Basic Logic, Lecture 12

Luca Incurvati

[email protected]

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 1 / 33

 Outline

1 Axiomatisability of a theory

2 Craig’s Theorem

3 More properties of theories

4 Relations between properties of theories

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 2 / 33

 Axiomatisability of a theory

Axioms again

Recall that a set of axioms for a theory T is a set of sentences Ax

such that T = {ϕ : Ax |= ϕ}.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 3 / 33

 Axiomatisability of a theory

Axioms again

Recall that a set of axioms for a theory T is a set of sentences Ax

such that T = {ϕ : Ax |= ϕ}.
But for any T, T is a set of axioms for T, since T = {ϕ : T |= ϕ}.
So unless we put constraints on sets of axioms, it is trivial to come up
with a set of axioms for any given theory.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 3 / 33

 Axiomatisability of a theory

Proofs

Suppose one has a deductive system for the underlying logic of a

theory.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 4 / 33

 Axiomatisability of a theory

Proofs

Suppose one has a deductive system for the underlying logic of a

theory.
Then, if the deductive system is strongly sound, it can be used to
derive theorems of the theory from the set of (proper) axioms as a
fixed set of premises.
For the strong soundness of the deductive system ensures that if
Ax ` ϕ, then Ax |= ϕ.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 4 / 33

 Axiomatisability of a theory

Proofs

Deductions which only employ the axioms of the theory as premises

are often called proofs:
Definition (Proof (Theories))
A proof of a sentence ϕ is a finite sequence of sentences ending in ϕ in
which every member is either:
(i) a logical axiom (if there are any);
(ii) a proper axiom;
(iii) follows from (some of) the preceding sentences by a rule of inference.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 5 / 33

 Axiomatisability of a theory

Proofs

Deductions which only employ the axioms of the theory as premises

are often called proofs:
Definition (Proof (Theories))
A proof of a sentence ϕ is a finite sequence of sentences ending in ϕ in
which every member is either:
(i) a logical axiom (if there are any);
(ii) a proper axiom;
(iii) follows from (some of) the preceding sentences by a rule of inference.

A proof in this sense is not to be confused with a proof as a

deduction from the empty set of premises.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 5 / 33

 Axiomatisability of a theory

Axioms and the effectiveness of deduction

Recall that we require the property of being a deduction of ϕ from Γ

to be decidable.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 6 / 33

 Axiomatisability of a theory

Axioms and the effectiveness of deduction

Recall that we require the property of being a deduction of ϕ from Γ

to be decidable.
This imposes a constraint on the set Ax, namely that it be decidable.
If a set of axioms Ax is decidable, then there is a decision procedure
for deciding whether a given finite sequence of sentences which is
claimed to be a proof of a sentence from Ax is indeed a proof or not.
Finite sets of axioms are decidable, but infinite sets can be decidable
too.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 6 / 33

 Axiomatisability of a theory

Axiomatic presentation of a theory

Definition (Axiomatic presentation of a theory)

A presentation of a theory is axiomatic iff the theory is presented as the
set of consequences of a decidable set of axioms.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 7 / 33

 Axiomatisability of a theory

Axiomatic presentation of a theory

Definition (Axiomatic presentation of a theory)

A presentation of a theory is axiomatic iff the theory is presented as the
set of consequences of a decidable set of axioms.

According to this definition, it is presentations of theories that are

said to be axiomatic, not theories themselves.
‘Axiomatic’ (as well as ‘axiomatisable theory’ below) are used in many
different ways in different books, so beware of terminology.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 7 / 33

 Axiomatisability of a theory

Axiomatisability of a theory

We want to define the notion of a theory being axiomatisable.

N.B. This is different from the notion of a logic being (strongly or
weakly) axiomatisable.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 8 / 33

 Axiomatisability of a theory

Axiomatisability of a theory

We want to define the notion of a theory being axiomatisable.

