This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.
View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: kValidity vs Validity in Q : A formula of Q that is kvalid for all k , but not valid Branden Fitelson 03/13/07 Consider the following three formulas of Q [where, as always, p q (p q) , and W p V p ]: p V x V x 00 V x 000 [(F **0 x x 00 F **0 x 00 x 000 ) F **0 x x 000 ] In more standard notation: p ( x)( y)( z)[(Rxy Ryz) Rxz] . q V x W x 00 F **0 x x 00 In more standard notation: q ( x)( y)Rxy . r W x F **0 x x In more standard notation: r ( x)Rxx . Informally, p asserts that the 2place relation F **0 ( R ) is transitive , q asserts that F **0 ( R ) is serial , and r asserts that there is some object that bears the relation F **0 ( R ) to itself . Now, consider the following complex statement, constructed out of p , q , and r : A (p q) r Claim A asserts that if F **0 ( R ) is transitive and serial, then some object bears F **0 ( R ) to itself . Fact . A is kvalid for all (finite) k , but A is not valid [ Q A ]. Proof. First, we will show (informally) that A is kvalid, for all k . Our (informal) argument will involve showing that A is true on all 1element interpretations, and all 2element interpretations, and ..., and all kelement interpretations, for all k . We will do this by arguing (informally) that we cannot make A false on any kelement interpretation. And, since A is a closed formula, it must either be true or false on each interpretation of Q . Thus, it will follow that A is true on all kelement interpretations of Q , for all k ....
View Full
Document
 Spring '07
 FITELSON

Click to edit the document details