,x",y))

/(XI,""X",O) /(XI, ... ,x",y

=g(XI,

I)

h(XI,

,\,)\\. /(XI .... ,x",Y) = z if and only if there is a finite sequence of numbers I,,,. '" b, such that b» = g(XI, ... ,xn), bw+1 = h(XI,'" ,Xn, w, bw) for 1\ , I ~.I', and b, = z. But, by Lemma 3.23, reference to finite sequences can he paraphrased in terms of the function fi and, by Lemma 3.22, fi is reI'll'sL'ntahle in S hy the wf Bt(xi ,X2,X],y). We shall show that/(xl, '''\\in!! wf '/(xl ..... .1'" I:'): ... ,x",Xnf.l)
.....

is representable

in S by the fol-

LEMMA

3.23 there exist natural

For any sequence of natural numbers kl).kl ..... k". numbers hand (' such that 11th. c. il A, for (). i : "

I :11)111')1(( \(\/11')(\\'

11I')(BI(u.I'.O.II')!\.:d(xl

x".II')))/\Bt(II,IJ.Xn'I.X,,'2)
.....

I".,

:. (11')1

':)(Ilf(Ii.I,\\·.I')/\BI(II.,·.II".::)/\«(.(.I'\

x".\\· -.\'. ::))j

lOR \1/\ I. :-.:'!v1BF I{ [IIIOR l

PRIMITIVE

RECliRSIVE
((») '/(£1.

AND .

RECLRSIVl: I" 2!

FU:"-JCIIOi\,S

I Xl)

(I) lust. a~sulll~ rh.u /\XI .... r,,·llj III. We wish to show that s /(1,1 ... /,,:.jUlij. 1i'/) O. (hell 111'/(/'1 ..... /("). Consider the sequence l'l)flsistin~ or III alone. 13) Lemma 3.2.1. there exist hand c such that II(h. c. 0) ~ Ill. Hence. h) l.cmma :1.22.

.k".p:1 .i;

Wc must

prove
(a) (0)

.1'11,2

= ;. From (6). by rule ('.

0, \I') /\ .!IJ(kl""
II))

(J1l·)lI3I(b.c.

i Xi's Also, E4. since

/1/

Beih.
f-s

(C.

o. 11f)
I ....

Ht(",(',;;--+I ..I",,,
P

= if(kl

•....

1,/1)'

we have

:I}(k

k/l.IIi).

Hence.

by rule

(C) (1f11')(1\

I
1\

~. (::Jy)(3z)(131(h.c.lI'.r) From (c).

BI(h.,.II';:j

'((i,.

.1-;".11 . .1'.;:)))

In addition.
(J1.1:) Applying

since i-s
(If\\')(w

\I

,to. a

tautology

and Gcn yield

11'.1') (81(1).('.1/.;:)/\

(d)(IfIl')(1\ ((;(kl
•••••

-: Ji ~

(3y)(3::)(Ht(l),(', 11'.)')

(I

BI(h ...

II'

~)

1\

'((kl

....

.7:".

11'.1"::»)

<0>

(:31')(:1:)(131(/'.(.

k/l' w.y.z)))

"rom

(c) by rule A4 and rule C. (e) 13t(b.c.p.d) /\ Bt(h.c.,;---I-f

c) /\'(IAI
...

