In this paper we mainly study preservation theorems for two fragments of the infinitary languagesLκκ, withκregular, without the equality symbol: the universal Horn fragment and the universal strict Horn fragment. In particular, whenκisω, we obtain the corresponding theorems for the first-order case.The universal Horn fragment of first-order logic (with equality) has been extensively studied; for references see [10], [7] and [8]. But the universal Horn fragment without equality, used frequently in logic programming, has received much less attention from the model (...) theoretic point of view. At least to our knowledge, the problem of obtaining preservation results for it has not been studied before by model theorists. In spite of this, in the field of abstract algebraic logic we find a theorem which, properly translated, is a preservation result for the strict universal Horn fragment of infinitary languages without equality which, apart from function symbols, have only a unary relation symbol. This theorem is due to J. Czelakowski; see [5], Theorem 6.1, and [6], Theorem 5.1. A. Torrens [12] also has an unpublished result dealing with matrices of sequent calculi which, properly translated, is a preservation result for the strict universal Horn fragment of a first-order language. And in [2] of W. J. Blok and D. Pigozzi we find Corollary 6.3 which properly translated corresponds to our Corollary 19, but for the case of a first-order language that apart from its function symbols has only oneκ-ary relation symbol, and for strict universal Horn sentences. The study of these results is the basis for the present work. In the last part of the paper, Section 4, we will make these connections clear and obtain some of these results from our theorems. In this way we hope to make clear two things: (1) The field of abstract algebraic logic can be seen, in part, as a disguised study of universal Horn logic without equality and so has an added interest. (2) A general study of universal Horn logic without equality from a model theoretic point of view can be of help in the field of abstract algebraic logic. (shrink)

The notion of an algebraic semantics of a deductive system was proposed in [3], and a preliminary study was begun. The focus of [3] was the definition and investigation of algebraizable deductive systems, i.e., the deductive systems that possess an equivalent algebraic semantics. The present paper explores the more general property of possessing an algebraic semantics. While a deductive system can have at most one equivalent algebraic semantics, it may have numerous different algebraic semantics. All of these give rise to (...) an algebraic completeness theorem for the deductive system, but their algebraic properties, unlike those of equivalent algebraic semantics, need not reflect the metalogical properties of the deductive system. Many deductive systems that don't have an equivalent algebraic semantics do possess an algebraic semantics; examples of these phenomena are provided. It is shown that all extensions of a deductive system that possesses an algebraic semantics themselves possess an algebraic semantics. Necessary conditions for the existence of an algebraic semantics are given, and an example of a protoalgebraic deductive system that does not have an algebraic semantics is provided. The mono-unary deductive systems possessing an algebraic semantics are characterized. Finally, weak conditions on a deductive system are formulated that guarantee the existence of an algebraic semantics. These conditions are used to show that various classes of non-algebraizable deductive systems of modal logic, relevance logic and linear logic do possess an algebraic semantics. (shrink)

The class Matr(C) of all matrices for a prepositional logic (, C) is investigated. The paper contains general results with no special reference to particular logics. The main theorem (Th. (5.1)) which gives the algebraic characterization of the class Matr(C) states the following. Assume C to be the consequence operation on a prepositional language induced by a class K of matrices. Let m be a regular cardinal not less than the cardinality of C. Then Matr (C) is the least class (...) of matrices containing K and closed under m-reduced products, submatrices, matrix homomorphisms, and matrix homomorphic counter-images. (shrink)

