Abstract nonsense - Revision history

147.122.40.58: /* History */

2015-01-07T18:27:01Z

History

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:27, 7 January 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~:''Those unfamiliar with [[mathematical logic]] or the concept of [[Ordinal number\|ordinals]] are advised to consult those articles first.''~~
	An '''infinitary logic''' is a logic that allows infinitely long [[statement (logic)\|statements]] and/or infinitely long [[Mathematical proof\|proofs]]. Some infinitary logics may have different properties from those of standard [[first-order logic]]. In particular, infinitary logics may fail to be compact or complete. Notions of compactness and completeness that are equivalent in finitary logic sometimes are not so in infinitary logic. So for infinitary logics the notions of strong compactness and strong completeness are defined. This article addresses Hilbert-type infinitary logics, as these have been extensively studied and constitute the most straightforward extensions of finitary logic. These are not, however, the only infinitary logics that have been formulated or studied.

	~~Considering whether a certain infinitary logic named [[Ω-logic]] is complete promises to throw light on the [[continuum hypothesis]].~~

	~~==A word on notation and the axiom of choice==~~		Pleased to meet you! My current name is Eusebio Ledbetter. To drive is the best thing that I'm wonderfully addicted to. South Carolina is where all of my home is and don't plan on enhancing it. I used if you want to be unemployed but actually I am a cashier but the promotion absolutely not comes. I'm not good at [http://Answers.Yahoo.com/search/search_result?p=webdesign&submit-go=Search+Y!+Answers webdesign] but you might choose to to check my website: http://circuspartypanama.com<br><br>[http://dict.leo.org/?search=Feel+free Feel free] to surf to my weblog: [http://circuspartypanama.com clash of clans hack tool no survey download]
	~~As a language with infinitely long formulae~~ is ~~being presented, it is not possible to write expressions down as they should be written~~. To ~~get around this problem a number of notational conveniences, which, strictly speaking, are not part of~~ the ~~formal language, are used. <math>\cdots</math> is used to point out an expression~~ that is infinitely long. Where it is unclear, the length of the sequence is noted afterwards. Where this notation becomes ambiguous or confusing, suffixes such as <math>\lor_{\gamma < \delta}{A_{\gamma}}</math> are used to indicate an infinite disjunction over a set of formulae of cardinality <math>\delta</math>. The same notation may be applied to ~~quantifiers for example <math>\forall_{\gamma < \delta}{V_{\gamma}:}</math>~~. ~~This~~ is ~~meant to represent an infinite sequence of quantifiers for each <math>V_{\gamma}</math>~~ where ~~<math>\gamma < \delta</math>.~~

	~~All usage~~ of ~~suffixes~~ and ~~<math>\cdots</math> are not part of formal infinitary languages.~~ ~~The axiom of choice is assumed (as is often done when discussing infinitary logic) as this is necessary to have sensible distributivity laws.~~

	~~==Definition of Hilbert-type infinitary logics==~~

	~~A first-order infinitary logic~~ ''L''<sub>α,β</sub>, α [[regular cardinal\|regular]], β = 0 or ω ≤ β ≤ α, has the same set of symbols as a finitary logic and may use all the rules for formation of formulae of a finitary logic together with some additional ones:
	*Given a set of variables <math>V=\{V_\gamma \| \gamma< \delta < \beta \}</math> and a formula <math>A_0</math> then <math>\forall V_0 :\forall V_1 \cdots (A_0)</math> and <math>\exists V_0 :\exists V_1 \cdots (A_0)</math> are formulae (In each case the sequence of quantifiers has length <math>\delta</math>).
	*Given a ~~set of formulae <math>A=\{A_\gamma \| \gamma < \delta <\alpha \}</math> then <math>(A_0 \lor A_1 \lor \cdots)</math> and <math>(A_0 \and A_1 \and \cdots)</math> are formulae (In each case~~ the ~~sequence has length <math>\delta</math>).~~

	~~The concepts of bound variables apply in the same manner to infinite sentences. Note that the number of brackets in these formulae is always finite~~. ~~Just as in finitary logic, a formula all of whose variables are bound is referred to as a '~~'[~~[sentence (mathematical logic)\|sentence]]''.~~

	A theory T in infinitary logic <math>L_{\alpha , \beta}</math> is a set of statements in the logic. A proof in infinitary logic from a theory T is a sequence of statements of length <math>\gamma</math> which obeys the following conditions: Each statement is either a logical axiom, an element of T, or is deduced from previous statements using a rule of inference. As before, all rules of inference in finitary logic can be used, together with an additional one:

	*Given a set of statements <math>A=\{A_\gamma \| \gamma < \delta <\alpha \}</~~math> which have occurred previously in the proof then the statement <math>\and_{\gamma < \delta}{A_{\gamma}}<~~/~~math> can be inferred~~.

