The λμ-calculus is an extension of the λ-calculus that has been introduced by M Parigot to give an algorithmic content to classical proofs. We show that Böhm's theorem fails in this calculus.

If ωn has the tree property for all 2 ≤ n < ω and , then for all and n < ω. Mnt(X) exists.

It is proved that the following conditions are equivalent:

(a) there exists a complete, atomless, σ–centered Boolean algebra, which does not contain any regular, atomless, countable subalgebra.

(b) there exists a nowhere dense ultrafilter on ω.

Therefore, the existence of such algebras is undecidable in ZFC. In “forcing language” condition (a) says that there exists a non–trivial σ–centered forcing not adding Cohen reals.

The problem of the existence of a universal structure omitting a finite set of forbidden substructures is reducible to the corresponding problem in the category of graphs with a vertex coloring by two colors. It is not known whether this problem reduces further to the category of ordinary graphs. It is also not known whether these problems are decidable.

We define a novel interpretation of second order arithmetic into Explicit Mathematics. As a difference from standard -interpretation, which was used before and was shown to interpret only subsystems proof-theoretically weaker than T0. our interpretation can reach the full strength of T0. The -interpretation is an adaptation of Kleene's recursive readability, and is applicable only to intuitionistic theories.

We present two ways in which the model L(ℝ) is canonical assuming the existence of large cardinals. We show that the theory of this model, with ordinal parameters, cannot be changed by small forcing: we show further that a set of ordinals in V cannot be added to L(ℝ) by small forcing. The large cardinal needed corresponds to the consistency strength of ADL(ℝ): roughly ω Woodin cardinals.

This paper is a contribution to the project of determining which set existence axioms are needed to prove various theorems of analysis. For more on this project and its history we refer the reader to [1] and [2].

We work in a weak subsystem of second order arithmetic. The language of second order arithmetic includes the symbols 0, 1, =, <, +, ·, and ∈, together with number variables x, y, z, … (which are intended to stand for natural numbers), set variables X, Y, Z, … (which are intended to stand for sets of natural numbers), and the usual quantifiers (which can be applied to both kinds of variables) and logical connectives. We write ∀x < t φ and ∃x < t φ as abbreviations for ∀x(x < t → φ) and ∃x{x < t ∧ φ) respectively; these are called bounded quantifiers. A formula is said to be if it has no quantifiers applied to set variables, and all quantifiers applied to number variables are bounded. It is if it has the form ∃xθ and it is if it has the form ∀xθ, where in both cases θ is .

The theory RCA0 has as axioms the usual Peano axioms, with the induction scheme restricted to formulas, and in addition the comprehension scheme, which consists of all formulas of the form

where φ is , ψ is , and X does not occur free in φ(n). (“RCA” stands for “Recursive Comprehension Axiom.” The reason for the name is that the comprehension scheme is only strong enough to prove the existence of recursive sets.) It is known that this theory is strong enough to allow the development of many of the basic properties of the real numbers, but that certain theorems of elementary analysis are not provable in this theory. Most relevant for our purposes is the fact that it is impossible to prove in RCA0 that every continuous function on the closed interval [0, 1] attains maximum and minimum values (see [1]).

Since the most common proof of the Mean Value Theorem makes use of this theorem, it might be thought that the Mean Value Theorem would also not be provable in RCA0. However, we show in this paper that the Mean Value Theorem can be proven in RCA0. All theorems stated in this paper are theorems of RCA0, and all of our reasoning will take place in RCA0.

A completeness theorem is established for logics with congruence endowed with general semantics (in the style of general frames). As a corollary, completeness is shown to be preserved by fibring logics with congruence provided that congruence is retained in the resulting logic. The class of logics with equivalence is shown to be closed under fibring and to be included in the class of logics with congruence. Thus, completeness is shown to be preserved by fibring logics with equivalence and general semantics. An example is provided showing that completeness is not always preserved by fibring ligics endowed with standard (non general) semantics. A categorial characterization of fibring is provided using coproducts and cocartesian liftings.

One of the main goals in the theory of forcing iteration is to formulate preservation theorems for not collapsing ω1 which are as general as possible. This line leads from c.c.c. forcings using finite support iterations to Axiom A forcings and proper forcings using countable support iterations to semi-proper forcings using revised countable support iterations, and more recently, in work of Shelah, to yet more general classes of posets. In this paper we concentrate on a special case of the very general iteration theorem of Shelah from [5, chapter XV]. The class of posets handled by this theorem includes all semi-proper posets and also includes, among others, Namba forcing.

In [5, chapter XV] Shelah shows that, roughly, revised countable support forcing iterations in which the constituent posets are either semi-proper or Namba forcing or P[W] (the forcing for collapsing a stationary co-stationary subset of

with countable conditions) do not collapse ℵ1. The iteration must contain sufficiently many cardinal collapses, for example, Levy collapses. The most easily quotable combinatorial application is the consistency (relative to a Mahlo cardinal) of ZFC + CH fails + whenever A ∪ B = ω2 then one of A or B contains an uncountable sequentially closed subset. The iteration Shelah uses to construct this model is built using P[W] to “attack” potential counterexamples, Levy collapses to ensure that the cardinals collapsed by the various P[W]'s are sufficiently well separated, and Cohen forcings to ensure the failure of CH in the final model.