N.B. This is different from the notion of a logic being (strongly or
weakly) axiomatisable.
Idea: we want an axiomatisable theory T to be one such that there is
a proof (in some deductive system) of a sentence in the language of T
iff the sentence is a theorem of T.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 8 / 33

 Axiomatisability of a theory

A first attempt at a definition

Suppose we say that a theory T is axiomatisable iff there is an

axiomatic presentation of T.
This definition is too weak because it does not ensure that there is a
deductive system such that Ax ` ϕ iff Ax |= ϕ (where Ax is a
decidable set of axioms).
Hence, there may be theorems for which there are no proofs.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 9 / 33

 Axiomatisability of a theory

A first attempt at a definition

Suppose we say that a theory T is axiomatisable iff there is an

axiomatic presentation of T.
This definition is too weak because it does not ensure that there is a
deductive system such that Ax ` ϕ iff Ax |= ϕ (where Ax is a
decidable set of axioms).
Hence, there may be theorems for which there are no proofs.
Example: PA2 has an axiomatic presentation, but, for any sound
deductive system for second-order logic, there are theorems of PA2 for
which there are no proofs.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 9 / 33

 Axiomatisability of a theory

A second attempt at a definition

Suppose we say that a theory T is axiomatisable iff there is an

axiomatic presentation of T and the underlying logic is strongly
axiomatisable.
This definition is too strong: it ensures that there is a deductive
system such that Ax ` ϕ iff Ax |= ϕ by ensuring that Γ ` ϕ iff Γ |= ϕ
for any set of sentences Γ.
But there can be theories whose underlying logic is not strongly
axiomatisable but that are such that there is a proof (in some
deductive system) of a sentence in the language of T iff the sentence
is a theorem of T.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 10 / 33

 Axiomatisability of a theory

Example: second-order naı̈ve set theory

Let Second-order naı̈ve set theory be the theory whose underlying

logic is second-order logic; whose non-logical vocabulary only contains
the two-place relation constant ∈; and whose axioms are:

Axioms of second-order naı̈ve set theory

Extensionality: ∀x∀y ∀z((z ∈ x ↔ z ∈ y ) → x = y )
Comprehension: ∀X ∃y ∀x(x ∈ y ↔ Xx)

The Russell contradiction can be derived from it, and any sentence
follows from a contradiction.
Thus, the theory is the largest theory with this underlying
second-order logic, since its set of consequences is the set containing
every sentence of the given language of second-order logic.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 11 / 33

 Axiomatisability of a theory

Example: second-order naı̈ve set theory

Definition (Decidability of a theory)

A theory T is decidable iff there is an effective procedure which decides
whether any given sentence of the underlying logic of T is or is not a
member of T.

Since the set of consequences of the theory is decidable, so is the

theory.
Decidability entails effective enumerability, so the theory is effectively
enumerable.
I.e. there is an effective procedure which lists the theorems of the
theory in some order.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 12 / 33

 Axiomatisability of a theory

Example: second-order naı̈ve set theory

We can think of this effective procedure as giving us proofs of the

theorems: we say that a there is a proof of a sentence iff it turns up
in the effective enumeration.
But a sentence turns up in the effective enumeration iff it is a
theorem of the theory.
Thus, by transitivity, there is a proof of a sentence iff the sentence is
a theorem of the theory.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 13 / 33

 Axiomatisability of a theory

Defining the notion of an axiomatisable theory

This suggests defining the notion of an axiomatisable theory as

follows:

Definition (Axiomatisable theory)

A theory is axiomatisable iff it is effectively enumerable.

This definition is compatible with there being axiomatisable theories

whose underlying logic is not strongly axiomatisable.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 14 / 33

 Craig’s Theorem

1 Axiomatisability of a theory

2 Craig’s Theorem

3 More properties of theories

4 Relations between properties of theories

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 15 / 33

 Craig’s Theorem

Craig’s Theorem
Theorem 1 (Craig)
If a theory T is axiomatisable, then T can be presented as the set of
consequences of a decidable set of axioms Γ (i.e. there is an axiomatic
presentation of T). Moreover, the theorems of T are deducible from Γ.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 16 / 33

 Craig’s Theorem

Craig’s Theorem
Theorem 1 (Craig)
If a theory T is axiomatisable, then T can be presented as the set of
consequences of a decidable set of axioms Γ (i.e. there is an axiomatic
presentation of T). Moreover, the theorems of T are deducible from Γ.

Proof.
Suppose T is effectively enumerable, that is there is an enumeration
τ1 , τ2 , τ3 , . . . of its theorems. Then, we can construct the following set of
axioms Γ:
τ1 ∧ τ1
τ2 ∧ τ2 ∧ τ2
τ3 ∧ τ3 ∧ τ3 ∧ τ3
.
.
.
Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 16 / 33
 Craig’s Theorem

Craig’s Theorem

Proof continued.

