DOCSLIB.ORG

Arxiv:2012.06072V1 [Math.LO] 11 Dec 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arxiv:2012.06072V1 [Math.LO] 11 Dec 2020 The Genealogy of ∨ Landon D. C. Elkind∗ Richard Zach† December 14, 2020 Abstract The use of the symbol ∨ for disjunction in formal logic is ubiquitous. Where did it come from? Some sources say it was introduced by Peano; oth- ers suggest it that it originates as an abbreviation of the Latin word for “or”, vel. The origin of the symbol can be traced to Russell’s first investigations into formal logic. Because of Principia, Russell’s notation was influential in mathematical logic (through the work of the Hilbert school) as well as philos- ophy (the logical empiricists in the 1920s and 1930s, especially Carnap and early Quine). No topic which we have discussed approaches closer to the problem of a uniform and universal language in mathematics than does the topic of symbolic logic. The problem of efficient and uniform notations is perhaps the most serious one facing the mathematical public. No group of workers has been more active in the endeavor to find a solution of that problem than those who have busied themselves with symbolic logic ... Each proposed a list of symbols, with the hope, no doubt, that mathematicians in general would adopt them. That expectation has not been realized. Cajori (1929, p. 314) arXiv:2012.06072v1 [math.LO] 11 Dec 2020 1 The mystery of ∨ The symbol ‘∨’ for inclusive disjunction is almost universally accepted. This con- trasts with every other logical operator: negation is symbolized by ‘¬’ and ‘∼,’ ∗University of Alberta, [email protected] †University of Calgary, [email protected] 1 conjunction is symbolized by ‘á,’ ‘&,’ and ‘⋅,’ and (material) implication is sym- bolized by ‘→’ or ‘Ð’. The story in textbooks usually goes that this ∨ is really a version of the letter ‘v’, the initial letter of vel, the latin word for ‘or’. As we will see, this short story oversimplifies the history of ‘∨’ for inclusive disjunction, and its connection with vel is, so far as the textual evidence goes, tenuous at best. Aside from the myth that ‘∨’ abbreviates vel, even histories of logic have mis- placed the introduction of ‘∨’ for inclusive disjuction. For example, the earliest use of ‘∨’ for disjunction given in the encyclopedic list given by Cajori (1929, p. 307) is in Whitehead and Russell’s 1910 Principia. As we show below, this is not even Russell’s earliest published use by Russell, let alone the first published use. To take another example, the Kneales say that “the system [which includes ∨] is that intro- duced by Peano in his Notations de logique mathematique of 1894, developed in the successive editions of his Formulaire de mathematiques, and then perfected by Whitehead and Russell in their Principia Mathematica of 1910” (W. Kneale and M. Kneale, 1962, p. 520). In fact, we will see here that Peano used ∪ for inclusive disjunction and did not use ‘∨’ for it at all. This raises the question of why ‘∨’ was introduced for inclusive disjunction at all. One naturally suspects that the symbol for disjunction is one of the improve- ments introduced by Whitehead and Russell in Principia Mathematica. But is that true? And if so, when did this happen? And why? In particular, was it because vel starts with ‘v’? Here we offer a novel answer to these questions that is supported by the historical and textual record. Three preliminary remarks are warranted. First, below we will use ‘∨’ when speaking of the modern symbol standardly used for disjunction (although we ac- knowledge it has other uses). However, we will also slip into using the notation of the author that we are presently discussing, particularly when discussing their notion without necessarily identifying it with ours. Second, what counts as “our” notion of disjunction when looking at past texts is controversial (Jennings, 1994). What we mean by “our” notion of disjunction is specifically that the symbol ‘∨’ for disjunction connects truth-apt pieces of language (formulas, propositions, sen- tences) and not truth-inapt objects (sets, classes, numbers, concepts, etc.). So what we are searching for in past authors is the symbol as it is widely used today among mathematicians and philosophers. We readily acknowledge that alternative mean- ings of “our” notion of disjunction or “our” symbol ‘∨’ may produce correlatedly different answers to the questions that we investigate here. Third, “disjunction” below will mean inclusive disjunction unless otherwise stated. 