Atom-canonicity in algebraic logic in connection to omitting types in modal fragments of Lω, ω

Abstract

Fix 2<n<ω. Let Ln denote first order logic restricted to the first n variables. CAn denotes the class of cylindric algebras of dimension n and for m>n, Nrnm(⊂eq CAn) denotes the class of n-neat reducts of CAm's. The existence of certain finite relation algebras and finite CAn's lacking relativized complete representations is shown to imply that the omitting types theorem (OTT) fails for Ln with respect to clique guarded semantics (which is an equivalent formalism of its packed fragments), and for the multi-dimensional modal logic S5n. Several such relation and cylindric algebras are explicitly exhibited using rainbow constructions and Monk-like algebras. Certain CAn constructed to show non-atom canonicity of the variety Snn+3 are used to show that Vaught's theorem (VT) for Lω, ω, looked upon as a special case of OTT for Lω, ω, fails almost everywhere (a notion to be defined below) when restricted to Ln. That VT fails everywhere for Ln, which is stronger than failing almost everywhere as the name suggests, is reduced to the existence, for each n<m<ω, of a finite relation algebra Rm having a so-called m-1 strong blur, but Rm has no m-dimensional relational basis. VT for other modal fragments and expansions of Ln, like its guarded fragments, n-products of uni-modal logics like Kn, and first order definable expansions, is approached. It is shown that any multi-modal canonical logic L, such that Kn⊂eq L⊂eq S5n, L cannot be axiomatized by canonical equations. In particular, L is not Sahlqvist. Elementary generation and di-completeness for Ln and its clique guarded fragments are proved. Positive omitting types theorems are proved for Ln with respect to standard semantics.

0

Turn this paper into a lesson

ArcXiv compiles a structured reading guide from this paper's metadata: plain-English importance, contributions, prerequisite concepts, which sections to read first, flashcards, and a quiz. Grounded in the abstract, never invented.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion.

Loading comments…