Most Gentzen systems arising in logic contain few axiom schemata and many rule schemata. Hilbert systems, on the other hand, usually contain few proper inference rules and possibly many axioms. Because of this, the two notions tend to serve different purposes. It is common for a logic to be specified in the first instance by means of a Gentzen calculus, whereupon a Hilbert-style presentation ‘for’ the logic may be sought—or vice versa. Where this has occurred, the word ‘for’ has taken (...) on several different meanings, partly because the Gentzen separator ⇒ can be interpreted intuitively in a number of ways. Here ⇒ will be denoted less evocatively by ⊲.In this paper we aim to discuss some of the useful ways in which Gentzen and Hilbert systems may correspond to each other. Actually, we shall be concerned with thededucibility relationsof the formal systems, as it is these that are susceptible to transformation in useful ways. To avoid potential confusion, we shall speak of Hilbert and Gentzenrelations. By aHilbert relationwe mean any substitution-invariant consequence relation onformulas—this comes to the same thing as the deducibility relation of a set of Hilbert-style axioms and rules. By aGentzen relationwe mean the fully fledged generalization of this notion in whichsequentstake the place of single formulas. In the literature, Hilbert relations are often referred to assentential logics. Gentzen relations as defined here are their exactsequentialcounterparts. (shrink)

A logic in a finite language is said to be finitely presentable if it is axiomatized by finitely many finite rules. It is proved that binary non-indexed products of logics that are both finitely presentable and finitely equivalential are essentially finitely presentable. This result does not extend to binary non-indexed products of arbitrary finitely presentable logics, as shown by a counterexample. Finitely presentable logics are then exploited to introduce finitely presentable Leibniz classes, and to draw a parallel between the Leibniz (...) and the Maltsev hierarchies. (shrink)

The notion of an algebraic semantics of a deductive system was proposed in [3], and a preliminary study was begun. The focus of [3] was the definition and investigation of algebraizable deductive systems, i.e., the deductive systems that possess an equivalent algebraic semantics. The present paper explores the more general property of possessing an algebraic semantics. While a deductive system can have at most one equivalent algebraic semantics, it may have numerous different algebraic semantics. All of these give rise to (...) an algebraic completeness theorem for the deductive system, but their algebraic properties, unlike those of equivalent algebraic semantics, need not reflect the metalogical properties of the deductive system. Many deductive systems that don't have an equivalent algebraic semantics do possess an algebraic semantics; examples of these phenomena are provided. It is shown that all extensions of a deductive system that possesses an algebraic semantics themselves possess an algebraic semantics. Necessary conditions for the existence of an algebraic semantics are given, and an example of a protoalgebraic deductive system that does not have an algebraic semantics is provided. The mono-unary deductive systems possessing an algebraic semantics are characterized. Finally, weak conditions on a deductive system are formulated that guarantee the existence of an algebraic semantics. These conditions are used to show that various classes of non-algebraizable deductive systems of modal logic, relevance logic and linear logic do possess an algebraic semantics. (shrink)

This paper is based on Lectures 1, 2 and 4 in the series of ten lectures titled “Algebraic Structures for Logic” that Professor Blok and I presented at the Twenty Third Holiday Mathematics Symposium held at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, New Mexico, January 8-12, 1999. These three lectures presented a new approach to the algebraization of deductive systems, and after the symposium we made plans to publish a joint paper, to be written by Blok, further developing these (...) ideas. That project was still incomplete when Blok died. In fact, there is no indication that he had prepared a draft of the paper, and we do not know what new material he intended to include. I am therefore not in a position to complete the project as he had envisioned it. So, I have settled for the more limited objective of presenting the material from the three lectures, leaving to others the task of adapting the techniques used there to more general situations. (shrink)

This paper develops an order-theoretic generalization of Blok and Pigozziʼs notion of an algebraizable logic. Unavoidably, the ordered model class of a logic, when it exists, is not unique. For uniqueness, the definition must be relativized, either syntactically or semantically. In sentential systems, for instance, the order algebraization process may be required to respect a given but arbitrary polarity on the signature. With every deductive filter of an algebra of the pertinent type, the polarity associates a reflexive and transitive relation (...) called a Leibniz order, analogous to the Leibniz congruence of abstract algebraic logic . Some core results of AAL are extended here to sentential systems with a polarity. In particular, such a system is order algebraizable if the Leibniz order operator has the following four independent properties: it is injective, it is isotonic, it commutes with the inverse image operator of any algebraic homomorphism, and it produces anti-symmetric orders when applied to filters that define reduced matrix models. Conversely, if a sentential system is order algebraizable in some way, then the order algebraization process naturally induces a polarity for which the Leibniz order operator has properties –. (shrink)