2 2 From Leibniz to the 1800s Curiously, the genealogy of ‘∨’ for disjunction is not so straightforward as some histories of logic might suggest. Leibniz deserves some credit for the first use of ‘v’ as a symbol for ‘or’ in some sense.1 But Leibniz’s use of ‘v’ is not for proposi- tional disjunction (which is what it is widely used for today), and occurs in only one manuscript, his 1695 “Matheseos universalis pars prior: De terminis incomplexis”: Also, in the way that + is a conjunctive mark or sign of aggregation cor- responding to the word and—as in a+b, that is, a and b together—so a disjunctive mark or sign of alternation is also given, which corresponds to the word or [vel], so a v“ b signifies a or b to me. It also has a use in calculus, for if we have xx + ab = a + bx, then x will be equal to a v“b, whether it signifies a or whether it signifies b. In this respect it will have an ambiguous value. For example, if xx + 6 = 5x, x can be 2, but x can also be 3. For if x is 2, then from xx+6 = 5x, we get 4+6 = 10; and if x is 3, then from xx = 6 = 5x, we get 9 + 6 = 15. However, many values of this unknown [variable] or of the present equation can- not be given roots, as will be clear in the appropriate place below. Hence, ambiguous signs also have a use, and this will be clear in the appropriate place below, ambiguity beingù the font of irrationality in x = 3 + 4 calculus;ù and so when I write , this canù be explicated by 3 + 4 or 3 + 2 or 5, just as when I write 3 * 4, it is explicated 3 * 2 1 x = 5 v“ 1 either by or ; thus, we get ù . For in order for us to remove the irrationality, let x * 3 = 4; therefore xx * 6x + 9 = 4, whether xx * 6x + 5 = 0 or xx + 5 = 6x, where it is clear that it would satisfy 5 as much as 1. For if x were given the value 5, we would get 25 + 5 = 30; if x is given the value 1, we get 1 + 5 = 6.2 1We make no claim here about Leibniz’s chronological precursors. We did, however, consult three medievalists who specialize in history of logic about antecedent uses of ∨ for inclusive disjunction, who did not recall any earlier uses. 2“Quemadmodum etiam + est nota conjunctiva seu cumulationis et respondet tÄ et, ut a + b id est a et b simul, ita datur quoque nota disjunctiva seu alternationis quae respondet tÄ vel, sic a v“ b mihi significat a vel b. Idque et in calculo usum habet, nam si sit xx + ab = a + bx, erit x = a v“ b seu x significabit vel a vel b habebitque adeo valorem ambiguum. Ex. causa si sit xx + 6 = 5x, potest x esse 2, sed tamen potest etiam x esse 3. Nam si x sit 2, tunc ex xx + 6 = 5x fiet 4 + 6 = 10; et si x sit 3, tunc ex xx + 6 = 5x lit 9 + 6 = 15. Plures autem incognitae hujus valores seu praesentis aequationis radices dari non possunt, ut suo loco patebit. Hinc usum quoque habent signa ambigua,ù et x = 3 + 4 suo loco patebit, ambiguitatem in calculoù esse fontem irrationalitatis;ù itaque cum scribo , tunc id potest explicari tam per 3 + 4 seu 3 + 2 seu 5, quam per 3 * 4 seu 3 * 2 seu 1, adeoque erit 3 Figure 1: Use of v“ in Leibniz, 1679 This occurrence of ‘v“’ is the first use of a ‘∨’-like symbol for ‘or’ (in some sense) that we know of. Now Leibniz may seem to use the symbol here as a sign for disjunction of (truth-apt) propositions. However, the surrounding context does not have any uses of ‘a’ or ‘b’ for propositions. Rather, Leibniz seems to be using ‘a’ and ‘b’ here as standing for terms, and using ‘a v“ b’ to indicate two alternatives, as in “either chocolate or vanilla” or “7 or 8.” That use of ‘v“’ for alternation between truth-inapt terms is consistent with the other two uses ‘a v“ b’ and ‘5 v“ 1’, where the symbol is flanked by (variables for) numbers and serves to produce an ambiguously referring term.3 These three uses, in this one manuscript, seem to be the only uses of the symbol ‘v“’ in the entirety of his Mathematische Schriften (Leibniz, 1863).4 We also found it nowhere else in Leibniz’s writings. So this manuscript may record the only uses of ‘v“’ for alternation of (truth-inapt) terms in Leibniz’s corpus. The manuscript ù x = 5v1“ . Nam ut tollamus irrationalitatem, sit x*3 = 4; ergo xx*6x+9 = 4 seu xx*6x+5 = 0 seu xx + 5 = 6x, ubi patet satisfacere tam 5 quam 4. Nam si x valeat 5, fiet 25 + 5 = 30; sin [sic] x valeat 4, fit 1 + 5 = 6.” Leibniz (1679, 9v & 9r) and Leibniz (1863, pp. 57–58), translation courtesy of Jack Zupko. Leibniz seems to be using the dative singular tÄ of the Greek article to indicate mention rather than use; Leibniz underlined the corresponding occurrences of ‘et’ and ‘vel’ in the first sentence.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Richard Dedekind English Version
