This volume contains the accounts of papers delivered at the Nato Advanced Study Institute on Finite and Infinite Combinatorics in Sets and Logic held at the Banff Centre, Alberta, Canada from April 21 to May 4, 1991. As the title suggests the meeting brought together workers interested in the interplay between finite and infinite combinatorics, set theory, graph theory and logic. It used to be that infinite set theory, finite combinatorics and logic could be viewed as quite separate and independent subjects. But more and more those disciplines grow together and become interdependent of each other with ever more problems and results appearing which concern all of those disciplines. I appreciate the financial support which was provided by the N. A. T. O. Advanced Study Institute programme, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Department of Mathematics and Statistics of the University of Calgary. 11l'te meeting on Finite and Infinite Combinatorics in Sets and Logic followed two other meetings on discrete mathematics held in Banff, the Symposium on Ordered Sets in 1981 and the Symposium on Graphs and Order in 1984. The growing inter-relation between the different areas in discrete mathematics is maybe best illustrated by the fact that many of the participants who were present at the previous meetings also attended this meeting on Finite and Infinite Combinatorics in Sets and Logic.

This volume contains the accounts of papers delivered at the Nato Advanced Study Institute on Finite and Infinite Combinatorics in Sets and Logic held at the Banff Centre, Alberta, Canada from April 21 to May 4, 1991. As the title suggests the meeting brought together workers interested in the interplay between finite and infinite combinatorics, set theory, graph theory and logic. It used to be that infinite set theory, finite combinatorics and logic could be viewed as quite separate and independent subjects. But more and more those disciplines grow together and become interdependent of each other with ever more problems and results appearing which concern all of those disciplines. I appreciate the financial support which was provided by the N. A. T. O. Advanced Study Institute programme, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Department of Mathematics and Statistics of the University of Calgary. 11l'te meeting on Finite and Infinite Combinatorics in Sets and Logic followed two other meetings on discrete mathematics held in Banff, the Symposium on Ordered Sets in 1981 and the Symposium on Graphs and Order in 1984. The growing inter-relation between the different areas in discrete mathematics is maybe best illustrated by the fact that many of the participants who were present at the previous meetings also attended this meeting on Finite and Infinite Combinatorics in Sets and Logic.

What is the "archetypal" image that comes to mind when one thinks of an infinite graph? What with a finite graph - when it is thought of as opposed to an infinite one? What structural elements are typical for either - by their presence or absence - yet provide a common ground for both? In planning the workshop on "Cycles and Rays" it had been intended from the outset to bring infinite graphs to the fore as much as possible. There never had been a graph theoretical meeting in which infinite graphs were more than "also rans", let alone one in which they were a central theme. In part, this is a matter of fashion, inasmuch as they are perceived as not readily lending themselves to applications, in part it is a matter of psychology stemming from the insecurity that many graph theorists feel in the face of set theory - on which infinite graph theory relies to a considerable extent. The result is that by and large, infinite graph theorists know what is happening in finite graphs but not conversely. Lack of knowledge about infinite graph theory can also be found in authoritative l sources. For example, a recent edition (1987) of a major mathematical encyclopaedia proposes to ". . . restrict [itself] to finite graphs, since only they give a typical theory". If anything, the reverse is true, and needless to say, the graph theoretical world knows better. One may wonder, however, by how much.