We’ll set this up in the most general way and later see how Hellman’s account in terms of and
applies.
Letting be a language with
a
-ary relation symbol not appearing in the relation-symbol set of
,
is the language that extends
and which includes
.
is a theory in
.
We say that is explicitly definable if, and only if, there is an
formula
with free variables
such that
. And we say that
is implicitly definable if, and only if, for any
- structure
and any
(i.e., the universe of the structure), if both
, and
are models of
, then
.
Beth’s definability theorem says that if a language with
a
-ary relation symbol not appearing in the relation-symbol set of
,
is the language that extends
and which includes
and
is a theory in
, then
is explicitly definable if, and only if,
is implicitly definable.
To prove that explicit definability implies implicit definability is straightforward. Assume . Show for
, if
. Since we’re assuming
,
is definable over
(i.e., for
-ary
,
, for
with
free variables. Let
. So
; but
and
models
. So
.
To prove that implicit definability implies explicit definability takes just a bit longer, but it’s simple; using the Compactness Theorem and the Craig Interpolation Theorem.
Next time I’ll turn to how Hellman deals with the problems posed by this theorem.