Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-k8lnt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-02T20:41:14.560Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On LP-models of arithmetic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

J. B. Paris  and
A. Sirokofskich
J. B. Paris
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom, E-mail: jeff.paris@manchester.ac.uk
A. Sirokofskich
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, University of Athens, GR-157 84 Zografou, Greece, E-mail: asirokofski@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We answer some problems set by Priest in [11] and [12], in particular refuting Priest's Conjecture that all LP-models of Th(ℕ) essentially arise via congruence relations on classical models of Th(ℕ). We also show that the analogue of Priest's Conjecture for IΔ0 + Exp implies the existence of truth definitions for intervals [0, a] ⊂eM ⊨ IΔ0 + Exp in any cut [0, a] ⊂eK ⊆eM closed under successor and multiplication.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 73 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 212 - 226
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2008

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

References

REFERENCES

[1]Benham, R. D., private communication, 2006.Google Scholar
[2]Chang, C. C. and Keisler, H. J., Model theory, third ed., Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 73, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1990.Google Scholar
[3]Gaifman, H., A note on models and submodels of arithmetic, Conference in mathematical logic - London '70 (Hodges, W., editor), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 255, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1972, pp. 128–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Meyer, R. K. and Mortensen, C., Inconsistent models for relevant arithmetics, this Journal, vol. 49 (1984), pp. 917–929.Google Scholar
[5]Mortensen, C., Inconsistent nonstandard arithmetic, this Journal, vol. 52 (1987), pp. 512–518.Google Scholar
[6]Mortensen, C., Inconsistent number systems, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 29 ( 1987), pp. 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Paris, J. B. and Dimitracopoulos, C., Truth definitions for Δ0 formulae, Logic and algorithmic (Zurich, 1980), Monographie Enseignement Mathématique, vol. 30, Univ. Geneve, Geneva, 1982, pp. 317–329.Google Scholar
[8]Paris, J. B. and Pathmanathan, N., A note on Priest's finite inconsistent arithmetics, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 35 (2006), pp. 529–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Paris, J. B. and Pathmanathan, N., Erratum to ‘A note on Priest's finite inconsistent arithmetics’, (vol. 35 (2006), pp. 529–537), to appear in Journal of Philosophical Logic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Priest, G., In contradiction, Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Priest, G., Inconsistent models of arithmetic, Part I: Finite models, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 26 (1997), pp. 223–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Priest, G., Inconsistent models of arithmetic, Part II: The general case, this Journal, vol. 65 (2000), pp. 1519–1529.Google Scholar