The title really says all: Why are subclasses of first-order logic with the finite model property decidable?
2026-02-24 06:49:57.1771915797
Why are subclasses of first-order logic with the finite model property decidable?
160 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in LOGIC
- Theorems in MK would imply theorems in ZFC
- What is (mathematically) minimal computer architecture to run any software
- What formula proved in MK or Godel Incompleteness theorem
- Determine the truth value and validity of the propositions given
- Is this a commonly known paradox?
- Help with Propositional Logic Proof
- Symbol for assignment of a truth-value?
- Find the truth value of... empty set?
- Do I need the axiom of choice to prove this statement?
- Prove that any truth function $f$ can be represented by a formula $φ$ in cnf by negating a formula in dnf
Related Questions in MODEL-THEORY
- What is the definition of 'constructible group'?
- Translate into first order logic: "$a, b, c$ are the lengths of the sides of a triangle"
- Existence of indiscernible set in model equivalent to another indiscernible set
- A ring embeds in a field iff every finitely generated sub-ring does it
- Graph with a vertex of infinite degree elementary equiv. with a graph with vertices of arbitrarily large finite degree
- What would be the function to make a formula false?
- Sufficient condition for isomorphism of $L$-structures when $L$ is relational
- Show that PA can prove the pigeon-hole principle
- Decidability and "truth value"
- Prove or disprove: $\exists x \forall y \,\,\varphi \models \forall y \exists x \,\ \varphi$
Related Questions in COMPUTABILITY
- Are all infinite sets of indices of computable functions extensional?
- Simple applications of forcing in recursion theory?
- Proof of "Extension" for Rice's Theorem
- How to interpret Matiyasevich–Robinson–Davis–Putnam in term of algebraic geometry or geometry?
- Does there exist a weakly increasing cofinal function $\kappa \to \kappa$ strictly below the diagonal?
- Why isn't the idea of "an oracle for the halting problem" considered self-contradictory?
- is there any set membership of which is not decidable in polynomial time but semidecidable in P?
- The elementary theory of finite commutative rings
- Is there any universal algorithm converting grammar to Turing Machine?
- Is the sign of a real number decidable?
Related Questions in DECIDABILITY
- Deciding wether a language is regular, in the arithmetic hierarchy
- SAT preserving conversion of statement to existential one
- The elementary theory of finite commutative rings
- Is the sign of a real number decidable?
- Relation between the monadic and two-variable fragment of first order logic
- Literature about decidable and undecidable theories
- Flaw in self-referential proof that all languages are undecidable
- A recursively enumerable theory without a decidable set of axioms.
- Proving decidability of $(\mathbb N, +)$ with Quantifier elimination and evaluating basic formulas
- Showing that Presburger arithmetic is decidable by deciding if $\mathbb N \models \varphi$, but does it give provability in the axioms?
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
The finite model property says that if $\varphi$ is not provable, then there's a finite model $\mathcal{M}$ with $\mathcal{M} \models \lnot \varphi$.
So let's say we want to know if $T \vdash \varphi$ or not.
If $\varphi$ is provable, then it has a proof of finite length, so for $n$ large enough, our first case will find it and we'll return True. If $\varphi$ is not provable, then the finite model property says that for some $n$ large enough our second case will find a countermodel, and we'll return False.
Notice that, even without the finite model property, we can still try this algorithm! If $\varphi$ is provable, then we'll still find a proof eventually. But if $\varphi$ is not provable, without the finite model property our second clause is not guaranteed to find a countermodel, so our code might loop forever. This tells us that provability is always semidecidable, or if you prefer, computably enumerable (CE).
The finite model property tells us that provability is also co-CE, in the sense that non-provability is CE.
Through this lens, the above proof is a special case of a more general result that a problem is decidable exactly when it's both CE and co-CE.
I hope this helps ^_^