    RICHARD DEDEKIND (October 6, 1831 – February 12, 1916) by HEINZ KLAUS STRICK, Germany The biography of JULIUS WILHELM RICHARD DEDEKIND begins and ends in Braunschweig (Brunswick): The fourth child of a professor of law at the Collegium Carolinum, he attended the Martino-Katherineum, a traditional gymnasium (secondary school) in the city. At the age of 16, the boy, who was also a highly gifted musician, transferred to the Collegium Carolinum, an educational institution that would pave the way for him to enter the university after high school. There he prepared for future studies in mathematics. In 1850, he went to the University at Göttingen, where he enthusiastically attended lectures on experimental physics by WILHELM WEBER, and where he met CARL FRIEDRICH GAUSS when he attended a lecture given by the great mathematician on the method of least squares. GAUSS was nearing the end of his life and at the time was involved primarily in activities related to astronomy. After only four semesters, DEDEKIND had completed a doctoral dissertation on the theory of Eulerian integrals. He was GAUSS’s last doctoral student. (drawings © Andreas Strick) He then worked on his habilitation thesis, in parallel with BERNHARD RIEMANN, who had also received his doctoral degree under GAUSS’s direction not long before. In 1854, after obtaining the venia legendi (official permission allowing those completing their habilitation to lecture), he gave lectures on probability theory and geometry. Since the beginning of his stay in Göttingen, DEDEKIND had observed that the mathematics faculty, who at the time were mostly preparing students to become secondary-school teachers, had lost contact with current developments in mathematics; this in contrast to the University of Berlin, at which PETER GUSTAV LEJEUNE DIRICHLET taught.
    [Show full text]
  • Pst-Plot — Plotting Functions in “Pure” L ATEX
    pst-plot — plotting functions in “pure” LATEX Commonly, one wants to simply plot a function as a part of a LATEX document. Using some postscript tricks, you can make a graph of an arbitrary function in one variable including implicitly defined functions. The commands described on this worksheet require that the following lines appear in your document header (before \begin{document}). \usepackage{pst-plot} \usepackage{pstricks} The full pstricks manual (including pst-plot documentation) is available at:1 http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at/institute/systems/documentation/TeX/tex/ A good page for showing the power of what you can do with pstricks is: http://www.pstricks.de/.2 Reverse Polish Notation (postfix notation) Reverse polish notation (RPN) is a modification of polish notation which was a creation of the logician Jan Lukasiewicz (advisor of Alfred Tarski). The advantage of these notations is that they do not require parentheses to control the order of operations in an expression. The advantage of this in a computer is that parsing a RPN expression is trivial, whereas parsing an expression in standard notation can take quite a bit of computation. At the most basic level, an expression such as 1 + 2 becomes 12+. For more complicated expressions, the concept of a stack must be introduced. The stack is just the list of all numbers which have not been used yet. When an operation takes place, the result of that operation is left on the stack. Thus, we could write the sum of all integers from 1 to 10 as either, 12+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+ or 12345678910+++++++++ In both cases the result 55 is left on the stack.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Abstract Algebraic Logic?
    What is Abstract Algebraic Logic? Umberto Rivieccio University of Genoa Department of Philosophy Via Balbi 4 - Genoa, Italy email [email protected] Abstract Our aim is to answer the question of the title, explaining which kind of problems form the nucleus of the branch of algebraic logic that has come to be known as Abstract Algebraic Logic. We give a concise account of the birth and evolution of the field, that led from the discovery of the connections between certain logical systems and certain algebraic structures to a general theory of algebraization of logics. We consider first the so-called algebraizable logics, which may be regarded as a paradigmatic case in Abstract Algebraic Logic; then we shift our attention to some wider classes of logics and to the more general framework in which they are studied. Finally, we review some other topics in Abstract Algebraic Logic that, though equally interesting and promising for future research, could not be treated here in detail. 1 Introduction Algebraic logic can be described in very general terms as the study of the relations between algebra and logic. One of the main reasons that motivate such a study is the possibility to treat logical problems with algebraic methods. This means that, in order to solve a logical problem, we may try to translate it into algebraic terms, find the solution using algebraic techniques, and then translate back the result into logic. This strategy proved to be fruitful, since algebra is an old and well{established field of mathematics, that offers powerful tools to treat problems that would possibly be much harder to solve using the logical machinery alone.