	~~The logical axiom schemata specific to infinitary logic are presented below~~. ~~Global schemata variables: <math>\delta<~~/~~math> and <math>\gamma<~~/~~math> such that <math>0 < \delta < \alpha </math>.~~
	*<math>((\and_{\epsilon < \delta}{(A_{\delta} \implies A_{\epsilon})}) \implies (A_{\delta} \implies \and_{\epsilon < \delta}{A_{\epsilon}}))</math>
	*For each <math>\gamma < \delta</math>, <math>((\and_{\epsilon < \delta}{A_{\epsilon}}) \implies A_{\gamma})</math>
	*Chang's distributivity laws (for each <math>\gamma</math>): <math>(\lor_{\mu < \gamma}{(\and_{\delta < \gamma}{A_{\mu , \delta}})})</math> where <math>\forall \mu : \forall \delta : \exists \epsilon < \gamma:A_{\mu , \delta} = ~~A_{\epsilon}</math> and <math>\forall g \in \gamma^{\gamma} : \exists \epsilon < \gamma~~: ~~\{A_{\epsilon} , \neg A_{\epsilon}\} \subseteq \{A_{\mu , g(\mu)}~~ : ~~\mu < \gamma\}<~~/~~math>~~
	*For <math>\gamma < \alpha</math>, <math>((\and_{\mu < \gamma}{(\lor_{\delta < \gamma}{A_{\mu , \delta}})}) \implies (\lor_{\epsilon < \gamma^{\gamma}}{(\and_{\mu < \gamma}{A_{\mu ,\gamma_{\epsilon}})}}))</math> where <math>\gamma_{\epsilon}</math> is a well ordering of <math>\gamma^{\gamma}</math>
	The last two axiom schemata require the axiom of choice because certain sets must be [[well order]]able. The last axiom schema is strictly speaking unnecessary as Chang's distributivity laws imply it, however it is included as a natural way to allow natural weakenings to the logic.

	~~==Completeness, compactness, and strong completeness==~~
	A theory is any set of statements. The truth of statements in models are defined by recursion and will agree with the definition for finitary logic where both are defined. Given a theory T a statement is said to be valid for the theory T if it is true in all models of T.

	A logic <math>L_{\alpha , \beta}</math> is complete if for every sentence S valid in every model there exists a proof of S. It is strongly complete if for any theory T for every sentence S valid in T there is a proof of S from T. ~~An infinitary logic can be complete without being strongly complete.~~

	~~A cardinal~~ <~~math~~>~~\kappa \neq \omega~~<~~/math~~> is [~~[weakly compact cardinal\|weakly compact]] when for every theory T in <math>L_{\kappa , \kappa}<~~/~~math> containing at most <math>\kappa<~~/~~math> many formulas, if every S <math>\subseteq</math> T of cardinality less than <math>\kappa</math> has a model, then T has a model~~. A cardinal <math>\kappa \neq \omega</math> is [[strongly compact cardinal\|strongly compact]] when for every theory T in <math>L_{\kappa , \kappa}</math>, without restriction on size, if every S <math>\subseteq</math> T of cardinality less than <math>\kappa</~~math> has a model, then T has a model.~~

	=~~=Concepts expressible in infinitary logic==~~
	~~In the language of set theory the following statement expresses [[Axiom of regularity\|foundation]]:~~

	~~:<math>\forall_{\gamma < \omega}{V_{\gamma}:} \neg \and_{\gamma < \omega}{V_{\gamma~~ +~~} \in V_{\gamma}}.\,</math>~~

	Unlike the axiom of foundation, this statement admits no non-standard interpretations. The concept of well foundedness can only be expressed in a logic which allows infinitely many quantifiers in an individual statement. As a consequence many theories, including [[Peano arithmetic]], which cannot be properly axiomatised in finitary logic, can be in a suitable infinitary logic. Other examples include the theories of [[non-archimedean field]]s and [[torsion-free ~~group~~]~~]s. These three theories can be defined without the use of infinite quantification; only infinite junctions are needed.~~

	~~==Complete infinitary logics==~~
	Two infinitary logics stand out in their completeness. These are <math>L_{\omega , \omega}</math> and <math>L_{\omega_1 , \omega}</math>. The former is standard finitary first-order logic and the latter is an infinitary logic that only allows statements of countable size.