The set of axioms Γ is a set of axioms for T

Each axiom τn ∧ τn ∧ . . . ∧ τn is a theorem because it is a consequence of
| {z }
n times
τn (because A ∧ A logically follows from A and A ∧ B logically follows from
A and B). And each τn is a consequence of the set of axioms because
each τn is a consequence of τn ∧ τn ∧ . . . ∧ τn .
| {z }
n times

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 17 / 33

 Craig’s Theorem

Craig’s Theorem

Proof continued.

The set of axioms Γ is decidable

Let ϕ be a sentence and consider the problem of deciding whether it
belongs to Γ. If ϕ does not have the form ψ ∧ ψ ∧ . . . ∧ ψ (iterated
conjunction of some sentence with itself), then ϕ is not in Γ. So suppose
ϕ does have the form ψ ∧ ψ ∧ . . . ∧ ψ. Count the number of ∧s and let the
number be κ. Now run the enumeration of the theorems τ1 , τ2 , τ3 until
you get to τκ . If τκ = ψ, then ϕ is an axiom. Otherwise it is not.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 18 / 33

 Craig’s Theorem

Craig’s Theorem

Proof continued.

The sentences deducible from Γ are exactly the theorems

The strong soundness of a deductive system ensures that no sentence
which is not a theorem is deducible from the axioms. A rule which allows
us to infer a sentence ψ from ψ ∧ . . . ∧ ψ will ensure that there is a
deduction of each theorem from the set of axioms.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 19 / 33

 Craig’s Theorem

Craig’s Theorem

Proof continued.

The sentences deducible from Γ are exactly the theorems

The strong soundness of a deductive system ensures that no sentence
which is not a theorem is deducible from the axioms. A rule which allows
us to infer a sentence ψ from ψ ∧ . . . ∧ ψ will ensure that there is a
deduction of each theorem from the set of axioms.

Note that requiring the existence of the rule used in the third part of
the proof is much weaker than requiring the underlying logic to be
strongly axiomatisable.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 19 / 33

 Craig’s Theorem

Axiomatic presentation and axiomatisability

Craig’s Theorem shows that an axiomatisable theory has an axiomatic

presentation.
But the converse does not hold: it is not the case that if a theory has
an axiomatic presentation, then it is axiomatisable.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 20 / 33

 Craig’s Theorem

Axiomatic presentation and axiomatisability

Craig’s Theorem shows that an axiomatisable theory has an axiomatic

presentation.
But the converse does not hold: it is not the case that if a theory has
an axiomatic presentation, then it is axiomatisable.
Moreover, by inspecting the proof of Craig’s Theorem one can come
up with a deductive system which proves all and only the theorems of
a given axiomatisable theory from the decidable set of axioms
generated by the proof of the theorem.
But this does not entail that an axiomatisable theory has an
underlying logic which is strongly axiomatisable (as is shown by
second-order naı̈ve set theory).

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 20 / 33

 Craig’s Theorem

Axiomatic presentation and axiomatisability

Theorem 2
If a theory has an axiomatic presentation and has a strongly axiomatisable
logic, then the theory is axiomatisable.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 21 / 33

 Craig’s Theorem

Axiomatic presentation and axiomatisability

Theorem 2
If a theory has an axiomatic presentation and has a strongly axiomatisable
logic, then the theory is axiomatisable.

Proof.
Let the decidable set of axioms for the theory T be Ax and suppose we are
given a deductive system which strongly axiomatises the underlying logic.
We want to show that T is axiomatisable.
Effectively enumerate the finite sequences of sentences and as they are
listed check whether they are or are not proofs of their last members from
Ax (this is a decidable property, since the property of being a deduction is
decidable and Ax is a decidable set).

