A prime model O of some complete theory T is a model which can be elementarily imbedded into any model of T (cf. Vaught [7, Introduction]). We are going to replace the assumption that T is complete and that the maps between the models of T are elementary imbeddings (elementary extensions) by more general conditions. T will always be a first order theory with identity and may have function symbols. The language L(T) of T will be denumerable. The maps between models will be so called F-maps, i.e. maps which preserve a certain set F of formulas of L(T) (cf. I.1, 2). Roughly speaking a generalized prime model of T is a denumerable model O which permits an F-map O→M into any model M of T. Furthermore O has to be “generated” by formulas which belong to a certain subset G of F.

In this article an application of extended fields of real numbers to the proof of theorems in the theory of cooperative games will be presented. The proofs set forth below involve the use of A. Robinson's theory of nonstandard analysis and are metamathematical in character. Alternative proofs utilizing ordinary topological methods can in fact be carried out quite briefly. However, attempts to apply nonstandard analysis to game theory are relatively novel. For this reason these results may be of interest not only insofar as they present new information on the theory of the kernel of a cooperative game, but also in that they serve to demonstrate the possibility of effectively exploiting nonstandard analysis as a tool for future investigation in this area. It may well turn out that nonstandard analysis could serve as the most natural vehicle through which concepts defined for games with a finite number of players might be extended to games with a continuum of players.

In this paper we prove some theorems concerning measures on complete Boolean algebras. Among other things, in §I of this paper, we construct a counterexample to the following conjecture of W. Luxemburg: Every measure on a nonatomic hyperstonian Boolean algebra is normal. (See [3, p. 57].) This result is expressed by Theorem 1, §I. In order to construct this example we have to suppose that a real-valued measurable cardinal exists. This hypothesis is independent of the usual axioms of set theory. Luxemburg proved that our assumption is necessary. Our second result is stated in Theorem 2 near the end of the paper.

It was shown by Taiclin [6], and independently announced by Tarski [7], that the elementary theory of commutative cancellation semigroups is hereditarily undecidable. In his proof Tarski exhibited a subsemigroup of 〈N, ·〉, the natural numbers with multiplication, whose theory is both hereditarily and essentially undecidable. (The details of his construction were published by V. H. Dyson [1].) In connection with these results, Tarski suggested to the author that it would be of interest to solve the decision problem for the theory K which consists of all elementary sentences which are true in every subalgebra (i.e. every subsemigroup) of 〈N, +〉. The object of this note is to prove that the theory K is hereditarily undecidable.

This is an attempt to give a survey of recent results concerning trees. The article is an extended version of our talk in Oberwolfach (Schwarzwald) last May; the forests surrounding the Forschungsinstitut turned out to be a good inspiration.

A tree is a partially ordered set T = (T, ≤) such that for every x ∈ T, the set = {y ∈ T: y < x} is well-ordered. The order type of is called the order of x, o(x), and the length of T is sup {o(x) + 1: x ∈ T}; an α-tree (where α is an ordinal) is a tree of length α. The αth level of T is the set Uα of all elements of T whose order is α. T∣α is the union of all Uβ, β < α; its length is α. A tree (T2, ≤2) is called an extension of (T1, ≤1) if ≤1 = ≤2 ∩ (T1 × T1); T2 is on end-extension of (T1 if T1 = T2∣α for some α. A maximal linearly ordered subset of a tree T is called a branch of T; an α-branch is a branch of length α.

Lindenbaum's construction of a matrix for a propositional calculus, in which the wffs themselves are taken as elements and the theorems as the designated elements, immediately establishes two general results: that every prepositional calculus is many-valued, and that every many-valued propositional calculus is also ℵ0-valued. These results are however concerned exclusively with theoremhood, the inferential structure of the calculus being relevant only incidentally, in that it may serve to determine the set of theorems. We therefore ask what happens when deducibility is taken into consideration on a par with theoremhood. The answer is that in general the Lindenbaum construction is no longer adequate and both results fail.

In classical propositional logic it is well known that {7, ⊃ } is a functionally complete set with respect to a two-valued truth function modeling. I.e. all definable logical connectives are definable from 7 and ⊃. Other modelings of classical type propositional logics may have different functionally complete sets; for example, multivalued truth function modelings.

This paper examines the question of a functionally complete set of logical connectives for intuitionistic propositional logic with respect to S. Kripke's modeling for intuitionistic logic.

One of the standard ways of postulating large cardinal axioms is to consider elementary embeddings, j, from the universe, V, into some transitive submodel, M. See Reinhardt–Solovay [7] for more details. If j is not the identity, and κ is the first ordinal moved by j, then κ is a measurable cardinal. Conversely, Scott [8] showed that whenever κ is measurable, there is such j and M. If we had assumed, in addition, that , then κ would be the κth measurable cardinal; in general, the wider we assume M to be, the larger κ must be.

In [5], we studied the relational systems /Ā obtained from the recursive functions of one variable by identifying two such functions if they are equal for all but finitely many х ∈ Ā, where Ā is an r-cohesive set. The relational systems /Ā with addition and multiplication defined pointwise on them, were once thought to be potential candidates for nonstandard models of arithmetic. This, however, turned out not to be the case, as was shown by Feferman, Scott, and Tennenbaum [1]. We showed, letting A and B be r-maximal sets, and letting denote the complement of X, that /Ā and are elementarily equivalent (/Ā ≡ ) if there are r-maximal supersets C and D of A and B respectively such that C and D have the same many-one degree (C =mD). In fact, if A and B are maximal sets, /Ā ≡ if, and only if, A =mB. We wish to study the relationship between the elementary equivalence of /Ā and , and the Turing degrees of A and B.

