DOCSLIB.ORG

The Bristol Model (5/5)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Bristol Model (5/5) The Bristol model (5/5) Asaf Karagila University of East Anglia 22 November 2019 RIMS Set Theory Workshop 2019 Set Theory and Infinity Asaf Karagila (UEA) The Bristol model (5/5) 22 November 2019 1 / 23 Review Bird’s eye view of Bristol We started in L by choosing a Bristol sequence, that is a sequence of permutable families and permutable scales, and we constructed one step at a time models, Mα, such that: 1 M0 = L. Mα Mα+1 2 Mα+1 is a symmetric extension of Mα, and Vω+α = Vω+α . 3 For limit α, Mα is the finite support limit of the iteration, and Mα S Mβ Vω+α = β<α Vω+β. By choosing our Mα-generic filters correctly, we ensured that Mα ⊆ L[%0], where %0 was an L-generic Cohen real. We then defined M, the Bristol model, S S Mα as α∈Ord Mα = α∈Ord Vω+α. Asaf Karagila (UEA) The Bristol model (5/5) 22 November 2019 2 / 23 Properties of the Bristol model Small Violations of Choice Definition (Blass) We say that V |= SVC(X) if for every A there is an ordinal η and a surjection f : X × η → A. We write SVC to mean ∃X SVC(X). Theorem If M = V (x) where V |= ZFC, then M |= SVC. Theorem If M is a symmetric extension of V |= ZFC, Then M |= SVC. The following are equivalent: 1 SVC. 2 1 ∃X such that X<ω AC. 3 ∃P such that 1 P AC. 4 V is a symmetric extension of a model of ZFC (Usuba). Asaf Karagila (UEA) The Bristol model (5/5) 22 November 2019 3 / 23 Properties of the Bristol model Kinna–Wagner Principles Definition We say that A is an α-set of ordinals (or just α-set) if there is an ordinal η such that A ⊆ Pα(η). Definition The axiom KWPα states that every set is equipotent to an α-set. KWP is a shorthand for ∃α KWPα. So AC is KWP0, and KWP1 implies all sets can be linearly ordered, but KWP2 is already pretty loose and it is compatible with some pretty terrible counterexamples to choice. Proposition If M |= SVC, then M |= KWP. Asaf Karagila (UEA) The Bristol model (5/5) 22 November 2019 4 / 23 Properties of the Bristol model Kinna–Wagner Principles Theorem (Generalized Balcar–Vopěnka–Monro Theorem) Suppose that M and N are two models with the same α-sets of ordinals. If M |= KWPα, then M = N. Proof. Note that every relation on an α-set can be coded as an α-set, so if x ∈ M, then we can code htcl({x}), ∈i as an α-set, and therefore it is in N. Now apply the Mostowski collapse lemma in N to obtain that x ∈ N. In the other direction, let x ∈ N be such that x ⊆ M. And let η ∈ M be such M M that x ⊆ Vη . Let E be an α-set in M and f : E → Vη a bijection, then 0 0 E, f ∈ N, and therefore there is some E ⊆ E such that f E is a bijection with x. But E0 ∈ M, since it is an α-set. So x ∈ M as well. Now by induction M N on η we get Vη = Vη for all η, so M = N. Asaf Karagila (UEA) The Bristol model (5/5) 22 November 2019 5 / 23 Properties of the Bristol model Bristol is not small Theorem Let M be a Bristol model, then M |= ∀x(V 6= L(x)). Proof. M If x ∈ M, then x ∈ Vω+α. Therefore x ∈ Mα. Therefore L(x) ⊆ Mα. Since Mα ( Mα+1 ⊆ M, M 6= L(x). Proof. If M = L(x), then M |= SVC, then M |= KWP. It is therefore enough to show M |= ¬KWP. It is therefore enough to prove show any α-set in M, is already in Mα+1. Then by the GBVM theorem, M |= ¬KWPα for all α. ˙ IS ˙ Prove by induction on α. Suppose that A ∈ IS, and p A is an α-set. By the induction hypothesis we may assume that every a˙ appearing in A˙ is in ISα. ~ ˙ IS ˙ If H is a sequence of groups witnessing that A ∈ IS, and q a˙ ∈ A, where a˙ ∈ ISα, then we can find appropriate automorphisms in H~ which allow us to ˙ restrict q to q α + 1. So A is essentially in ISα+1. So A ∈ Mα+1. Asaf Karagila (UEA) The Bristol model (5/5) 22 November 2019 6 / 23 Improvements and limitations Better grounds We assumed our ground model was L. Indeed, this was necessary for obtaining M 6= L(x). For obvious reasons. But do we really need this assumption to construct such a model? Remember the question from the very beginning of this week: Question Suppose that G is a (set) generic filter over V . What kind of models lie between V and V [G]? This question is about arbitrary models. And by now you might think, did we even require V to satisfy ZFC or just ZF? Asaf Karagila (UEA) The Bristol model (5/5) 22 November 2019 7 / 23 Improvements and limitations Better grounds So how did L factor into the construction? We used it in three specific places: 1 ∗ λ + λ for singular cardinals (and 2 = λ for inaccessible cardinals) was used to obtain the permutable scale. 