[FOM] Correction/Addendum to "Paleolithic Model Theory by Steve Newberry

steve newberry stevnewb at ix.netcom.com
Tue Mar 11 20:38:40 EST 2003

To: F.O.M. Subject: Correction/Addendum to "Paleolithic Model Theory"
                         by Steve Newberry

The statement, "B @ K <=> both B, ~B have finite models. The models of cwffs in
K are either finite and co-finite, or infinite and infinite, which I call
"co-infinite".] is misstated:

What I had *intended* to write was: "B @ K <=> both B, ~B have finite models.
The *number* of finite models of any given cwff pair B, ~B is either
finite/co-finite or infinite/infinite [which I call co-infinite]."

                 /*  Read  'D/k' as "D subscripted by k "  */

Example of the former: B =df= "There are less-than-or-equal to 137 discrete
elements in the universe".  B has models [and is valid] on domains

                         D/k for 1 =< k =< 137.

The negation, ~B  =df= "There are more than 137 discrete elements in
the universe" has models on domains

                         D/k for k > 137.

B  has finitely many finite models, ~B  has infinitely many finite models and
has an infinite model, by the elementary chain theorem. Finite/Co-finite.

[Here as elsewhere, B  is  *valid* on D/k <=> ~B  has *no models* on D/k .]

Example of the latter case: B =df= "All integers are of odd parity". Then  ~B
=df= "There exist integers of even parity". Both B, ~B  have infinitely many
finite models. Co-infinite.

The differentiation between the finite/co-finite and  the co-infinite 
of K induce a further partition of  K into K' + K"; but I haven't anything
interesting to say about the two blocks beyond the fact that they are
recursively inseparable.  Similarly, N =  N' + N" + . . . under a partition
imposed by the complexity of the quantifier prefixes [arithmetical hierarchy]
but I have nothing interesting to say on that either.

In the scenario which I have outlined above [i.e., in the prior post], we find
that *every* n-valid cwff B  of classical logic possesses an infinite model,
and by definition, ~B has an infinite model, and I believe that one of these
models is generally held to be "non-standard"; *which one* is the non-standard
model? And if it is the model of  ~B  which is the non-standard model, then
where does that leave the entire class of theories which have no finite models?

I really *do need* some clarification on this question.

More information about the FOM mailing list