I ON THE PRIMITIVE TERM OF LOGISTICf IN this article I propose to establish a theorem belonging to logistic concerning some connexions, not widely known, ...

This paper is an edited form of a letter written by the two authors (in the name of Tarski) to Wolfram Schwabhäuser around 1978. It contains extended remarks about Tarski's system of foundations for Euclidean geometry, in particular its distinctive features, its historical evolution, the history of specific axioms, the questions of independence of axioms and primitive notions, and versions of the system suitable for the development of 1-dimensional geometry.

The logical theory which is called thecalculus of (binary) relations, and which will constitute the subject of this paper, has had a strange and rather capricious line of historical development. Although some scattered remarks regarding the concept of relations are to be found already in the writings of medieval logicians, it is only within the last hundred years that this topic has become the subject of systematic investigation. The first beginnings of the contemporary theory of relations are to be found (...) in the writings of A. De Morgan, who carried out extensive investigations in this domain in the fifties of the Nineteenth Century. De Morgan clearly realized the inadequacy of traditional logic for the expression and justification, not merely of the more intricate arguments of mathematics and the sciences, but even of simple arguments occurring in every-day life; witness his famous aphorism, that all the logic of Aristotle does not permit us, from the fact that a horse is an animal, to conclude that the head of a horse is the head of an animal. In his effort to break the bonds of traditional logic and to expand the limits of logical inquiry, he directed his attention to the general concept of relations and fully recognized its significance. Nevertheless, De Morgan cannot be regarded as the creator of the modern theory of relations, since he did not possess an adequate apparatus for treating the subject in which he was interested, and was apparently unable to create such an apparatus. His investigations on relations show a lack of clarity and rigor which perhaps accounts for the neglect into which they fell in the following years. (shrink)

Completed in 1983, this work culminates nearly half a century of the late Alfred Tarski's foundational studies in logic, mathematics, and the philosophy of science. Written in collaboration with Steven Givant, the book appeals to a very broad audience, and requires only a familiarity with first-order logic. It is of great interest to logicians and mathematicians interested in the foundations of mathematics, but also to philosophers interested in logic, semantics, algebraic logic, or the methodology of the deductive sciences, and to (...) computer scientists interested in developing very simple computer languages rich enough for mathematical and scientific applications. The authors show that set theory and number theory can be developed within the framework of a new, different, and simple equational formalism, closely related to the formalism of the theory of relation algebras. There are no variables, quantifiers, or sentential connectives. Predicates are constructed from two atomic binary predicates (which denote the relations of identity and set-theoretic membership) by repeated applications of four operators that are analogues of the well-known operations of relative product, conversion, Boolean addition, and complementation. All mathematical statements are expressed as equations between predicates. There are ten logical axiom schemata and just one rule of inference: the one of replacing equals by equals, familiar from high school algebra. Though such a simple formalism may appear limited in its powers of expression and proof, this book proves quite the opposite. The authors show that it provides a framework for the formalization of practically all known systems of set theory, and hence for the development of all classical mathematics. The book contains numerous applications of the main results to diverse areas of foundational research: propositional logic; semantics; first-order logics with finitely many variables; definability and axiomatizability questions in set theory, Peano arithmetic, and real number theory; representation and decision problems in the theory of relation algebras; and decision problems in equational logic. (shrink)

The classical Feferman–Vaught Theorem for First Order Logic explains how to compute the truth value of a first order sentence in a generalized product of first order structures by reducing this computation to the computation of truth values of other first order sentences in the factors and evaluation of a monadic second order sentence in the index structure. This technique was later extended by Läuchli, Shelah and Gurevich to monadic second order logic. The technique has wide applications in decidability and (...) definability theory. Here we give a unified presentation, including some new results, of how to use the Feferman–Vaught Theorem, and some new variations thereof, algorithmically in the case of Monadic Second Order Logic MSOL . We then extend the technique to graph polynomials where the range of the summation of the monomials is definable in MSOL . Here the Feferman–Vaught Theorem for these polynomials generalizes well known splitting theorems for graph polynomials. Again, these can be used algorithmically. Finally, we discuss extensions of MSOL for which the Feferman–Vaught Theorem holds as well. (shrink)

This book brings together several directions of work in model theory between the late 1950s and early 1980s.

Being able to state the principles which lie deepest in the foundations of mathematics by sentences in three variables is crucially important for a satisfactory equational rendering of set theories along the lines proposed by Alfred Tarski and Steven Givant in their monograph of 1987.The main achievement of this paper is the proof that the ‘kernel’ set theory whose postulates are extensionality,, and single-element adjunction and removal, and, cannot be axiomatized by means of three-variable sentences. This highlights a sharp edge (...) to be crossed in order to attain an ‘algebraization’ of Set Theory. Indeed, one easily shows that the theory which results from the said kernel by addition of the null set axiom,, is in its entirety expressible in three variables. (shrink)