2 GCH in general, was used to ensure that successor steps, which were Add(κ+, 1)V , do not collapse cardinals. 3 Global Choice was used to choose a Bristol sequence to begin with. Of those three, Global Choice is indeed very disposable. If V satisfies the first two properties, let C be the class forcing adding a global choice function, F , without adding new sets. Consider the Bristol model over V [F ], then and promptly forget about F . Asaf Karagila (UEA) The Bristol model (5/5) 22 November 2019 8 / 23 Improvements and limitations Better grounds But what about the other two? We mentioned already that some combinatorial assumption on singular cardinals is in fact necessary. Whether or not it is ∗ exactly λ is kind of irrelevant: we need to have a certain combinatorial assumption. Finally, GCH. In principle, we can “space out” our coding so that even if cardinals are collapsed we can still continue. And that would be fine for constructing a model of ZF + ¬KWP. But if we want to ensure that the model is intermediate to a Cohen real, then we are not allowed to collapse cardinals. If we want it to be intermediate to some generic extension, then we are only allowed to collapse set-many cardinals. In particular that means that GCH needs to hold on a tail of cardinals. But in general GCH is a harmless axiom. Asaf Karagila (UEA) The Bristol model (5/5) 22 November 2019 9 / 23 Improvements and limitations Large cardinals ∗ If we only need to assume GCH and λ for singular cardinals, we can ask about Bristol models generated over many other type of models of ZFC. In particular inner models for “medium sized large cardinals” which satisfy the three assumptions. For example, if κ is a measurable cardinal, and D is a normal measure on κ, then L[D] is a model in which there is a measurable cardinal and the three assumptions hold. Suppose that we start with L[D], is κ a measurable in M? Since sets of ordinals are not added after the first step, it is immediately clear that any large cardinal property defined by sets of ordinals (e.g. Mahlo-ness) is preserved. This is also the case for a measurable cardinal. If κ is measurable and D is a measure, then it is a collection of sets of ordinals. It is a 1-set. Therefore we only need to know that there is a measure in M2 to know that there is one in M. But the first two steps of the iteration are small compared to a measurable. So any measure can be extended uniquely. Asaf Karagila (UEA) The Bristol model (5/5) 22 November 2019 10 / 23 Improvements and limitations Large cardinals The same argument shows that extenders, and all the other measure-based large cardinal properties are preserved. You could argue that measures are not the important part. It’s the embeddings that matter. Definition (Hayut–K.) We say that κ is a critical cardinal if it is the critical point of an elementary embedding j : Vκ+1 → X, where X is a transitive set. Easily, every critical cardinal is measurable. But the opposite is not necessarily true, if κ is critical then it is a strong limit cardinal. But it is consistent that ω1 is measurable. Question If κ is measurable in V , is it critical in M? We can also define weakly critical to mimic the embedding based definition of weakly compact cardinals. The same question applies here as well. While we do have a theorem for lifting elementary embedding to symmetric extensions, it is not suitable for the Bristol model. Asaf Karagila (UEA) The Bristol model (5/5) 22 November 2019 11 / 23 Improvements and limitations Large cardinal barriers While it seems plausible that critical cardinals are preserved, we know that supercompact cardinals are outright forbidden. In fact, a simple compactness argument shows that permutable scales fail to exist a long time before we even reach the first supercompact. Is there a way around this? In principle, the failure of square principles implies some compactness. And compactness is good at “coalescing small information”.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lecture Notes: Axiomatic Set Theory
