2

According to this article an abstract logic

is a formal system consisting of a class of sentences and a satisfaction relation with specific properties related to occurrence, expansion, isomorphism, renaming and quantification.

They include propositional, first-order & infinitary logic. The

Now, what does occurance, expansion and renaming mean? (I expect isomorphism & quantification are the usual ones).

I'm interested in them, because first-order logic is charactereised as the unqiue abstract logic which is compact and has the smallest possible lowenheim-skolem number.

  • 1
    Link is missing. – Dennis Jun 2 '13 at 18:10
4

The article you mentioned doesn't aim to give a complete definition of abstract logics, but since we're going to talk about occurrence, expansion and renaming, it might be useful if we look at all the properties a system has to meet in order to be called an abstract logic. Here's a definition.

Abstract logics are pairs (σ, Sat_σ) where σ is a set of sentences and Sat_σ is a satisfaction relation meeting the following conditions: (1) occurrence, (2) expansion, (3) isomorphism, (4) renaming, (5) closure, (6) quantifier, and (7) relativization. (Chang & Keisler, p. 128)

Here's how they define each of those properties. I apologize for the ugly notation; with no TeX option, I've tried to do all I can with alternative formulations of relations and HTML characters. Let each sentence s ε σ ('ε' stands for the set membership relation) have an associated finite language L(s) called the set of symbols occurring in s. According to C&K, system (σ, Sat_σ) is an abstract logic iff it meets the following conditions:

1. Occurrence: if s ε σ and M models L, then (M, s) ε Sat_σ is defined iff L includes L(s).

2. Expansion: if (M, s) ε Sat_σ and M' expands M to a larger language, then (M', s) ε Sat_σ.

3. Isomorphism: if (M, s) ε Sat_σ then (N, s) ε Sat_σ for any N isomorphic to M.

Let ρ be a bijection from a language L to a language ρ(L) that preserves the number of places of all symbols, and for each model M for L let ρ(M) be the model for ρ(L).

4. Renaming: for each s ε σ with L(s) included in L, there is a sentence ρ(s) ε σ with L(ρ(s)) = ρ(L(s)) s.t. for each model M for L, (M, s) ε Sat_σ iff [ρ(M), ρ(s)] ε Sat_σ.

5. Closure: (i) σ contains all atomic sentences closed under the first-order connectives, (ii) Sat_σ satisfies the usual rules for satisfaction of atomic sentences and first-order connectives, and (iii) L(s) is well behaved.

6. Quantifier: same as (5), but with "quantifiers" substituted for "first-order connectives".

The last, relativization condition is a bit more involved and hard to express without TeX, but here's a try.

7. Relativization: for each sentence s ε σ and relation R(x, ã) with R, ã ε L(s), there is a new sentence s|R(x, ã) read as "s relativized to R(x,ã)" with language L(s) ∪ {R} ∪ a (for each a ε ã) s.t. whenever N is a submodel of a model M for L(s) with the universe {b ε M: R(b, ã)}, we have: [ (M, R, ã), s|R(x, ã) ] ε Sat_σ if and only if (N, s) ε Sat_σ.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.