The Department of Defense (DoD) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) requested that the National Research Council's National Materials Advisory Board conduct a study to assess the current status of microwave processing technology, identify applications of microwave technology where resulting properties are unique or enhanced relative to conventional processing or where significant cost, energy or space savings can be realized, and to recommend future activities in microwave processing. A committee was established to perform the study and report on their findings. This paper is a summary developed from the committee's report, Microwave Processing of Materials (NMAB Report Number 473, Copyright 1994 by the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington, DC).

Some syntactically simple fragments of intuitionistic logic possess considerable expressive power compared with their classical counterparts.

In particular, we consider in this paper intuitionistic second order propositional logic (ISPL) a formalisation of which may be obtained by adding to the intuitionistic propositional calculus quantifiers binding propositional variables together with the usual quantifier rules and the axiom scheme (Ex), where is a formula not containing x.

The main purpose of this paper is to show that the classical first order predicate calculus with identity can be (isomorphically) embedded in ISPL.

It turns out an immediate consequence of this that the classical first order predicate calculus with identity can also be embedded in the fragment (PLA) of the intuitionistic first order predicate calculus whose only logical symbols are → and (.) (universal quantifier) and the only nonlogical symbol (apart from individual variables and parentheses) a single monadic predicate letter.

Another consequence is that the classical first order predicate calculus can be embedded in the theory of Heyting algebras.

The undecidability of the formal systems under consideration evidently follows immediately from the present results.

We shall indicate how the methods employed may be extended to show also that the intuitionistic first order predicate calculus with identity can be embedded in both ISPL and PLA.

For the purpose of the present paper it will be convenient to use the following formalisation (S) of ISPL based on [3], rather than the one given above.

With the definition of effective operations as stated in the paper cited above (this Journal, vol. 35 (1970), p. 217), the last step of Lemma 1 does not appear to extend to types ≥ 3. This may be rectified by altering the second clause of the definition of effective operation (loc. cit. p. 217) to read:

ℱ is an effective operation of type i + 2 with Gödel number f∈E i+2, if for every g∈E i+1 there is an effective operation of type i + 1 (not depending on ℱ and f) with Gödel number g such that ℱ() = p(f, g).

With this definition the proofs go through without alteration.

There are two other variants for representing an effective operation by higher type objects.

I. We adopt the definition of effective as given in the text, and require the terms to satisfy the additional condition

II. Here we add to the definition of effective operations given in the text the condition:

If ℱ and ℱ1 are effective operations of type i + 2 and for all effective operations of type i + 1, then ℱ = ℱ1.

We now require terms s, t ∈ fi to satisfy the additional condition

The proof of Lemmas 1 and 2 are easily modified to establish I and II.

Perhaps II may be regarded as giving the most natural characterisation since in this case all terms represent continuous functionals.

It is well known that in prepositional logic not every propositional connective is definable in terms of equivalence nor indeed in terms of equivalence together with negation. It is the purpose of this note to show that in a certain sense this is, however, possible within predicate logic.

Let F1 be the class of predicate logical formulae containing only the logical connectives ¬ (not), ∨ (or), E (exists), and F2 the class of predicate logical formulae containing only the logical connectives ≡ (if and only if) and E.

Our object will be to find a method for reducing any formulae ϕ of F1 to a formula ψ of F2 such that ϕ is valid if and only if ψ is valid.

Note first that for every domain D containing at least two individuals we can for every n-place relation R defined over D find an n + 1-place relation S defined over D such that for all x1, …, xn ∈ D,

holds. For instance, let S(y, x1, …, xn) be the relation y = x1 & R(x1, …, xn).

Now let ϕ be an arbitrary formula of F1 and A1, …, A3 a complete list of predicate letters occurring in ϕ of degree g1, …, gi, respectively. Let ϕ′ be the formula obtained from ϕ by replacing every prime formula Ai(x1, …, xgi) by

Then it follows immediately from the previous observation that (a) ϕ is satisfiable in D if and only if ϕ′ is satisfiable in D.

Let be a standard formalization of type theory. In [6] Kreisel introduced N-models for . These are general models in the sense of [1] in which the numerals have their standard denotations.

If ξ is a closed term of we shall denote the object denoted by ξ in the N-model M by ξM. In particular, ξ* is the object denoted by ξ in the standard model of .

By ΡL we shall mean the first order predicate logic based on S4. More explicitly: Let Ρ0 stand for the first order predicate calculus. The formalisation of Ρ0 used in the present paper will be given later. ΡL is obtained from Ρ0 by adding the rules the propositional constant □ and

In the present paper we investigate in some detail two systems closely related to those contained in [4]. The system K1 of [4] is simplified by eliminating conjunction and disjunction, giving rise to a system Σ whose primitives are two individuals, concatenation, identity, existential and limited universal quantification. Any relation expressible in Σ may be expressed in the form (Eα1)(β)α1(Eα2)…(Eαn)(γ = δ). A further reduction of primitives leads to a system Σμ, which differs from Σ by containing the operator μ (i.e. “the first string, such that” with respect to a certain ordering) in place of the quantifiers. Reasons are given for restricting Myhill's definition of constructive ideas to those expressible in Σμ.

Acquaintance with [4], [5], [6] is assumed. We deviate from [4] by dropping concatenation-signs and parentheses in chain matrices from the official notation, and, furthermore, by using Greek and German letters as metalinguistic variables standing for chain matrices and chains, respectively, while retaining small Roman letters (excluding a, b) for use as variables of the systems.

If Σ is any standard formal system adequate for recursive number theory, a formula (having a certain integer q as its Gödel number) can be constructed which expresses the proposition that the formula with Gödel number q is provable in Σ. Is this formula provable or independent in Σ? [2].

One approach to this problem is discussed by Kreisel in [4]. However, he still leaves open the question whether the formula (Ex)(x, a), with Gödel-number a, is provable or not. Here (x, y) is the number-theoretic predicate which expresses the proposition that x is the number of a formal proof of the formula with Gödel-number y.

In this note we present a solution of the previous problem with respect to the system Zμ [3] pp. 289–294, and, more generally, with respect to any system whose set of theorems is closed under the rules of inference of the first order predicate calculus, and satisfies the subsequent five conditions, and in which the function (k, l) used below is definable.

The notation and terminology is in the main that of [3] pp. 306–326, viz. if is a formula of Zμ containing no free variables, whose Gödel number is a, then ({}) stands for (Ex)(x, a) (read: the formula with Gödel number a is provable in Zμ); if is a formula of Zμ containing a free variable, y say, ({}) stands for (Ex)(x, g(y)}, where g(y) is a recursive function such that for an arbitrary numeral the value of g() is the Gödel number of the formula obtained from by substituting for y in throughout. We shall, however, depart trivially from [3] in writing (), where is an arbitrary numeral, for (Ex){x, ).

In [3] Myhill has constructed a complete system K which allows in it the development of a large and important section of classical mathematics. Completeness is achieved essentially by sacrificing universal quantification and introducing instead the proper ancestral as a primitive idea.

In the following we are presenting a system K0 which will be shown to be equivalent to K (i.e. the primitive operators of both systems are mutually definable in terms of one another). K0 is also complete and covers the same ground as K. K0, however, differs from K by the introduction of the limited universal quantifier instead of the proper ancestral and of concatenation instead of the ordered-pair function as primitive operators. By a further reduction K0 will be shown to be equivalent to the system K1 not containing the abstraction-operator and the class-membership relation.