    Lecture Notes: Axiomatic Set Theory Asaf Karagila Last Update: May 14, 2018 Contents 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Why do we need axioms?...............................3 1.2 Classes and sets.....................................4 1.3 The axioms of set theory................................5 2 Ordinals, recursion and induction7 2.1 Ordinals.........................................8 2.2 Transfinite induction and recursion..........................9 2.3 Transitive classes.................................... 10 3 The relative consistency of the Axiom of Foundation 12 4 Cardinals and their arithmetic 15 4.1 The definition of cardinals............................... 15 4.2 The Aleph numbers.................................. 17 4.3 Finiteness........................................ 18 5 Absoluteness and reflection 21 5.1 Absoluteness...................................... 21 5.2 Reflection........................................ 23 6 The Axiom of Choice 25 6.1 The Axiom of Choice.................................. 25 6.2 Weak version of the Axiom of Choice......................... 27 7 Sets of Ordinals 31 7.1 Cofinality........................................ 31 7.2 Some cardinal arithmetic............................... 32 7.3 Clubs and stationary sets............................... 33 7.4 The Club filter..................................... 35 8 Inner models of ZF 37 8.1 Inner models...................................... 37 8.2 Gödel’s constructible universe............................. 39 1 8.3 The properties of L ................................... 41 8.4 Ordinal definable sets................................. 42 9 Some combinatorics on ω1 43 9.1 Aronszajn trees..................................... 43 9.2 Diamond and Suslin trees............................... 44 10 Coda: Games and determinacy 46 2 Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Why do we need axioms? In modern mathematics, axioms are given to define an object. The axioms of a group define the notion of a group, the axioms of a Banach space define what it means for something to be a Banach space.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Origins of Bisimulation and Coinduction
    On the Origins of Bisimulation and Coinduction DAVIDE SANGIORGI University of Bologna, Italy The origins of bisimulation and bisimilarity are examined, in the three fields where they have been independently discovered: Computer Science, Philosophical Logic (precisely, Modal Logic), Set Theory. Bisimulation and bisimilarity are coinductive notions, and as such are intimately related to fixed points, in particular greatest fixed points. Therefore also the appearance of coinduction and fixed points is discussed, though in this case only within Computer Science. The paper ends with some historical remarks on the main fixed-point theorems (such as Knaster-Tarski) that underpin the fixed-point theory presented. Categories and Subject Descriptors: F.4.1 [Mathematical logic and formal languages]: Math- ematical Logic—Computational logic; Modal logic; Set theory; F.4.0 [Mathematical logic and formal languages]: General General Terms: Theory, Verification Additional Key Words and Phrases: Bisimulation, coinduction, fixed points, greatest fixed points, history Contents 1 Introduction 112 2 Background 114 2.1 Bisimulation................................ 114 2.2 Approximants of bisimilarity . 116 2.3 Coinduction................................116 3 Bisimulation in Modal Logic 119 3.1 Modallogics................................119 3.2 Fromhomomorphismtop-morphism . 120 3.3 JohanvanBenthem ........................... 122 3.4 Discussion.................................125 4 Bisimulation in Computer Science 125 4.1 Algebraictheoryofautomata . 125 4.2 RobinMilner ...............................128 Author’s address: Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Informazione Universita’ di Bologna Mura Anteo Zamboni, 7 40126 Bologna, ITALY. Permission to make digital/hard copy of all or part of this material without fee for personal or classroom use provided that the copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage, the ACM copyright/server notice, the title of the publication, and its date appear, and notice is given that copying is by permission of the ACM, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Forcing and the Universe of Sets: Must We Lose Insight?
