So I'm reading Hodel's Introduction to Mathematical Logic.

Here's a passage:

Let $L$ be a first order language. Then an interpretation $I$ of $L$ consists of:

-Non-empty set $D$ called the domain of $I$;

-For each constant symbol $c$ of $L$, an element $c$ of $D$;

-For each $n$-ary function symbol of $L$, an $n$-ary operation $F$ on $D$;

-For each $n$-ary relation symbol of $L$, an $n$-ary relation $R$ on $D$.

So suppose I have a domain $\{1,2\}$ and relation "is less than" and no function symbol. What about the constant symbols? At first I thought that I would have constant symbols $a,b$, where '$a$' would be assigned $1$, and '$b$' assigned $2$. But then I thought, would it instead just be that I have no constant symbols, and instead just the variables $x,y,z$ that are part of all first order languages (as opposed to specific interpretations with specific constant symbols)?

I guess I'm confused about what a constant symbol is supposed to be used for. In some of the examples of interpretations, '$0$' is a constant symbol interpreted as the natural number $0$ (also $1$ is used as a constant for some examples), but the rest of the numbers aren't considered constants in the interpretation?

  • $\begingroup$ Every constant symbol of $L$ names some $d \in D$, but its not necessarily the case that every $d \in D$ is named by some constant symbol of $L$. $\endgroup$ – goblin Jun 21 '14 at 0:48

Constant symbols are a part of the language and may or may not be present. Eg linear order has just a predicate and no constants or functions. Fields and rings usually have $0$ and $1$ as constant symbols, so in an interpretation you need to specify which elements are to interpret these constant symbols. Just as when you define a ring you should say which element os $0$ and which is $1$.


In your example, you have stated the general definition of interpretation for a first-order language.

An interpretation is relative to a specific language, because it is "made of" two components :

  • a domain of objects, and

  • a mapping from the set of symbols of the language to elements and subsets of the domain.

We have to specify if there are relation symbols, e.g. $<$, and if there are individual constants, e.g. $\overline 1$ and $\overline 2$.

If this is our case, what about an interpretation with domain $D = \{ 1,2 \}$ ?

First, we have to "map" the relation "symbol" on the relation "less than" id $D$, i.e. on the relation $Less \subseteq D \times D = \{ \langle 1,2 \rangle \}$.

Then we have to define a "denotation" for the two constants (assume the "obvious" ones).

Having done this, we may check for the truth-value of a formula in our language like :

$\exists x (\overline 1 < x)$.

This formula is true in our interpretation : it is enough to assign to $x$ the value $2$.

If we consider a "restricted" language without the two individual constants, we cannot use the above formula any more.

But we may have instead :

$\exists x (y < x)$.

It is true when $y$ is interpreted as $1$, while it is false when $y$ is interpreted as $2$.


A language, say $L$, does not necessarily have constant symbols. However the definition that I know of for defining what holds true inside the structure $\mathfrak{A}$ involves expanding the model in to an $L(A)$ structure. Here $L(A)=L\cup\{c_{a}:a\in{A}\}$ where the $c_{a}$ are distinct constant symbols and $c_{a}^\mathfrak{A}=a$.

So for your example, you would have $L(A)=L\cup\{c_{0},c_{1}\}$ and in your interpretation you would have $c_{0}^{\mathfrak{A}}=0$ and $c_{1}^{\mathfrak{A}}=1$.


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.