This article studies the complexity of decomposability of rings from the perspective of computability. Based on the equivalence between the decomposition of rings and that of the identity of rings, we propose four kinds of rings, namely, weakly decomposable rings, decomposable rings, weakly block decomposable rings, and block decomposable rings. Let $\mathcal{R}$ be the index set of computable rings. We study the complexity of subclasses of computable rings, showing that the index set of computable weakly decomposable rings is m-complete ${\mathrm{\Sigma }}_1^0$ within $\mathcal{R}$ and that the index set of computable decomposable (resp., weakly block decomposable, block decomposable) rings is m-complete ${\mathrm{\Sigma }}_2^0$ within $\mathcal{R}$.

This study examines how the Gödel phenomena are to be treated in core logic. We show in formal detail how one can use core logic in the metalanguage to prove Gödel’s incompleteness theorems for arithmetic even when classical logic is used for logical closure in the object language.

We provide a sound and complete proof system for an extension of Kleene’s ternary logic to predicates. The concept of theory is extended with, for each function symbol, a formula that specifies when the function is defined. The notion of “is defined” is extended to terms and formulas via a straightforward recursive algorithm. The “is defined” formulas are constructed so that they themselves are always defined. The completeness proof relies on the Henkin construction. For each formula, precisely one of the formula, its negation, and the negation of its “is defined” formula is true on the constructed model. Many other ternary logics in the literature can be reduced to ours. Partial functions are ubiquitous in computer science and even in (in)equation solving at schools. Our work was motivated by an attempt to precisely explain, in terms of logic, typical informal methods of reasoning in such applications.

Can one quantify over absolutely everything? Absolutists answer positively, while relativists answer negatively. Here, I focus on the absolutism versus relativism debate in the framework of theories of truth, where relativism becomes a form of contextualism about truth predications. Contextualist theories of truth provide elegant and uniform solutions to the semantic paradoxes while preserving classical logic. However, they interpret harmless generalizations (such as “everything is self-identical”) in less than absolutely comprehensive domains, thus systematically misconstruing them. In this article, I show that contextualism is broadly compatible with absolute generality. More specifically, I develop a bipartite contextualist semantics, or “bicontextualism,” on which sentences are split in two groups: the unproblematic sentences, which are compatible with absolute generality, and the problematic ones, which are given a relativist semantics. I then argue that bicontextualism retains the advantages of (orthodox) contextualism and does not give rise to new revenge paradoxes.

Partial combinatory algebras (pcas) are algebraic structures that serve as generalized models of computation. In this article, we study embeddings of pcas. In particular, we systematize the embeddings between relativizations of Kleene’s models, of van Oosten’s sequential computation model, and of Scott’s graph model, showing that an embedding between two relativized models exists if and only if there exists a particular reduction between the oracles. We obtain a similar result for the lambda calculus, showing in particular that it cannot be embedded in Kleene’s first model.