    Forcing and the Universe of Sets: Must we lose insight? Neil Barton∗ 29 January 2018y Abstract A central area of current philosophical debate in the foundations of mathe- matics concerns whether or not there is a single, maximal, universe of set theory. Universists maintain that there is such a universe, while Multiversists argue that there are many universes, no one of which is ontologically privileged. Often forc- ing constructions that add subsets to models are cited as evidence in favour of the latter. This paper informs this debate by analysing ways the Universist might interpret this discourse that seems to necessitate the addition of subsets to V . We argue that despite the prima facie incoherence of such talk for the Universist, she nonetheless has reason to try and provide interpretation of this discourse. We analyse extant interpretations of such talk, and argue that while tradeoffs in nat- urality have to be made, they are not too severe. Introduction Recent discussions of the philosophy of set theory have often focussed on how many universes of sets there are. The following is a standard position: Universism. There is a unique, maximal, proper class sized universe containing all the sets (denoted by ‘V ’). Universism has often been thought of as the ‘default’ position on the ontology of sets.1 However, some have seen the existence of many different epistemic pos- sibilities for the nature of the set-theoretic universe, shown by the large diversity of model-theoretic constructions witnessing independence (we discuss two of these methods later) as indicative of the existence of a diversity of different set-theoretic universes.
    [Show full text]
  • Hamkins' Analogy Between Set Theory and Geometry
    TAKING THE ANALOGY BETWEEN SET THEORY AND GEOMETRY SERIOUSLY SHARON BERRY Abstract. Set theorist Joel Hamkins uses considerations about forcing argu- ments in set theory together with an analogy between set theory and geometry to motivate his influential set-theoretic multiverse program: a distinctive and powerfully truthvalue-antirealist form of plenetudinous Platonism. However, I'll argue that taking this analogy seriously cuts against Hamkins' proposal in one important way. I'll then note that putting a (hyperintensional) modal twist on Hamkins' Multiverse lets take Hamkins' analogy further and address his motivations equally well (or better) while maintaining naive realism. 1. Introduction Philosophers who want to deny that there are right answers to mathematical ques- tions (like the Continuum Hypothesis) which are undecidable via deduction from mathematical axioms we currently accept often draw on an analogy between set theory and geometry [6, 12]1. In this paper I will discuss one of the most important and interesting recent examples of this phenomenon: set theorist Joel Hamkins' use of (a specific form of) this analogy to motivate his set-theoretic multiverse program. Hamkins has developed an influential2 multiverse approach to set theory, on which there are many different hierarchies of sets, and there's no fact of the matter about whether certain set-theoretic statements are true, beyond the fact that they are true of some hierarchies of sets within the multiverse and false in others. On this view there is no `full' intended hierarchy of sets which contains all subsets of sets it contains- or even all subsets of the natural numbers.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Absoluteness of $\Aleph 1 $-Freeness
    ON THE ABSOLUTENESS OF ℵ1-FREENESS DANIEL HERDEN, ALEXANDRA V. PASI Abstract. ℵ1-free groups, abelian groups for which every countable subgroup is free, exhibit a number of interesting algebraic and set-theoretic properties. In this paper, we give a complete proof that the property of being ℵ1-free is absolute; that is, if an abelian group G is ℵ1-free in some transitive model M of ZFC, then it is ℵ1-free in any transitive model of ZFC containing G. The absoluteness of ℵ1-freeness has the following remarkable consequence: an abelian group G is ℵ1-free in some transitive model of ZFC if and only if it is (countable and) free in some model extension. This set-theoretic characteri- zation will be the starting point for further exploring the relationship between the set-theoretic and algebraic properties of ℵ1-free groups. In particular, this paper will demonstrate how proofs may be dramatically simplified using model extensions for ℵ1-free groups. 1. Introduction ℵ1-free groups, abelian groups whose countable subgroups are free, are the sub- ject of significant study in abelian group theory. The Baer-Specker group, the direct product of countably many copies of Z, provides a simple example of an ℵ1-free group (which is not free), [1, 14]. The class of ℵ1-free groups exhibits a high degree of algebraic complexity, as evidenced by the test of ring-realization: any ring with free additive structure can be realized as the endomorphism ring of some ℵ1-free group [4, 5]. ℵ1-free groups also play an important role in the Whitehead Problem, as ev- ery Whitehead group can be shown to be ℵ1-free [15].
