1
$\begingroup$

Throughout, by "logic" I mean regular logic (in the sense of Ebbinghaus–Flum–Thomas) whose sentences are coded by elements of $\mathsf{HC}$. Say that $\mathcal{L}$ is Barwise compact iff whenever $\mathbb{A}$ is a countable admissible set and $X\subseteq\mathbb{A}$ is a $\mathbb{A}$-c.e. $\mathcal{L}$-theory each of whose $\mathbb{A}$-finite subtheories is satisfiable, then $X$ is satisfiable. Finally, say that a logic $\mathcal{L}$ has the single-sentence DLS property iff every satisfiable $\mathcal{L}$-sentence has a countable model.

It's easy to show that $\mathcal{L}_{\omega_1,\omega}$ has the single-sentence DLS property (favorite silly proof: apply Mostowski absoluteness to $\mathit{Col}(\omega,\kappa)$ for large enough $\kappa$), and Barwise showed that $\mathcal{L}_{\omega_1,\omega}$ is Barwise compact. Moreover, Lindstrom's characterization (see Väänänen, Lindstrom's Theorem) of first-order logic can be tweaked to show that no logic with the above two properties can be much stronger than $\mathcal{L}_{\omega_1,\omega}$. However, there's still a large gap here, and I'm curious whether anything is known about it. In particular:

Is there an already-introduced logic which is properly stronger than $\mathcal{L}_{\omega_1,\omega}$, has the single-sentence DLS property, and is Barwise compact?

I'd also be interested in what happens if we weaken the definition of Barwise compactness to allow replacing "admissible set" with "transitive model of $T$" for some first-order $T\subseteq \mathit{Th}(\mathsf{HC})$.

$\endgroup$
0

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

A very nice family of examples is provided by Harrington's 1980 paper Extensions of countable infinitary logic which preserve most of its nice properties. Harrington shows that if we expand $\mathcal{L}_{\omega_1,\omega}$ by any infinitary propositional connective satisfying an appropriate tameness property - and there are $2^{2^{\aleph_0}}$ of these - we preserve multiple tameness properties, including Barwise compactness and dLS for individual sentences (the latter basically trivially).

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.