The material presented here belongs to the model theory of the Lκ, λ languages. Our results are either infinitary analogs of important theorems in finitary model theory, or else show that such analogs do not exist.

For example, it is well known that whenever i, and , have the same true Lω, ω sentences (i.e., are elementarily equivalent) for i = 1, 2, then the cardinal sums 1 + 2 and + have the same true Lω, ω sentences, and the direct products 1 · 2 and · have the same true Lω, ω sentences [3]. We show that this is true when ‘Lω, ω’ is replaced by ‘Lκ, λ’ if and only if κ is strongly inaccessible. For Lω1, ω this settles a question, posed by Lopez-Escobar [7].

In §3 we give a complete description of the expressive power of those sentences of Lκ, λ in which the identity symbol is the only relation symbol which occurs. This extends a result by Hanf [4].

Since the publication in 1967 of the two papers [1] and [2] by Manuel Blum, the techniques and results of “pure” recursion theory, particularly the recursion theorem and priority methods, have come to play an increasingly important role in studies of computational complexity. This paper gives a typical application of the recursion theorem with a fairly intricate diagonalization to answer a question raised by Blum in [3]. Roughly, we prove the existence of functions which have the property that if we are given any program for computing the function and want to pass to a program which computes the function much more efficiently, then we can only do so at the expense of obtaining a much larger program: the function which describes the necessary increase in the size of the more efficient program must grow more rapidly than any recursive function.

In [8] J. A. Robinson introduced a complete refutation procedure called resolution for first order predicate calculus. Resolution is based on ideas in Herbrand's Theorem, and provides a very convenient framework in which to search for a proof of a wff believed to be a theorem. Moreover, it has proved possible to formulate many refinements of resolution which are still complete but are more efficient, at least in many contexts. However, when efficiency is a prime consideration, the restriction to first order logic is unfortunate, since many statements of mathematics (and other disciplines) can be expressed more simply and naturally in higher order logic than in first order logic. Also, the fact that in higher order logic (as in many-sorted first order logic) there is an explicit syntactic distinction between expressions which denote different types of intuitive objects is of great value where matching is involved, since one is automatically prevented from trying to make certain inappropriate matches. (One may contrast this with the situation in which mathematical statements are expressed in the symbolism of axiomatic set theory.).

This paper is concerned with questions of the following kind: let L be a language of the form Lαω and let be a class of modules over a fixed ring or a class of rings; is it possible to define in L? We will be mainly interested in the cases where L is Lωω or L∞ω and is a familiar class in homologic algebra or ring theory.

In Part I we characterize the rings Λ such that the class of free (respectively projective, respectively flat) left Λ-modules is elementary. In [12] we solved the corresponding problems for injective modules; here we show that the class of injective Λ-modules is definable in L∞ω if and only if it is elementary. Moreover we identify the right noetherian rings Λ such that the class of projective (respectively free) left Λ-modules is definable in L∞ω.

Throughout this paper, the letters α, β, κ, λ will denote infinite cardinals. Other Greek letters range over the ordinals.

The following definition is taken from Chang [1].

As was first mentioned in [3, §5], if A is any – set, A is the union of two disjoint – sets B(0), B(1). In metarecursion theory this is proven as follows. Let ƒ be a one-to-one metarecursive function whose range is A, let R be an unbounded metarecursive set whose complement is also unbounded, and set B(0) = f(R), B(1) = f(). The corresponding fact of ordinary recursion theory, namely that any r.e. but not recursive set can be split into two other such sets, was proved by Friedberg [2, Theorem 1], using a clever priority argument. Sacks [7, Corollary 2] then showed that any r.e. but not recursive set is the union of two disjoint r.e. sets neither of which was recursive in the other, a much stronger result. In this paper we attempt to prove the analogous result for – sets A, but succeed only in the case A is simple; i.e., the complement of A contains no infinite subset. As a corollary we show the metadegrees are dense, a fact already announced by Sacks [8, Corollary 1], but only proven by him for nonzero metadegrees.

The aim of this paper is to study tag systems as defined by Post [Post 1943, pp. 203–205 and Post, 1965, pp. 370–373]. The existence of a tag system with unsolvable halting problem was proved by Minsky by constructing a universal tag system [Minsky 1961, see also Cocke and Minsky 1964, Wang 1963, and Minsky 1967, pp. 267–273]. Hence the halting problem of a tag system can be of the complete degree 0′. We shall prove that the halting problem for a tag system can have an arbitrary (recursively enumerable) degree of undecidability (Corollary III).

A related problem arises when we ask if there exists a uniform procedure for determining, given a tag system, whether or not there is any word on which the tag system does not halt, an “immortal” word in the system. The alternative, of course, being that the system eventually halts on every (finite) word. It is shown here that this problem, the immortality problem for tag systems, is recursively unsolvable of degree 0″ (Corollary II).

The notion of “support” was introduced by Mostowski in [4] in order to prove that a certain universe satisfied the ordering principle but not the axiom of choice. The notion was refined in [3] and in [1] it was shown to be satisfied in a certain Cohen model of full ZF set theory. This paper is an axiomatic study of universes whose undefined relations are ∈ and a “support structure”, T.

In §2 the general theory is introduced and the universes of [4] and [1] are characterized. §3 examines a more complicated universe which will be used in [5] to show that in many cases a consistency in full ZF set theory may be proven directly by the methods of [4]. The embedding theorems of §4 are crucial to this application.