    [Show full text]
  • On Quine's Set Theory
    On Quine’s Set theory Roland Hinnion’s Ph.D. thesis translated by Thomas Forster October 23, 2009 2 UNIVERSITE LIBRE DE BRUXELLES FACULTE DES SCIENCES SUR LA THEORIE DES ENSEMBLES DE QUINE THESE PRESENTEE EN VUE DE L’OBTENTION DU GRADE DE DOCTEUR EN SCIENCES (GRADE LEGAL) Ann´ee acad´emique 1974-5 Roland HINNION 3 Translator’s Preface Roland Hinnion was the first of Boffa’s H´en´efisteproteg´es to complete. Other members of the S´eminaire NF that worked under Boffa’s guidance were Marcel Crabb´e,Andr´eP´etry and Thomas Forster, all of whom went on to complete Ph.D.s on NF. This work of Hinnion’s has languished unregarded for a long time. Indeed I don’t think it has ever been read by anyone other than members of the Seminaire NF and the handful of people (such as Randall Holmes) to whom copies were given by those members. In it Hinnion explains how to use relational types of well-founded extensional relations to obtain models for theories of well-founded sets: to the best of my knowledge this important idea originates with him. Variants of it appear throughout the literature on set theory with antifoundation axioms and I suspect that Hinnion’s work is not generally given its due. One reason for this is that its author no longer works on NF. Another reason is the gradual deterioration of language skills among English-speaking mathematicians: the proximate cause of my embarking on this translation was the desire of my student Zachiri McKenzie to familiarise himself with Hinnion’s ideas, and McKenzie has no French.
    [Show full text]
  • Math655 Lecture Notes: Part 1.0 Inaccessible Cardinals
    MATH655 LECTURE NOTES: PART 1.0 INACCESSIBLE CARDINALS KAMERYN J. WILLIAMS This part of the course is about large cardinals, those cardinal numbers which exceed ZFC in logical strength. They give a hierarchy of principles which can be used to measure the strength of principles which exceed the standard axioms. Why should we believe in the existence, or even just the consistency of large cardinals, if they go beyond ZFC? That is an excellent question, which we can only get back to after having spent some time studying large cardinals. For now, we will take it as a given that all of the principles we are studying are consistent. (With the exception of Reinhardt cardinals, which we will see contradict ZFC.) For the first section of Part 1 we will cover inaccessible cardinals, near the weakest of the large cardinals. 1. Inaccessible cardinals, a beginning Let us begin with a useful bit of notation. Definition 1. Let κ, λ be cardinals. Then κ<λ = sup κµ: µ<λ Definition 2 (Hausdorff). An uncountable cardinal κ is inaccessible if it is a regular strong limit. That is, cof κ = κ and 2<κ = κ. Proposition 3. Suppose κ is inaccessible. Then for x ⊆ Vκ we have x 2 Vκ iff jxj < κ. Proof. ()) It is enough to show that jVαj < κ for α < κ. This can be proven by induction on α, using that 2<κ = κ. (() Let x ⊆ Vκ have jxj < κ. Because κ is regular, there is α < κ so that rank y < α for all y 2 x.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Origins of Bisimulation and Coinduction
