Logic Problem Set 3

Michael Lin
17 October 2016
1. (a) Let u, v M od(T 0 ) such that f (u) = f (v). Then for all Sent(), u(f ()) = v(f ()).
Let be any sentence of 0 , and since f is essentially surjective, there is a sentence Sent()
such that T 0 ` f (). By soundness, T 0 |= f (), so for any model w of T 0 , w(
f ()) = 1. So w() = 1 if and only if w(f ()) = 1. Because w can only take on values of 0 and
1, w() = w(f ()). In particular, u() = u(f ()) and v() = v(f ()). Since u(f ()) = v(f ()),
u() = v() by transitivity of the equality sign.
Since was arbitrary, we can conclude that u = v. So f is injective.
(b) Suppose f : T T 0 is one half a homotopy equivalence, i.e., there exists an inverse translation
g : T 0 T , such that gf = 1T and f g = 1T 0 . So for any sentence of 0 , the sentence g(),
which we will call , exists in . A priori, T 0 ` , so T 0 ` 1T 0 (), so T 0 ` f (g()),
and so T 0 ` f (). So f is essentially surjective.
2. (a) R(, ) holds trivially because ` (by proof using rule of assumptions and CP).
R(, ), then ` . Then ` . Without stating the proof, we note that the
symbol commutes. So ` , so ` , and so R(, ), and R is symmetric.
Finally suppose R(, ) and R(, ). Then ` and ` , which we can write as (with
some rearranging) ` ( ) ( ). Taking ` ( ), we can
derive ` through -elimination, supposing , applying MPP twice, and then applying CP.
We can derive ` with the second conjunct and so ` . So R(, ) and R is transitive.
(b) Suppose v : Sent() {0, 1} is a extention of any valuation of , and , Sent(), with
` (i.e., R(, )). Then by soundness and completeness, ` iff |= , iff
v( ) = 1, since any valuation models the empty theory trivially. Going by the axioms of
the extension of valuations, v( ) = 1 iff v( ) = 1, and v( ) = 1, iff that either
v() = 0 or v() = 1, and either v() = 0 or v() = 1. Thinking about it carefully and using
RAA, we can prove that this happens iff v() = v(). Thus we have that R(, ) iff v() = v()
for all extensions of valuations v on .
Since has only one propositional constant p, there are only 2 possible extensions of valuations
on , say, f and g: where f (p) = 1 and one where g(p) = 0. From here, we can classify a sentence
into 4 types based on the values of g() and f (): g() = 0 and f () = 0, g() = 1 and
f () = 0, g() = 0 and f () = 1, and g() = 1 and f () = 1. So, from the previous paragraph,
R(, ) iff f () = f () and g() = g(), this classification is the same as the possible equivalence
classes. Finally, existence of sentences of that fall into each of classes is exemplified by p p,
p, p, and p p, respectively, so there must be exactly four equivalence classes for R.
(c) Let [] X be any equivalence class containing . If [] contains only , then v is trivially
constant on []. Otherwise, given any , [], R(, ) iff v() = v(), from part (b), so v is
constant on the equivalence classes. By axiom 6, there exists a unique v : X {0, 1} such that
v = v q.