    [Show full text]
  • Application: Digital Logic Circuits
    SECTION 2.4 Application: Digital Logic Circuits Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. Application: Digital Logic Circuits Switches “in series” Switches “in parallel” Change closed and on are replaced by T, open and off are replaced by F? Application: Digital Logic Circuits • More complicated circuits correspond to more complicated logical expressions. • This correspondence has been used extensively in design and study of circuits. • Electrical engineers use language of logic when refer to values of signals produced by an electronic switch as being “true” or “false.” • Only that symbols 1 and 0 are used • symbols 0 and 1 are called bits, short for binary digits. • This terminology was introduced in 1946 by the statistician John Tukey. Black Boxes and Gates Black Boxes and Gates • Circuits: transform combinations of signal bits (1’s and 0’s) into other combinations of signal bits (1’s and 0’s). • Computer engineers and digital system designers treat basic circuits as black boxes. • Ignore inside of a black box (detailed implementation of circuit) • focused on the relation between the input and the output signals. • Operation of a black box is completely specified by constructing an input/output table that lists all its possible input signals together with their corresponding output signals. Black Boxes and Gates One possible correspondence of input to output signals is as follows: An Input/Output Table Black Boxes and Gates An efficient method for designing more complicated circuits is to build them by connecting less complicated black box circuits. Gates can be combined into circuits in a variety of ways. If the rules shown on the next page are obeyed, the result is a combinational circuit, one whose output at any time is determined entirely by its input at that time without regard to previous inputs.
    [Show full text]
  • Basic Concepts of Set Theory, Functions and Relations 1. Basic
    Ling 310, adapted from UMass Ling 409, Partee lecture notes March 1, 2006 p. 1 Basic Concepts of Set Theory, Functions and Relations 1. Basic Concepts of Set Theory........................................................................................................................1 1.1. Sets and elements ...................................................................................................................................1 1.2. Specification of sets ...............................................................................................................................2 1.3. Identity and cardinality ..........................................................................................................................3 1.4. Subsets ...................................................................................................................................................4 1.5. Power sets .............................................................................................................................................4 1.6. Operations on sets: union, intersection...................................................................................................4 1.7 More operations on sets: difference, complement...................................................................................5 1.8. Set-theoretic equalities ...........................................................................................................................5 Chapter 2. Relations and Functions ..................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Shalack V.I. Semiotic Foundations of Logic
    Semiotic foundations of logic Vladimir I. Shalack abstract. The article offers a look at the combinatorial logic as the logic of signs operating in the most general sense. For this it is proposed slightly reformulate it in terms of introducing and replacement of the definitions. Keywords: combinatory logic, semiotics, definition, logic founda- tions 1 Language selection Let’s imagine for a moment what would be like the classical logic, if we had not studied it in the language of negation, conjunction, dis- junction and implication, but in the language of the Sheffer stroke. I recall that it can be defined with help of negation and conjunction as follows A j B =Df :(A ^ B): In turn, all connectives can be defined with help of the Sheffer stroke in following manner :A =Df (A j A) A ^ B =Df (A j B) j (A j B) A _ B =Df (A j A) j (B j B) A ⊃ B =Df A j (B j B): Modus ponens rule takes the following form A; A j (B j B) . B 226 Vladimir I. Shalack We can go further and following the ideas of M. Sch¨onfinkel to define two-argument infix quantifier ‘jx’ x A j B =Df 8x(A j B): Now we can use it to define Sheffer stroke and quantifiers. x A j B =Df A j B where the variable x is not free in the formulas A and B; y x y 8xA =Df (A j A) j (A j A) where the variable y is not free in the formula A; x y x 9xA =Df (A j A) j (A j A) where the variable y is not free in the formula A.
    [Show full text]
  • Are Large Cardinal Axioms Restrictive?