    On the Origins of Bisimulation and Coinduction DAVIDE SANGIORGI University of Bologna, Italy The origins of bisimulation and bisimilarity are examined, in the three fields where they have been independently discovered: Computer Science, Philosophical Logic (precisely, Modal Logic), Set Theory. Bisimulation and bisimilarity are coinductive notions, and as such are intimately related to fixed points, in particular greatest fixed points. Therefore also the appearance of coinduction and fixed points is discussed, though in this case only within Computer Science. The paper ends with some historical remarks on the main fixed-point theorems (such as Knaster-Tarski) that underpin the fixed-point theory presented. Categories and Subject Descriptors: F.4.1 [Mathematical logic and formal languages]: Math- ematical Logic—Computational logic; Modal logic; Set theory; F.4.0 [Mathematical logic and formal languages]: General General Terms: Theory, Verification Additional Key Words and Phrases: Bisimulation, coinduction, fixed points, greatest fixed points, history Contents 1 Introduction 112 2 Background 114 2.1Bisimulation................................114 2.2Approximantsofbisimilarity......................116 2.3 Coinduction . 116 3 Bisimulation in Modal Logic 119 3.1Modallogics................................119 3.2Fromhomomorphismtop-morphism..................120 3.3JohanvanBenthem...........................122 3.4Discussion.................................125 4 Bisimulation in Computer Science 125 4.1Algebraictheoryofautomata......................125 4.2RobinMilner...............................128 Author’s address: Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Informazione Universita’ di Bologna Mura Anteo Zamboni, 7 40126 Bologna, ITALY. Permission to make digital/hard copy of all or part of this material without fee for personal or classroom use provided that the copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage, the ACM copyright/server notice, the title of the publication, and its date appear, and notice is given that copying is by permission of the ACM, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Set Theory and Logic at Part II in 2016/7
    Set Theory and Logic at Part II in 2016/7 Thomas Forster May 17, 2017 Contents 1 Lecture 1: First of Five Lectures on Ordinals and Cardinals 5 1.1 Ordinals . .5 1.2 Wellfoundedness . .6 2 Lecture 2 9 3 Lecture 3 11 4 Lecture 4 13 5 Lecture 5: First of 5 lectures on Posets 14 6 Lecture 6: Fixed-point theorems 16 6.1 The Axiom of Choice . 17 7 Lecture 7 18 7.0.1 Weak versions: countable choice, and a classic application thereof; DC . 19 7.0.2 Applications of Zorn's Lemma . 19 8 Lecture 8: Boolean Algebras Continued 19 8.1 Reduced products . 21 9 Lecture 9: First of Five Lectures on Propositional Logic 21 9.1 if-then . 22 10 Lecture 10 26 11 Lecture 11 29 11.1 Boolean algebras detect propositional tautologies . 30 12 Lecture 12 32 12.1 Applications of Propositional Compactness . 32 12.1.1 The Interpolation Lemma . 33 1 13 Lecture 13 34 13.1 CNF and DNF . 34 13.1.1 Resolution Theorem Proving . 35 13.2 Predicate Logic begun . 36 13.3 The Syntax of First-order Logic . 36 13.3.1 Constants and variables ................. 36 13.3.2 Predicate letters ...................... 36 13.3.3 Quantifiers ......................... 37 13.3.4 Function letters ...................... 37 14 Lecture 14 38 14.1 Axioms . 39 14.2 Semantics . 40 14.3 Completeness theorem for LPC: the set of valid sentences is semide- cidable . 43 14.3.1 2-terms . 43 15 Lecture 15 43 15.1 Decidability . 46 16 Lecture 16 46 16.1 The Skolem-L¨owenheim Theorems .