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 21 / 33

 Craig’s Theorem

Axiomatic presentation and axiomatisability

Proof continued.
If a given finite sequence of sentences is a proof of its last member from
Ax, place the last member on a new list and return to the next finite
sequence in the effective enumeration. If a given finite sequence is not a
proof of its last member, then simply move to the next finite sequence in
the effective enumeration.
The new list is generated by an effective procedure and consists of the
sentences which can be proved from Ax. Since the deductive system
strongly axiomatises the underlying logic, the set containing the members
of this list is the set of logical consequences of Ax, which is the same as
T. Thus, we have shown that T is effectively enumerable.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 22 / 33

 Craig’s Theorem

Summing up the situation

The situation can be summed up as follows:

Consider the following:

(a) T has an axiomatic presentation and has a strongly axiomatisable
logic;
(b) T is axiomatisable;
(c) T has an axiomatic presentation.
Then, (a) ⇒ (b) ⇒ (c), but the implications do not reverse.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 23 / 33

 More properties of theories

1 Axiomatisability of a theory

2 Craig’s Theorem

3 More properties of theories

4 Relations between properties of theories

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 24 / 33

 More properties of theories

Consistency

Definition (Consistency of a theory)

A theory is consistent iff it has a model.

Definition (Syntactic consistency of a theory)

A theory is syntactically consistent iff there is no sentence ϕ such that ϕ
and ¬ϕ are both deducible from the theory according to some given
deductive system.

If a theory is strongly axiomatised by some deductive system, then it

is consistent iff it is syntactically consistent according to the given
deductive system.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 25 / 33

 More properties of theories

Soundness

Definition (Soundness)
A theory T is sound iff every member of T is true in the intended
interpretation.

Thus, soundness is a notion that can only be applied to theories

which purport to have an intended interpretation.
In particular, whilst it can be applied to arithmetic, it cannot be
applied to theories like group theory, field theory, etc.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 26 / 33

 More properties of theories

Completeness

Definition (Completeness)
A theory T is complete iff for every sentence ϕ of the language of the
underlying logic, either ϕ or ¬ϕ is a member of T.

A sentence ϕ of the language of the underlying logic is decidable

with respect to T iff either ϕ or ¬ϕ is a member of T; otherwise, it is
undecidable.
Thus, if T is complete, then every sentence in the language of the
underlying logic is decidable with respect to T.
And if T is incomplete, then there is some sentence in the language of
the underlying logic which is undecidable with respect to T.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 27 / 33

 Relations between properties of theories

1 Axiomatisability of a theory

2 Craig’s Theorem

3 More properties of theories

4 Relations between properties of theories

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 28 / 33

 Relations between properties of theories

Soundness and consistency

Proposition 3
Every sound theory is consistent

Proof.
A sound theory has a model, namely the intended interpretation.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 29 / 33

 Relations between properties of theories

Consistency and completeness

Proposition 4
If a theory is consistent and complete, then, for every sentence ϕ in the
language of the underlying logic, exactly one of ϕ and ¬ϕ is a member of
the theory.

Proof.
By completeness, for every sentence ϕ of the underlying logic, either ϕ or
¬ϕ is a member of the theory. By consistency, ϕ and ¬ϕ are not both
members of the theory (for there is no interpretation in which both of
them are true).

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 30 / 33

 Relations between properties of theories

Completeness and truths

Proposition 5

If a theory is complete, then, for every model of the theory, the truths in
the model are exactly the members of the theory.

Proof.
Every member of the theory is true in a model for the theory. This is
trivial, since a model of a theory is an interpretation which makes every
member of the theory true.
Every sentence true in a model of the theory is a member of the theory.
Suppose for reductio that there is a sentence ϕ true in a model A for the
theory which is not a member of the theory. Since the theory is complete,
if ϕ is not a member of the theory, then ¬ϕ is. And since A is a model of
the theory, ¬ϕ is true in A. So ϕ is false in A. Contradiction.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 31 / 33

 Relations between properties of theories

Soundness and completeness

Proposition 6

If a theory is sound and complete, the members of the theory are exactly
the sentences which are true in the intended interpretation.

Proof.
By soundness, the intended interpretation is a model of the theory. The
conclusion then follows by applying Proposition 5 to the intended
interpretation.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 32 / 33

 Relations between properties of theories

References

Axiomatisable theory:
G.Boolos, J.Burgess and R.Jeffrey, Computability and Logic, p.
191–192 (although beware that they use the syntactic definition of a
theory).
Craig’s Theorem:
W.Craig, ‘On axiomatizability within a system’, Journal of Symbolic
Logic 18: 30–32.
W.Craig, ‘Replacement of auxiliary expressions’, Philosophical Review
55: 38–55.
H.Putnam, ‘Craig’s theorem’, Journal of Philosophy 62: 251–260.

Luca Incurvati ([email protected]) Basic Logic 12 33 / 33