    Are Large Cardinal Axioms Restrictive? Neil Barton∗ 24 June 2020y Abstract The independence phenomenon in set theory, while perva- sive, can be partially addressed through the use of large cardinal axioms. A commonly assumed idea is that large cardinal axioms are species of maximality principles. In this paper, I argue that whether or not large cardinal axioms count as maximality prin- ciples depends on prior commitments concerning the richness of the subset forming operation. In particular I argue that there is a conception of maximality through absoluteness, on which large cardinal axioms are restrictive. I argue, however, that large cardi- nals are still important axioms of set theory and can play many of their usual foundational roles. Introduction Large cardinal axioms are widely viewed as some of the best candi- dates for new axioms of set theory. They are (apparently) linearly ordered by consistency strength, have substantial mathematical con- sequences for questions independent from ZFC (such as consistency statements and Projective Determinacy1), and appear natural to the ∗Fachbereich Philosophie, University of Konstanz. E-mail: neil.barton@uni- konstanz.de. yI would like to thank David Aspero,´ David Fernandez-Bret´ on,´ Monroe Eskew, Sy-David Friedman, Victoria Gitman, Luca Incurvati, Michael Potter, Chris Scam- bler, Giorgio Venturi, Matteo Viale, Kameryn Williams and audiences in Cambridge, New York, Konstanz, and Sao˜ Paulo for helpful discussion. Two anonymous ref- erees also provided helpful comments, and I am grateful for their input. I am also very grateful for the generous support of the FWF (Austrian Science Fund) through Project P 28420 (The Hyperuniverse Programme) and the VolkswagenStiftung through the project Forcing: Conceptual Change in the Foundations of Mathematics.
    [Show full text]
  • THE 1910 PRINCIPIA's THEORY of FUNCTIONS and CLASSES and the THEORY of DESCRIPTIONS*
    EUJAP VOL. 3 No. 2 2007 ORIGinal SCienTifiC papeR UDK: 165 THE 1910 PRINCIPIA’S THEORY OF FUNCTIONS AND CLASSES AND THE THEORY OF DESCRIPTIONS* WILLIAM DEMOPOULOS** The University of Western Ontario ABSTRACT 1. Introduction It is generally acknowledged that the 1910 Prin- The 19101 Principia’s theory of proposi- cipia does not deny the existence of classes, but tional functions and classes is officially claims only that the theory it advances can be developed so that any apparent commitment to a “no-classes theory of classes,” a theory them is eliminable by the method of contextual according to which classes are eliminable. analysis. The application of contextual analysis But it is clear from Principia’s solution to ontological questions is widely viewed as the to the class paradoxes that although the central philosophical innovation of Russell’s theory of descriptions. Principia’s “no-classes theory it advances holds that classes are theory of classes” is a striking example of such eliminable, it does not deny their exis- an application. The present paper develops a re- tence. Whitehead and Russell argue from construction of Principia’s theory of functions the supposition that classes involve or and classes that is based on Russell’s epistemo- logical applications of the method of contextual presuppose propositional functions to the analysis. Such a reconstruction is not eliminativ- conclusion that the paradoxical classes ist—indeed, it explicitly assumes the existence of are excluded by the nature of such func- classes—and possesses certain advantages over tions. This supposition rests on the repre- the no–classes theory advocated by Whitehead and Russell.
    [Show full text]
  • Explanations
    © Copyright, Princeton University Press. No part of this book may be distributed, posted, or reproduced in any form by digital or mechanical means without prior written permission of the publisher. CHAPTER 1 Explanations 1.1 SALLIES Language is an instrument of Logic, but not an indispensable instrument. Boole 1847a, 118 We know that mathematicians care no more for logic than logicians for mathematics. The two eyes of exact science are mathematics and logic; the mathematical sect puts out the logical eye, the logical sect puts out the mathematical eye; each believing that it sees better with one eye than with two. De Morgan 1868a,71 That which is provable, ought not to be believed in science without proof. Dedekind 1888a, preface If I compare arithmetic with a tree that unfolds upwards in a multitude of techniques and theorems whilst the root drives into the depthswx . Frege 1893a, xiii Arithmetic must be discovered in just the same sense in which Columbus discovered the West Indies, and we no more create numbers than he created the Indians. Russell 1903a, 451 1.2 SCOPE AND LIMITS OF THE BOOK 1.2.1 An outline history. The story told here from §3 onwards is re- garded as well known. It begins with the emergence of set theory in the 1870s under the inspiration of Georg Cantor, and the contemporary development of mathematical logic by Gottlob Frege andŽ. especially Giuseppe Peano. A cumulation of these and some related movements was achieved in the 1900s with the philosophy of mathematics proposed by Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell.