    [Show full text]
  • Measurable Cardinals and Scott's Theorem
    Measurable Cardinals and Scott’s Theorem Chris Mierzewski Mathematical Logic Seminar 1/29 Measurable Cardinals and Scott’s Theorem From measures to cardinals Measurable Cardinals Lebesgue’s Measure Problem Is there a measure : P(R) R such that I is not the constant zero function ! I is -additive I For any sets X, Y R, if X = fy + r j y 2 Y g for some fixed r 2 R, then (X) = (Y )? Vitali (1905): No such thing. 2/29 Measurable Cardinals and Scott’s Theorem From measures to cardinals Measurable Cardinals Banach: Is there any set S admitting a measure : P(S) [0, 1] such that I (S) = 1 ! I is -additive I (fsg) = 0 for all s 2 S? For which cardinals is there a non-trivial finite measure defined over (i.e. on P())? 3/29 Measurable Cardinals and Scott’s Theorem From measures to cardinals Measurable Cardinals Ulam: If is the smallest cardinal with a non- trivial finite measure over , then 2@0 or admits a non-trivial measure that takes only values in f0, 1g. I If is the smallest cardinal with a non-trivial finite measure , then is -additive. I So we can ask: does there exist any uncountable with a f0, 1g-valued measure over it? 4/29 Measurable Cardinals and Scott’s Theorem From measures to cardinals Measurable cardinals Relation between -additive measures and non-principal, -complete ultrafilters over : U = X j (X) = 1 Definition (Measurable Cardinal) An uncountable cardinal is mesurable if there exists a non-principal, -complete ultrafilter over . 5/29 Measurable Cardinals and Scott’s Theorem From measures to cardinals Some facts about measurable cardinals Suppose is measurable, and U a non-principal, -complete ultrafilter over .
    [Show full text]
  • Fragments of Frege's Grundgesetze and Gödel's Constructible Universe Arxiv:1407.3861V3
    Fragments of Frege's Grundgesetze and G¨odel's Constructible Universe Sean Walsh June 9, 2015 Abstract Frege's Grundgesetze was one of the 19th century forerunners to contemporary set theory which was plagued by the Russell paradox. In recent years, it has been shown that subsystems of the Grundgesetze formed by restricting the comprehension schema are consistent. One aim of this paper is to ascertain how much set theory can be developed within these consistent fragments of the Grundgesetze, and our main theorem (Theorem 2.9) shows that there is a model of a fragment of the Grundgesetze which defines a model of all the axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the exception of the power set axiom. The proof of this result appeals to G¨odel'sconstructible universe of sets and to Kripke and Platek's idea of the projectum, as well as to a weak version of uniformization (which does not involve knowledge of Jensen's fine structure theory). The axioms of the Grundgesetze are examples of abstraction principles, and the other primary aim of this paper is to articulate a sufficient condition for the consistency of abstraction principles with limited amounts of comprehension (Theorem 3.5). As an application, we resolve an analogue of the joint consistency problem in the predicative setting. 1 Introduction There has been a recent renewed interest in the technical facets of Frege's Grundgesetze ([6], [8]) paralleling the long-standing interest in Frege's philosophy of mathematics and logic arXiv:1407.3861v3 [math.LO] 7 Jun 2015 ([11], [2]). This interest has been engendered by the consistency proofs, due to Parsons [31], Heck [21], and Ferreira-Wehmeier [14], of this system with limited amounts of comprehension.
    [Show full text]
  • The Continuum Hypothesis and Set-Theoretic Forcing
    The Continuum Hypothesis and Set-Theoretic Forcing Tristan Knight University of Connecticut May 21, 2019 1 Introduction In this paper, I discuss the statement and history of the continuum hypothesis, its im- portance in mathematics, and the impact of its solution. I then prove an overview of the proof of the independence of the continuum hypothesis from the axioms of ZFC. I first build a model that satisfies the generalized continuum hypothesis, then build a model that does not. The proofs assume familiarity with some model theory and set theory; the proofs of those theorems either too basic to spend time addressing or too complex to meaningfully contribute to understanding of the topic are omitted. The omitted proofs can be found in most set-theory books that discuss forcing, and a few helpful texts are included in the references.[7][8] 2 History of the continuum hypothesis The continuum hypothesis originates with the mathematician Georg Cantor (1845-1918), the founder of modern set theory. Cantor's work was responsible for bringing the concept of infinity into mainstream mathematical discourse, and most importantly the concept of cardinality and varying degrees of infinity. Cantor famously discovered that the set of real numbers (the continuum) has a strictly greater cardinality than the set of natural numbers. Cantor first posits the continuum hypothesis in his 1877 paper \Ein Beitrag zur Mannigfaltigkeitslehre"[1]. In its more modern restatement, it reads: \There is no set with cardinality strictly between that of the natural numbers and the real numbers." Cantor spent much of his life attempting to prove this hypothesis true, to no avail.
    [Show full text]