Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-fxdwj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-12T03:45:21.359Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Probabilities on finite models1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Ronald Fagin*
Affiliation:
Ibm Research Laboratory, San Jose, California 95193

Extract

Let be a finite set of (nonlogical) predicate symbols. By an -structure, we mean a relational structure appropriate for . Let be the set of all -structures with universe {1, …, n}. For each first-order -sentence σ (with equality), let μ n (σ) be the fraction of members of for which σ is true. We show that μ n (σ) always converges to 0 or 1 as n → ∞, and that the rate of convergence is geometrically fast. In fact, if T is a certain complete, consistent set of first-order -sentences introduced by H. Gaifman [6], then we show that, for each first-order -sentence σ, μ n (σ) → n 1 iff T ⊩ ω. A surprising corollary is that each finite subset of T has a finite model. Following H. Scholz [8], we define the spectrum of a sentence σ to be the set of cardinalities of finite models of σ. Another corollary is that for each first-order -sentence a, either σ or ˜σ has a cofinite spectrum (in fact, either σ or ˜σ is “nearly always“ true).

Let be a subset of which contains for each in exactly one structure isomorphic to . For each first-order -sentence σ, let ν n (σ) be the fraction of members of which a is true. By making use of an asymptotic estimate [3] of the cardinality of and by our previously mentioned results, we show that v n(σ) converges as n → ∞, and that lim n ν n (σ) = lim n μ n (σ).If contains at least one predicate symbol which is not unary, then the rate of convergence is geometrically fast.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

2

The author is grateful to Robert Vaught, William Craig, and Ralph McKenzie for useful suggestions which improved readability.

1

This paper is based on a part of the author's doctoral dissertation [2] in the Department of Mathematics at the University of California, Berkeley. Part of this work was carried out while the author was a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellow; also, part of this work was supported by NSF grant GP-24532.

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] Carnap, R., Logical foundations of probability, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1950.Google Scholar
[2] Fagin, R., Contributions to the model theory of finite structures, Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1973.Google Scholar
[3] Fagin, R., The number of finite relational structures, IBM research report RC5587 (08, 1975), Yorktown Heights, N.Y., 10598.Google Scholar
[4] Feller, W., An introduction to probability theory and its applications. I, 2nd edition, Wiley and Sons, New York, 1957.Google Scholar
[5] Harary, F., Note on Carnap's relational asymptotic relative frequencies, this Journal, vol. 23 (1958), pp. 257260.Google Scholar
[6] Gaifman, H., Concerning measures in first-order calculi, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 2 (1964), pp. 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7] Oberschelp, W., Strukturzahlen in endlichen Relationssystemen, Contributions to Mathematical Logic (Proceedings of Logic Colloquium), Hannover, 1966, pp. 199213.Google Scholar
[8] Scholz, H., this Journal, vol. 17 (1952), p. 160.Google Scholar
[9] Vaught, R. L., Applications to the Lowenheim-Skolem-Tarski theorem to problems of completeness and decidability, Indagationes Mathematicae, vol. 16 (1954), pp. 467472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar