Hostname: page-component-65f69f4695-c2wqj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-30T02:35:20.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Infinitary logic and admissible sets1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Jon Barwise
Jon Barwise*
Affiliation:
Yale University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In recent years much effort has gone into the study of languages which strengthen the classical first-order predicate calculus in various ways. This effort has been motivated by the desire to find a language which is

(I) strong enough to express interesting properties not expressible by the classical language, but

(II) still simple enough to yield interesting general results. Languages investigated include second-order logic, weak second-order logic, ω-logic, languages with generalized quantifiers, and infinitary logic.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , 25 July 1969 , pp. 226 - 252
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1969

Access options

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

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

2

This paper was written while the author was an N.S.F. Postdoctoral Fellow.

1

This paper contains the principal results of the first half of the author's Ph.D. thesis [1], submitted to Stanford University in August, 1967. We wish to thank our thesis advisor, Professor Solomon Feferman, for the considerable time, advice, direction and encouragement which we received. We also thank Professors Georg Kreisel and Dana Scott, as well as Kenneth Kunen, for many interesting discussions and helpful suggestions.

References

[1] Barwise, J., Infinitary logic and admissible sets, Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif., 1967.Google Scholar
[2] Barwise, J., Implicit definability and compactness in infinitary languages, The syntax and semantics of infinitary languages, Lecture Kotes in Mathematics, vol. 72, Springer-Verlag, 1968 pp. 1–35.Google Scholar
[3] Feferman, S. and Kreisel, G., Persistent and invariant formulas relative to theories of higher type, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 72 (1966), pp. 480–485.Google Scholar
[4] Gödel, K., The consistency of the axiom of choice and of the generalized continuum hypothesis, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 24 (1938), pp. 556–557.Google Scholar
[5] Hanf, W., Incompactness in languages with infinitely long expressions, Fundamenta mathematicae, vol. 53 (1964), pp. 309–324.Google Scholar
[6] Jensen, R. and Karp, C., Primitive recursive set functions (to appear).Google Scholar
[7] Karp, C., Languages with expressions of infinite length, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1964.Google Scholar
[8] Karp, C., Non-axiomatizability results for infinitary systems, this Journal , vol. 32 (1967), pp. 367–384.Google Scholar
[9] Kreisel, G., Set theoretic problems suggested by the notion of potential totality, Infinitistic methods, Warsaw, 1961, pp. 103–140.Google Scholar
[10] Kreisel, G., Model theoretic invariants: Applications to recursive and hyperarithmetic operations, The theory of models, edited by Addison, L., Henkin, L., and Tarski, A., North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1965, pp. 190–205.Google Scholar
[11] Kreisel, G. and Sacks, G. E., Metarecursive sets, this Journal , vol. 30 (1965), pp. 318–337.Google Scholar
[12] Kripke, S., Transfinite recursion on admissible ordinals. I, II (abstracts), this Journal vol. 29 (1964), pp. 161–162.Google Scholar
[13] Kripke, S., Admissible ordinals and the analytic hierarchy (abstract), this Journal , vol. 29 (1964), p. 162.Google Scholar
[14] Kunen, K., Implicit definability and infinitary languages, this Journal , vol. 33 (1968), pp. 446–451.Google Scholar
[15] E. Lopez-Escobar, G. K., An interpolation theorem for denumerably long formulas, Fundamenta mathematicae, vol. 58 (1965), pp. 254–272.Google Scholar
[16] E. Lopez-Escobar, G. K., Remarks on an infinitary language with constructive formulas, this Journal , vol. 32 (1967), pp. 305–319.Google Scholar
[17] Malitz, J., Problems in the model theory of infinite languages, Doctoral Dissertation, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, Calif., 1965.Google Scholar
[18] Platek, R., Foundations of recursion theory, Doctoral Dissertation and Supplement, Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif., 1966.Google Scholar
[19] Scott, D., Logic with denumerably long formulas and finite strings of quantifiers, The theory of models, edited by Addison, J., Henkin, L., and Tarski, A., North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1965, pp. 329–341.Google Scholar
[20] Solovay, R., A Δ3 1 non-constructible set of integers, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 127 (1967), pp. 50–75.Google Scholar
[21] Takeuti, G. and Kino, A., On predicates with infinitely long expressions, Journal of the Mathematical Society of Japan, vol. 15 (1963), pp. 176–190.Google Scholar