	~~<math>L_{\omega , \omega}</math> is also strongly complete, compact and strongly compact.~~

	~~<math>L_{\omega_1, \omega}</math> fails~~ to ~~be compact, but it is complete (under the axioms given above). Moreover, it satisfies a variant of the~~ [~~[Craig interpolation]] property.~~

	~~<math>L_{\alpha, \alpha}<~~/~~math> is complete (under the axioms given above) whenever <math>\alpha<~~/~~math> is [[inaccessible cardinal\|inaccessible]]~~. ~~It will only be strongly complete if <math>\alpha</math> is strongly compact (because proofs in these logics cannot use <math>\alpha</math> or more~~ of ~~the given axioms).~~

	~~==References==~~
	*{{citation\|authorlink=Carol Karp\|first=Carol R. \|last=Karp\|title=Languages with expressions of infinite length\|mr=0176910 \|publisher= North-Holland Publishing Co.\|publication-place= Amsterdam \|year=1964}}
	*{{citation\|authorlink=Jon Barwise\|first=Kenneth Jon \|last=Barwise \|mr=0406760 \|title=Infinitary logic and admissible sets \|journal=J. Symbolic Logic\|volume= 34 \|year=1969\|issue= 2\|pages=226–252\|doi=10.2307/2271099\|jstor=2271099}}

	~~[[Category:Systems of formal logic]]~~
	~~[[Category:Non-classical logic]~~]

157.22.20.147: /* Examples */

2013-06-04T00:21:09Z

Examples

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:21, 4 June 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
			:''Those unfamiliar with [[mathematical logic]] or the concept of [[Ordinal number\|ordinals]] are advised to consult those articles first.''
			An '''infinitary logic''' is a logic that allows infinitely long [[statement (logic)\|statements]] and/or infinitely long [[Mathematical proof\|proofs]]. Some infinitary logics may have different properties from those of standard [[first-order logic]]. In particular, infinitary logics may fail to be compact or complete. Notions of compactness and completeness that are equivalent in finitary logic sometimes are not so in infinitary logic. So for infinitary logics the notions of strong compactness and strong completeness are defined. This article addresses Hilbert-type infinitary logics, as these have been extensively studied and constitute the most straightforward extensions of finitary logic. These are not, however, the only infinitary logics that have been formulated or studied.

			Considering whether a certain infinitary logic named [[Ω-logic]] is complete promises to throw light on the [[continuum hypothesis]].

	~~Catrina Le~~ is ~~what's~~ written ~~on her birth [http~~://~~www~~.~~dailymail~~.co.uk/~~home~~/~~search~~.~~html?sel~~=~~site&searchPhrase=diploma diploma~~] ~~though she [http~~://~~www~~.~~Twitpic~~.~~com~~/~~tag~~/~~doesn%27t+extremely doesn~~'~~t extremely~~] ~~like being called like that~~. ~~Software achieving~~ is ~~where her best income comes from truthfully soon her husband~~ and ~~consequently her~~ will ~~start their personal own business~~. ~~What your loves doing~~ is to ~~get to karaoke but jane~~ is ~~thinking on starting something more challenging~~. ~~For years she's been living on the inside Vermont~~. ~~She~~ is ~~running and verifying tire pressures regularly~~ a ~~blog here~~: ~~http~~://~~prometeu~~.~~net~~/<br><br>~~Here~~ is ~~my weblog :: clash~~ of ~~clans hack android~~ ([~~http:~~//~~prometeu~~.~~net~~/ ~~Learn Even more Here~~])		==A word on notation and the axiom of choice==
			As a language with infinitely long formulae is being presented, it is not possible to write expressions down as they should be written. To get around this problem a number of notational conveniences, which, strictly speaking, are not part of the formal language, are used. <math>\cdots</math> is used to point out an expression that is infinitely long. Where it is unclear, the length of the sequence is noted afterwards. Where this notation becomes ambiguous or confusing, suffixes such as <math>\lor_{\gamma < \delta}{A_{\gamma}}</math> are used to indicate an infinite disjunction over a set of formulae of cardinality <math>\delta</math>. The same notation may be applied to quantifiers for example <math>\forall_{\gamma < \delta}{V_{\gamma}:}</math>. This is meant to represent an infinite sequence of quantifiers for each <math>V_{\gamma}</math> where <math>\gamma < \delta</math>.