rule E4 10 the conjunction of p:). (II) and (III). we obtain ls ry;Ckl, •••. k/l' 0. m). Now. for Ii > OJ( I, I •... .k., p) is calculated from the equations (I) in p+ I steps. Let r, =/(kl ••..• kll.i). For [he sequence of numbers 1'11..... /'". there are. by Lemma 3.2:1. numbers hand C such that 11(h.c.i) 1', Ior O:Si:Sp. Hence. by Lemma .1.22. f-s Bt (!U',l.ri)' In particular. 1II/I.c.O) ==rll=c/(k, ..... A".O)=y(kl ..... kll). Therefore, f-s B~ (/)(" O.r,,);\ !lJ(k I. .. Xu. 1'1j). and. hy rule LA. (i) J-s (311')( Bt (hJ. O. w) !\·:I}(kl ..... /..".II')). Sinn: r., /(1,1 .... /.."./1) = III. we have II(h,c,p) =/11. Hence. (ii) f.sBt(h.i.VIII). Ior () i<p-I. II(h.c,i)=r,=/ (kl.···,kll·i)and/l(b.c.il-I) 1',11 /(/..I.····/..II,i+ I) =h(kl,···.kll,i. f(kl ... • .kll.i)) = h(kl ... · .k".i.I',). Therefore. f-s Bt(hJ, l.p,)!\ Bt (lJ,c,tri-1I)!\((;(kl.···.k".I.rJIII) By Rulc E4, f-s (3y)(3z)(Bt (h,c,l.y) /\B[([;.2.7',2)/\(('(kl, ... 7(",i,y,z)) So. by Proposition 3.8(b'). (iii) f-s (\lw) ( IV < P ==;, (3y)(3z)(Bt(h, c. w,y) ;\ Bt(h. c. w'. z)/\ «(, (kl •••. , k", w.y, z))). Then, applying rule E4 twice to the conjunction of (i), (ii) and (iii), we obtain f-sS?(kl•·· ·kll,p,m). Thus, we have verified clause I or the definition of representability (see page 171). (ii) We must show that I-s (3IxIl12)c.b(kl, .... k",p,X,,1-2). The proof is by induction on p in the metalanguage. Notice that, by what we have proved above. it suffices to prove only uniqueness. The case of p = 0 is left as an easy exercise. Assume f-s (3IxIl12)'2!(kl ,k",p,XI1+2)' Let :y_ = g (kl, ... ,kl1),11 =/(kl .... , k,,,p), andy=/(k" ,k",p+I)""h (kl, ... , k",p, fi). Then
C~

/i,.jj.tI.<,)

I rom

(a). (d), and

(e). (1') '/(k, ..... k".,!.d)

I rom (fl, (5) and

0).
(g) II =

/J

I rom

(e) and

(g). (h) (t(k

l .....

"".p./!. e)
(I) and (h).

Since II represents

h. we ohtain

from

(i) Y = e
I rom (e) and

(i),

Ul
I IOIIl (h).

Bt(h.cp+

1.'1)

(j). and Lemma

3.22, (k) X"1-2 = y

11m completes

the induction. assume, that, for any XI •... ,x". there is some and let us assume g is representable in S by a ,x,,) = Ily(g(X" ... ,xlI.Y) = 0). Then we shall S by the wf.~(x" ... ,xlI+'):

The II-opera tor (V!). Let us , -uch that 9(X" ... ,x,,,y) = 0, II I /. (XI,·· .. x"o). Let f(xl,'" ·.lltllV that fis representable in
lI(xl.··
\"lIllll' ....

(I) (2) (3)

(4) (5)

t-s (C(kl,
!-s

... •...• ...•

kn,p,
k.: a)

/1. '1)
",Aj

.• XHI.O)

/\ (I;fy)(y

< Xn,1

=}

,6(xl

•... ,x,,,y, 0)

.71(kl

r-s(j;(kl,

t-s (y(kl .....

/(n,p,m k",Pf .. I.~)

... ,k".,I.\".~)

I-s C'llxlI.2),;,(kl

Assume

ftk ,.... ,k,,)=m. Th~n g(k,-" ... ,k",m)=O and, for k<111, ,k",k)fO. So. f-sO(kl, ...• k",m.O) and, for k<m,f-s'o' A; ,k",k,O). By P~oposit~n 3.8(b'), f-s(\ly)(y<m==;"o'(kl, .... A" I. ())). l lcncc, I"s J(kl ..... k",ifi). We must also show: f-s ('3IX,,-1 I) 1'11. ,k",.\',,, I)' It suffices to prove the uniqueness. Assume .'ihl"k".II,()/\(VI')(r'lI > ,f,(kl .... ,k",I',())). By Propositjo n
1 ....