We give Scott sentences for certain computable groups, and we use index set calculations as a way of checking that our Scott sentences are as simple as possible. We consider finitely generated groups and torsion-free abelian groups of finite rank. For both kinds of groups, the computable ones all have computable \ Scott sentences. Sometimes we can do better. In fact, the computable finitely generated groups that we have studied all have Scott sentences that are “computable d-\” sentence and a (...) computable \ sentence). In [9], this was shown for the finitely generated free groups. Here we show it for all finitely generated abelian groups, and for the infinite dihedral group. Among the computable torsion-free abelian groups of finite rank, we focus on those of rank 1. These are exactly the additive subgroups of \. We show that for some of these groups, the computable \ Scott sentence is best possible, while for others, there is a computable d-\ Scott sentence. (shrink)

Many people believe that there is a Dutch Book argument establishing that the principle of countable additivity is a condition of coherence. De Finetti himself did not, but for reasons that are at first sight perplexing. I show that he rejected countable additivity, and hence the Dutch Book argument for it, because countable additivity conflicted with intuitive principles about the scope of authentic consistency constraints. These he often claimed were logical in nature, but he never attempted to relate this idea (...) to deductive logic and its own concept of consistency. This I do, showing that at one level the definitions of deductive and probabilistic consistency are identical, differing only in the nature of the constraints imposed. In the probabilistic case I believe that R.T. Cox's ‘scale-free’ axioms for subjective probability are the most suitable candidates. 1 Introduction 2 Coherence and Consistency 3 The Infinite Fair Lottery 4 The Puzzle Resolved—But Replaced by Another 5 Countable Additivity, Conglomerability and Dutch Books 6 The Probability Axioms and Cox's Theorem 7 Truth and Probability 8 Conclusion: ‘Logical Omniscience’ CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this? (shrink)

This is the first part of a study on cardinals that are characterizable by Scott sentences. Building on previous work of Hjorth, Malitz, and Baumgartner, we study which cardinals are characterizable by a Scott sentence $\phi$, in the sense that $\phi$ characterizes $\kappa$, if $\phi$ has a model of size $\kappa$ but no models of size $\kappa^{+}$. We show that the set of cardinals that are characterized by a Scott sentence is closed under successors, countable unions, and countable products. We (...) also prove that if $\aleph_{\alpha}$ is characterized by a Scott sentence, at least one of $\aleph_{\alpha}$, $\aleph_{\alpha+1}$, or $$ is homogeneously characterizable. Based on an argument of Shelah, we give counterexamples that characterizable cardinals are not closed under predecessors or cofinalities. (shrink)

In the paper Randomizations of Scattered Sentences, Keisler showed that if Martin’s axiom for aleph one holds, then every scattered sentence has few separable randomizations, and asked whether the conclusion could be proved in ZFC alone. We show here that the answer is “yes”. It follows that the absolute Vaught conjecture holds if and only if every \-sentence with few separable randomizations has countably many countable models.

We exploit properties of certain directed graphs, obtained from the families of sets with special effective enumeration properties, to generalize several results in computable model theory to higher levels of the hyperarithmetical hierarchy. Families of sets with such enumeration features were previously built by Selivanov, Goncharov, and Wehner. For a computable successor ordinal α, we transform a countable directed graph into a structure such that has a isomorphic copy if and only if has a computable isomorphic copy.A computable structure is (...) categorical if for all computable isomorphic copies of , there is an isomorphism from onto , which is . We prove that for every computable successor ordinal α, there is a computable, categorical structure, which is not relatively categorical. This generalizes the result of Goncharov that there is a computable, computably categorical structure, which is not relatively computably categorical.An additional relation R on the domain of a computable structure is intrinsically on if in all computable isomorphic copies of , the image of R is . We prove that for every computable successor ordinal α, there is an intrinsically relation on a computable structure, which not relatively intrinsically . This generalizes the result of Manasse that there is an intrinsically computably enumerable relation on a computable structure, which is not relatively intrinsically computably enumerable.The dimension of a structure is the number of computable isomorphic copies, up to isomorphisms. We prove that for every computable successor ordinal α and every n≥1, there is a computable structure with dimension n. This generalizes the result of Goncharov that there is a structure of computable dimension n for every n≥1.Finally, we prove that for every computable successor ordinal α, there is a countable structure with isomorphic copies in just the Turing degrees of sets X such that relative to X is not . In particular, for every finite n, there is a structure with isomorphic copies in exactly the non- Turing degrees. This generalizes the result obtained by Wehner, and independently by Slaman, that there is a structure with isomorphic copies in exactly the nonzero Turing degrees. (shrink)

The notion of a weakly scattered theory T is defined. T need not be scattered. For each a model of T, let sr() be the Scott rank of . Assume sr() ≤ ω\sp A \sb 1 for all a model of T. Let σ\sp T \sb 2 be the least Σ₂ admissible ordinal relative to T. If T admits effective k-splitting as defined in this paper, then θσ\cal Aθ\cal A$ a model of T.

For a computable structure A\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mathcal{A}}$$\end{document}, there may not be a computable infinitary Scott sentence. When there is a computable infinitary Scott sentence φ\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\varphi}$$\end{document}, then the complexity of the index set I\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${I}$$\end{document} is bounded by that of φ\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\varphi}$$\end{document}. There are results giving “optimal” Scott sentences for (...) structures of various familiar kinds. These results have been driven by the thesis that the complexity of the index set should match that of an optimal Scott sentence. In this note, it is shown that the thesis does not always hold. For a certain subgroup of Q\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mathbb{Q}}$$\end{document}, there is no computable d-Σ2\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\Sigma_2}$$\end{document} Scott sentence, even though the index set is d-Σ20\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\Sigma^0_2}$$\end{document}. (shrink)