0
$\begingroup$

This question is from Introduction to Mathematical Logic by Elliot Mendelson.

in page 69-70 , a first order theory $K$ is defined to have 5 logical axioms and a (possibly empty) set of proper axioms.A first. order theory in which there are no proper axioms is called a first-order predicate calculus.Now , if a theory $K$ has no proper axioms , then it will be a predicate calculus and it has 5 specific axioms.So there seems to be only 1 predicate calculus.

But then at exercise 2.63(c) of the book ,there is this exercise:

Prove that no predicate calculus is a scapegoat theory.

This seems to say that there can be multiple kinds of predicate calculus , but I cant really understand how.Am I missing something?

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Page 70: A FO theory in which there are no proper axioms is called a FO predicate calculus. Thus, we have specific non-logical symbols, like e.g. $\in$ but no proper axioms about them. $\endgroup$ May 10 at 18:06
  • $\begingroup$ But how does that imply that there can be more than 1 type of predicate calculus? $\endgroup$ May 10 at 18:08
3
$\begingroup$

We have to start from the definition of first-order language [page 57]:

A [emphasis mine] first-order langugage $\mathscr L$ is [...]

(f) a non-empty set of predicate letters.

Thus, we have e.g. the first-order language of set theory, with the binary predicate symbol $\in$ [in Mendelson's formalism $A_1^2$] and a constant symbol $\emptyset$, as well as the first-order language of arithmetic, with the function symbol $s$ (the successor), the binary predicate symbol $\lt$ and a constant symbol $0$.

If there are no proper axioms, the corresponding theory will be called a [emphasis mine] first-order predicate calculus.

Thus

are there multiple predicate calculus?

Yes; there will be the predicate calculus for the first-order language of set theory, with non-logical symbols: $\in, \emptyset$, but without proper axioms involving them, as well as the predicate calculus for the first-order language of arithmetic, with non-logical symbols: $s, \lt, 0$, but without proper axioms involving them.

The non-logical symbols will occur in instances of logical axioms, like e.g.: $\forall x (x \in \emptyset) \to (\emptyset \in \emptyset)$.

In this predicate calculus we will prove all valid formulas using the proper symbols of the language, like the formula above as well as $\emptyset = \emptyset$, in the corresponding version of predicate calculus with equality [page 94].

Of course, we cannot prove with them "proper" theorems of the corresponding theories, like e.g. $\lnot \exists x (x \in \emptyset)$, because they are not valid.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.