			All usage of suffixes and <math>\cdots</math> are not part of formal infinitary languages. The axiom of choice is assumed (as is often done when discussing infinitary logic) as this is necessary to have sensible distributivity laws.

			==Definition of Hilbert-type infinitary logics==

			A first-order infinitary logic ''L''<sub>α,β</sub>, α [[regular cardinal\|regular]], β = 0 or ω ≤ β ≤ α, has the same set of symbols as a finitary logic and may use all the rules for formation of formulae of a finitary logic together with some additional ones:
			*Given a set of variables <math>V=\{V_\gamma \| \gamma< \delta < \beta \}</math> and a formula <math>A_0</math> then <math>\forall V_0 :\forall V_1 \cdots (A_0)</math> and <math>\exists V_0 :\exists V_1 \cdots (A_0)</math> are formulae (In each case the sequence of quantifiers has length <math>\delta</math>).
			*Given a set of formulae <math>A=\{A_\gamma \| \gamma < \delta <\alpha \}</math> then <math>(A_0 \lor A_1 \lor \cdots)</math> and <math>(A_0 \and A_1 \and \cdots)</math> are formulae (In each case the sequence has length <math>\delta</math>).

			The concepts of bound variables apply in the same manner to infinite sentences. Note that the number of brackets in these formulae is always finite. Just as in finitary logic, a formula all of whose variables are bound is referred to as a ''[[sentence (mathematical logic)\|sentence]]''.

			A theory T in infinitary logic <math>L_{\alpha , \beta}</math> is a set of statements in the logic. A proof in infinitary logic from a theory T is a sequence of statements of length <math>\gamma</math> which obeys the following conditions: Each statement is either a logical axiom, an element of T, or is deduced from previous statements using a rule of inference. As before, all rules of inference in finitary logic can be used, together with an additional one:

			*Given a set of statements <math>A=\{A_\gamma \| \gamma < \delta <\alpha \}</math> which have occurred previously in the proof then the statement <math>\and_{\gamma < \delta}{A_{\gamma}}</math> can be inferred.

			The logical axiom schemata specific to infinitary logic are presented below. Global schemata variables: <math>\delta</math> and <math>\gamma</math> such that <math>0 < \delta < \alpha </math>.
			*<math>((\and_{\epsilon < \delta}{(A_{\delta} \implies A_{\epsilon})}) \implies (A_{\delta} \implies \and_{\epsilon < \delta}{A_{\epsilon}}))</math>
			*For each <math>\gamma < \delta</math>, <math>((\and_{\epsilon < \delta}{A_{\epsilon}}) \implies A_{\gamma})</math>
			*Chang's distributivity laws (for each <math>\gamma</math>): <math>(\lor_{\mu < \gamma}{(\and_{\delta < \gamma}{A_{\mu , \delta}})})</math> where <math>\forall \mu : \forall \delta : \exists \epsilon < \gamma:A_{\mu , \delta} = A_{\epsilon}</math> and <math>\forall g \in \gamma^{\gamma} : \exists \epsilon < \gamma: \{A_{\epsilon} , \neg A_{\epsilon}\} \subseteq \{A_{\mu , g(\mu)} : \mu < \gamma\}</math>
			*For <math>\gamma < \alpha</math>, <math>((\and_{\mu < \gamma}{(\lor_{\delta < \gamma}{A_{\mu , \delta}})}) \implies (\lor_{\epsilon < \gamma^{\gamma}}{(\and_{\mu < \gamma}{A_{\mu ,\gamma_{\epsilon}})}}))</math> where <math>\gamma_{\epsilon}</math> is a well ordering of <math>\gamma^{\gamma}</math>
			The last two axiom schemata require the axiom of choice because certain sets must be [[well order]]able. The last axiom schema is strictly speaking unnecessary as Chang's distributivity laws imply it, however it is included as a natural way to allow natural weakenings to the logic.