In this paper we give details of the iteration theorem, but we do not address the combinatorial applications such as the one quoted above.

These theorems from [5, chapter XV] are closely related to earlier work of Shelah [5, chapter XI], which dealt with iterated Namba and P[W] without allowing arbitrary semi-proper forcings to be included in the iteration. By allowing the inclusion of semi-proper forcings, [5, chapter XV] generalizes the conjunction of [5, Theorem XI.3.6] with [5, Conclusion XI.6.7].

A fairly quotable special, but still representative, case of our main result is that for 2 ≤ n < ω, there is a natural number m(n) such that, the following holds. Assume GCH: If λ < μ are regular, there is a cofinality preserving forcing extension in which 2λ = μ and, for all σ < λ ≤ κ < η such that η(+m(n)−+) ≤ μ,

This generalizes results of [3], Section 1. and the forcing is a “many cardinals” version of the forcing there.

It is shown that for any cardinal κ, , and if κ is weakly compact then .

We construct the set of the title, answering a question of Cholak, Jockusch. and Slaman [1], and discuss its connections with the study of the proof-theoretic strength and effective content of versions of Ramsey's Theorem. In particular, our result implies that every ω-model of must contain a nonlow set.

Firstly, in this paper, we prove that the equivalence of simplicity and the symmetry of forking. Secondly, we attempt to recover definability part of stability theory to simplicity theory. In particular, using elimination of hyperimaginaries we prove that for any supersimple T. canonical base of an amalgamation class is the union of names of ψ-definitions of , ψ ranging over stationary L-formulas in . Also, we prove that the same is true with stable formulas for an 1-based theory having elimination of hyperimaginaries. For such a theory, the stable forking property holds, too.

Certain basic concepts of geometrical stability theory are generalized to a class of closure operators containing algebraic closure. A specific case of a generalized closure operator is developed which is relevant to Vaught's conjecture. As an application of the methods, we prove

Theorem A. Let G be a superstate group of U-rank ω such that the generics of G are locally modular and Th(G) has few countable models. Let G− be the group of nongeneric elements of G. G+ = Go + G−. Let Π = {q ∈ S(∅): U(q) < ω}. For any countable model M of Th(G) there is a finite A ⊂ M such thai M is almost atomic over A ∪ (G+ ∩ M) ∪ ⋃p∈Πp(M).

We will study complete Ln-theories and their models, where Ln is the set of first order formulas in which at most n distinct variables occur. Here, by a complete Ln-theory we mean a theory such that for every Ln-sentence, it or its negation is implied by the theory. Hence, a complete Ln-theory need not necessarily be complete in the usual sense. Our approach is to transfer concepts and methods from stability theory, such as the order property and counting types, to the context of Ln-theories. So, in one sense, we will develop some rudimentary stability theory for a particular class of (possibly) incomplete theories. To make the ‘stability theoretic’ arguments work, we need to assume that models of the complete Ln-theory T which we consider can be amalgamated in certain ways. If this condition is satisfied and T has infinite models then there will exist models of T which are sufficiently saturated with respect to Ln. This allows us to use some counting types arguments from stability theory. If, moreover, we impose some finiteness conditions on the number of Ln-types and the length of Ln-definable orders then a sufficiently saturated model of T will be ω-categorical and ω-stable. Using the theory of ω-categorical and ω-stable structures we derive that T has arbitrarily large finite models.

A different approach to combining stability theory with finite model theory is made by Hyttinen in [9] and [10].

This paper discusses two combinatorial problems in stability theory. First we prove a partition result for subsets of stable models: for any A and B, we can partition A into ∣B∣<κ(T) pieces. 〈Ai ∣ i < ∣B∣<κ(T)〉. such that for each Ai there is a Bi ⊆ B where ∣Bi∣ < κ(T) and , Second, if A and B are as above and ∣A∣ > ∣B∣, then we try to find A′ ⊂ A and B′ ⊂ B such that ∣A′∣ is as large as possible. ∣B′∣ is as small as possible, and . We prove some positive results in this direction, and we discuss the optimality of these results under ZFC + GCH.

A subset A ⊆ M of a totally ordered structure M is said to be convex, if for any a, b ∈ A: [a < b → ∀t (a < tb → t ∈ A)]. A complete theory of first order is weakly o-minimal (M. Dickmann [D]) if any model M is totally ordered by some ∅-definable formula and any subset of M which is definable with parameters from M is a finite union of convex sets. We prove here that for any model M of a weakly o-minimal theory T. any expansion M+ of M by a family of unary predicates has a weakly o-minimal theory iff the set of all realizations of each predicate is a union of a finite number of convex sets (Theorem 63). that solves the Problem of Cherlin-Macpherson-Marker-Steinhorn [MMS] for the class of weakly o-minimal theories.

We propose a model-theoretic framework for investigating profinite groups. Within this framework we define and investigate small profinite groups. We consider the question if any small profinite group has an open abelian subgroup.