Jouko A Vaananen

We show that, assuming the consistency of a supercompact cardinal, the first inaccessible cardinal can satisfy a strong form of a Löwenheim–Skolem–Tarski theorem for the equicardinality logic L, a logic introduced in [5] strictly between first order logic and second order logic. On the other hand we show that in the light of present day inner model technology, nothing short of a supercompact cardinal suffices for this result. In particular, we show that the Löwenheim–Skolem–Tarski theorem for the equicardinality logic at κ implies the Singular Cardinals Hypothesis above κ as well as Projective Determinacy.

Let U and B be two countable relational models of the same first order language. If the models are nonisomorphic, there is a unique countable ordinal α with the property that $\mathfrak{U} \equiv^\alpha_{\infty\omega} \mathfrak{B} \text{but not} \mathfrak{U} \equiv^{\alpha + 1}_{\infty\omega} \mathfrak{B},$ i.e. U and B are L ∞ω -equivalent up to quantifier-rank α but not up to α + 1. In this paper we consider models U and B of cardinality ω 1 and construct trees which have a similar relation to U and B as α above. For this purpose we introduce a new ordering T ≪ T' of trees, which may have some independent interest of its own. It turns out that the above ordinal α has two qualities which coincide in countable models but will differ in uncountable models. Respectively, two kinds of trees emerge from α. We call them Scott trees and Karp trees, respectively. The definition and existence of these trees is based on an examination of the Ehrenfeucht game of length ω 1 between U and B. We construct two models of power ω 1 with 2 ω 1 mutually noncomparable Scott trees

Let κ be a singular cardinal. Karp's notion of a chain model of size κ is defined to be an ordinary model of size κ along with a decomposition of it into an increasing union of length cf. With a notion of satisfaction and -isomorphism such models give an infinitary logic largely mimicking first order logic. In this paper we associate to this logic a notion of a dynamic EF-game which gauges when two chain models are chain-isomorphic. To this game is associated a tree which is a tree of size κ with no κ-branches -branches). The measure of how non-isomorphic the models are is reflected by a certain order on these trees, called reduction. We study the collection of trees of size κ with no κ-branches under this notion and prove that when cf = ω this collection is rather regular; in particular it has universality number exactly κ+. Such trees are then used to develop a descriptive set theory of the space cf κ. The main result of the paper gives in the case of κ strong limit singular an exact connection between the descriptive set-theoretic complexity of the chain isomorphism orbit of a model, the reduction order on the trees and winning strategies in the corresponding dynamic EF games. In particular we obtain a neat analog of the notion of Scott watershed from the Scott analysis of countable models.

Oikkonen, J. and J. Väänänen, Game-theoretic inductive definability, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 65 265-306. We use game-theoretic ideas to define a generalization of the notion of inductive definability. This approach allows induction along non-well-founded trees. Our definition depends on an underlying partial ordering of the objects. In this ordering every countable ascending sequence is assumed to have a unique supremum which enables us to go over limits. We establish basic properties of this induction and examine examples where it emerges naturally. In the main results we prove an abstract Kleene Theorem and restricted versions of the Stage-Comparison Theorem and the Reduction Theorem

We show that the categoricity of second-order Peano axioms can be proved from the comprehension axioms. We also show that the categoricity of second-order Zermelo–Fraenkel axioms, given the order type of the ordinals, can be proved from the comprehension axioms. Thus these well-known categoricity results do not need the so-called “full” second-order logic, the Henkin second-order logic is enough. We also address the question of “consistency” of these axiom systems in the second-order sense, that is, the question of existence of models for these systems. In both cases we give a consistency proof, but naturally we have to assume more than the mere comprehension axioms

§1. Introduction. After the pioneering work of Mostowski [29] and Lindström [23] it was Jon Barwise's papers [2] and [3] that brought abstract model theory and generalized quantifiers to the attention of logicians in the early seventies. These papers were greeted with enthusiasm at the prospect that model theory could be developed by introducing a multitude of extensions of first order logic, and by proving abstract results about relationships holding between properties of these logics. Examples of such properties areκ-compactness.Any set of sentences of cardinality ≤ κ, every finite subset of which has a model, has itself a model.Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem down toκ.If a sentence of the logic has a model, it has a model of cardinality at most κ.Interpolation Property.If ϕ and ψ are sentences such that ⊨ ϕ → Ψ, then there is θ such that ⊨ ϕ → θ, ⊨ θ → Ψ and the vocabulary of θ is the intersection of the vocabularies of ϕ and Ψ.Lindstrom's famous theorem characterized first order logic as the maximal ℵ0-compact logic with Downward Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem down to ℵ0. With his new concept of absolute logics Barwise was able to get similar characterizations of infinitary languagesLκω. But hopes were quickly frustrated by difficulties arising left and right, and other areas of model theory came into focus, mainly stability theory. No new characterizations of logics comparable to the early characterization of first order logic given by Lindström and of infinitary logic by Barwise emerged. What was first called soft model theory turned out to be as hard as hard model theory.