			==Completeness, compactness, and strong completeness==
			A theory is any set of statements. The truth of statements in models are defined by recursion and will agree with the definition for finitary logic where both are defined. Given a theory T a statement is said to be valid for the theory T if it is true in all models of T.

			A logic <math>L_{\alpha , \beta}</math> is complete if for every sentence S valid in every model there exists a proof of S. It is strongly complete if for any theory T for every sentence S valid in T there is a proof of S from T. An infinitary logic can be complete without being strongly complete.

			A cardinal <math>\kappa \neq \omega</math> is [[weakly compact cardinal\|weakly compact]] when for every theory T in <math>L_{\kappa , \kappa}</math> containing at most <math>\kappa</math> many formulas, if every S <math>\subseteq</math> T of cardinality less than <math>\kappa</math> has a model, then T has a model. A cardinal <math>\kappa \neq \omega</math> is [[strongly compact cardinal\|strongly compact]] when for every theory T in <math>L_{\kappa , \kappa}</math>, without restriction on size, if every S <math>\subseteq</math> T of cardinality less than <math>\kappa</math> has a model, then T has a model.

			==Concepts expressible in infinitary logic==
			In the language of set theory the following statement expresses [[Axiom of regularity\|foundation]]:

			:<math>\forall_{\gamma < \omega}{V_{\gamma}:} \neg \and_{\gamma < \omega}{V_{\gamma +} \in V_{\gamma}}.\,</math>

			Unlike the axiom of foundation, this statement admits no non-standard interpretations. The concept of well foundedness can only be expressed in a logic which allows infinitely many quantifiers in an individual statement. As a consequence many theories, including [[Peano arithmetic]], which cannot be properly axiomatised in finitary logic, can be in a suitable infinitary logic. Other examples include the theories of [[non-archimedean field]]s and [[torsion-free group]]s. These three theories can be defined without the use of infinite quantification; only infinite junctions are needed.

			==Complete infinitary logics==
			Two infinitary logics stand out in their completeness. These are <math>L_{\omega , \omega}</math> and <math>L_{\omega_1 , \omega}</math>. The former is standard finitary first-order logic and the latter is an infinitary logic that only allows statements of countable size.

			<math>L_{\omega , \omega}</math> is also strongly complete, compact and strongly compact.

			<math>L_{\omega_1, \omega}</math> fails to be compact, but it is complete (under the axioms given above). Moreover, it satisfies a variant of the [[Craig interpolation]] property.

			<math>L_{\alpha, \alpha}</math> is complete (under the axioms given above) whenever <math>\alpha</math> is [[inaccessible cardinal\|inaccessible]]. It will only be strongly complete if <math>\alpha</math> is strongly compact (because proofs in these logics cannot use <math>\alpha</math> or more of the given axioms).

			==References==
			*{{citation\|authorlink=Carol Karp\|first=Carol R. \|last=Karp\|title=Languages with expressions of infinite length\|mr=0176910 \|publisher= North-Holland Publishing Co.\|publication-place= Amsterdam \|year=1964}}
			*{{citation\|authorlink=Jon Barwise\|first=Kenneth Jon \|last=Barwise \|mr=0406760 \|title=Infinitary logic and admissible sets \|journal=J. Symbolic Logic\|volume= 34 \|year=1969\|issue= 2\|pages=226–252\|doi=10.2307/2271099\|jstor=2271099}}

			[[Category:Systems of formal logic]]
			[[Category:Non-classical logic]]

en>Chricho: correct author in mathworld reference

2011-11-05T09:31:16Z

correct author in mathworld reference

New page

Catrina Le is what's written on her birth [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?sel=site&searchPhrase=diploma diploma] though she [http://www.Twitpic.com/tag/doesn%27t+extremely doesn't extremely] like being called like that. Software achieving is where her best income comes from truthfully soon her husband and consequently her will start their personal own business. What your loves doing is to get to karaoke but jane is thinking on starting something more challenging. For years she's been living on the inside Vermont. She is running and verifying tire pressures regularly a blog here: http://prometeu.net/<br><br>Here is my weblog :: clash of clans hack android ([http://prometeu.net/ Learn Even more Here])