Where's the notion of interpretation (model) originally introduced? - MathOverflow most recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net 2013-05-24T09:33:16Z http://mathoverflow.net/feeds/question/17411 http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdf http://mathoverflow.net/questions/17411/wheres-the-notion-of-interpretation-model-originally-introduced Where's the notion of interpretation (model) originally introduced? Matt 2010-03-07T20:00:38Z 2010-03-08T02:35:34Z <p>Where's the notion of interpretation (model) originally introduced? I find it used in Skolem's paper "Logico-combinatorial investigations in the satisfiability or provability of mathematical propositions" (1920). However, I do not find any explicit reference to semantical ideas in Frege's Begriffsschrift. Where did the formal idea of semantics come up? What's the relation of this to Tarski's theory of truth? I really have a mess in my head.</p> http://mathoverflow.net/questions/17411/wheres-the-notion-of-interpretation-model-originally-introduced/17419#17419 Answer by John Goodrick for Where's the notion of interpretation (model) originally introduced? John Goodrick 2010-03-07T21:44:14Z 2010-03-08T02:35:34Z <p><strong>Updated answer:</strong></p> <p>As best as I have been able to figure out, the pre-Tarskian notions of "semantics" in mathematical logic grew out of the "algebra of logic" introduced by Boole ("An investigation into the laws of thought," 1854, and some earlier papers) and elaborated by Charles Peirce, Schröder, and others.</p> <p>It's difficult for me to follow all the arguments in the old papers, but roughly the idea behind Boole's logic was to study logical equations such as "$x + (1 - x) = 1$" or "$x \times (1 - x) = 0.$" Here, + means exclusive or, multiplication is "and," and subtracting $x$ means taking a conjunction with not-$x$. The number 1 should be interpreted as an always-true proposition, 0 as an always-false proposition, and $x$ as a propositional variable (or as Boole might say, a proposition with "indeterminate truth value").</p> <p>Boole was interested in this analogy between logic an algebra, and here maybe we see the beginnings of the notion of interpretation in logic: we can check the validity of these formulas by considering whether they are true for all possible propositions $x$. (At least, I think this is what Boole meant -- you should track down the Dover reprinting of <em>The Laws of Thought</em> if you want to do some more historical investigation.)</p> <p>Peirce considered the possibility of different "domains of individuals," which could be finite, infinite, or even uncountable. I think it was Peirce who first generalized Boole's calculus of logical propositions to the "calculus of relatives," where a "relative" is the interpretation of some $n$-ary predicate in a domain of individuals. To track down the beginnings of this, I would try Peirce's 1870 "Description of a notation for the logic of relatives," which unfortunately I cannot access right now from where I am.</p> <p>Peirce, Schröder, and even Löweinheim in his 1915 "On possibilities in the calculus of relatives" continued to use algebraic notation along the lines of Boole, with many $0$'s and $1$'s. Even the "domain of individuals'' was denoted by $1^1$!</p> <p>One thing in particular that is confusing about reading Löweinheim's paper is that, while he is clearly aware that the domain of individuals $1^1$ could be one of any number of possible collections of things (some finite, others infinite), he seems to insist on talking about "<em>the</em> domain of individuals $1^1$" and referring to every possible domain by the same name $1^1$! Obviously, this is confusing if you want to think about comparing two different such domains, and maybe one of Tarski's key contributions here was simply to introduce a notation ''$\mathfrak{A} \models \varphi$'' which explicitly names the universe $\mathfrak{A}$ and suggests comparison with other universes $\mathfrak{B}, \mathfrak{C}, \ldots$.</p> <p><strong>My original answer (missing the key point):</strong></p> <p>My knee-jerk answer to this question was going to be, "Tarski!" But you seem to already be aware of Tarski's work, so maybe you're looking for something different?</p> <p>In particular: Alfred Tarski's 1933 article "The concept of truth in formalized languages" (in Polish, unfortunately) seems to be generally regarded as the first place where the concept of "logical satisfaction" (in the modern sense) was first defined.</p> <p>There was already an "application" of semantic methods in logic by 1940: Gödel's proof of that Con(ZFC) implies Con(ZFC + GCH + AC). (It might be fun to try to find an even earlier application of semantic methods to prove a syntactic result.) Certainly by the 1960's the field of model theory was coming into its own with the work of A. Robinson, Vaught, Morley, and others.</p> http://mathoverflow.net/questions/17411/wheres-the-notion-of-interpretation-model-originally-introduced/17442#17442 Answer by Gerald Edgar for Where's the notion of interpretation (model) originally introduced? Gerald Edgar 2010-03-08T01:52:56Z 2010-03-08T01:52:56Z <p>When you say: "A group is a set G together with an operation such that ..." isn't that a notion of a model?</p> <p>How about when you prove that the parallel postulate cannot be proved from the other axioms of geometry by exhibiting hyperbolic geometry? The "Poincaré model" is 1882, but dates to Beltrami 1868. I wonder if Tarski et. al. got the term "model" from this.</p>