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of Mathematical Logic from Russell to Tarski: 1900–1935
    The Development of Mathematical Logic from Russell to Tarski: 1900–1935 Paolo Mancosu Richard Zach Calixto Badesa The Development of Mathematical Logic from Russell to Tarski: 1900–1935 Paolo Mancosu (University of California, Berkeley) Richard Zach (University of Calgary) Calixto Badesa (Universitat de Barcelona) Final Draft—May 2004 To appear in: Leila Haaparanta, ed., The Development of Modern Logic. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004 Contents Contents i Introduction 1 1 Itinerary I: Metatheoretical Properties of Axiomatic Systems 3 1.1 Introduction . 3 1.2 Peano’s school on the logical structure of theories . 4 1.3 Hilbert on axiomatization . 8 1.4 Completeness and categoricity in the work of Veblen and Huntington . 10 1.5 Truth in a structure . 12 2 Itinerary II: Bertrand Russell’s Mathematical Logic 15 2.1 From the Paris congress to the Principles of Mathematics 1900–1903 . 15 2.2 Russell and Poincar´e on predicativity . 19 2.3 On Denoting . 21 2.4 Russell’s ramified type theory . 22 2.5 The logic of Principia ......................... 25 2.6 Further developments . 26 3 Itinerary III: Zermelo’s Axiomatization of Set Theory and Re- lated Foundational Issues 29 3.1 The debate on the axiom of choice . 29 3.2 Zermelo’s axiomatization of set theory . 32 3.3 The discussion on the notion of “definit” . 35 3.4 Metatheoretical studies of Zermelo’s axiomatization . 38 4 Itinerary IV: The Theory of Relatives and Lowenheim’s¨ Theorem 41 4.1 Theory of relatives and model theory . 41 4.2 The logic of relatives .
    [Show full text]
  • Equivalents to the Axiom of Choice and Their Uses A
    EQUIVALENTS TO THE AXIOM OF CHOICE AND THEIR USES A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Mathematics California State University, Los Angeles In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Mathematics By James Szufu Yang c 2015 James Szufu Yang ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii The thesis of James Szufu Yang is approved. Mike Krebs, Ph.D. Kristin Webster, Ph.D. Michael Hoffman, Ph.D., Committee Chair Grant Fraser, Ph.D., Department Chair California State University, Los Angeles June 2015 iii ABSTRACT Equivalents to the Axiom of Choice and Their Uses By James Szufu Yang In set theory, the Axiom of Choice (AC) was formulated in 1904 by Ernst Zermelo. It is an addition to the older Zermelo-Fraenkel (ZF) set theory. We call it Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the Axiom of Choice and abbreviate it as ZFC. This paper starts with an introduction to the foundations of ZFC set the- ory, which includes the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms, partially ordered sets (posets), the Cartesian product, the Axiom of Choice, and their related proofs. It then intro- duces several equivalent forms of the Axiom of Choice and proves that they are all equivalent. In the end, equivalents to the Axiom of Choice are used to prove a few fundamental theorems in set theory, linear analysis, and abstract algebra. This paper is concluded by a brief review of the work in it, followed by a few points of interest for further study in mathematics and/or set theory. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Between the two department requirements to complete a master's degree in mathematics − the comprehensive exams and a thesis, I really wanted to experience doing a research and writing a serious academic paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Forcing in Proof Theory∗
    Forcing in proof theory¤ Jeremy Avigad November 3, 2004 Abstract Paul Cohen's method of forcing, together with Saul Kripke's related semantics for modal and intuitionistic logic, has had profound e®ects on a number of branches of mathematical logic, from set theory and model theory to constructive and categorical logic. Here, I argue that forcing also has a place in traditional Hilbert-style proof theory, where the goal is to formalize portions of ordinary mathematics in restricted axiomatic theories, and study those theories in constructive or syntactic terms. I will discuss the aspects of forcing that are useful in this respect, and some sample applications. The latter include ways of obtaining conservation re- sults for classical and intuitionistic theories, interpreting classical theories in constructive ones, and constructivizing model-theoretic arguments. 1 Introduction In 1963, Paul Cohen introduced the method of forcing to prove the indepen- dence of both the axiom of choice and the continuum hypothesis from Zermelo- Fraenkel set theory. It was not long before Saul Kripke noted a connection be- tween forcing and his semantics for modal and intuitionistic logic, which had, in turn, appeared in a series of papers between 1959 and 1965. By 1965, Scott and Solovay had rephrased Cohen's forcing construction in terms of Boolean-valued models, foreshadowing deeper algebraic connections between forcing, Kripke se- mantics, and Grothendieck's notion of a topos of sheaves. In particular, Lawvere and Tierney were soon able to recast Cohen's original independence proofs as sheaf constructions.1 It is safe to say that these developments have had a profound impact on most branches of mathematical logic.
    [Show full text]