DOCSLIB.ORG

Characterization of Model Mirimanov-Von Neumann

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Characterization of Model Mirimanov-Von Neumann Journal of Mathematical Sciences, Vol. 138, No. 4, 2006 CHARACTERIZATION OF MODEL MIRIMANOV–VON NEUMANN CUMULATIVE SETS E. I. Bunina and V. K. Zakharov UDC 510.223 CONTENTS Introduction..............................................5831 1. Some Facts From Zermelo–Fraenkel Set Theory . ........................5832 1.1. Classes in the ZF set theory . ................................5832 1.2.OrdinalandcardinalsintheZFsettheory..........................5835 2.CumulativeSetsandTheirProperties...............................5837 2.1.Constructionofcumulativesets................................5837 2.2.Propertiesofcumulativesets..................................5837 2.3.Propertiesofinaccessiblecumulativesets...........................5841 3.UniversalSetsandTheirConnectionwithInaccessibleCumulativeSets............5843 3.1.Universalsetsandtheirproperties...............................5843 3.2.Descriptionoftheclassofalluniversalsets..........................5845 3.3. Enumeration of the class of all universal sets in the ZF+AU theory and the structural formoftheuniversalityaxiom.................................5846 3.4. Enumeration of the class of all inaccessible cardinals in the ZF+AI theory and the struc- tural form of the inaccessibility axiom . ............................5849 4. Weak Forms of the Axioms of Universality and Inaccessibility . ................5851 4.1. Axioms of ω-universality and ω-inaccessibility ........................5851 4.2. Comparison of various forms of the universality and inaccessibility axioms ........5854 5. Description of the Class of all Supertransitive Standard Models oftheNBGTheoryintheZFTheory...............................5858 5.1. Supertransitive standard models of the ZF theory having the strong subtitution property 5858 5.2.SupertransitivestandardmodelsoftheNBGtheoryintheZFtheory...........5863 6. Tarski Sets and Galactic Sets. Theorem on the Characterization ofNaturalModelsoftheNBGTheory...............................5870 6.1.Tarskisetsandtheirproperties................................5870 6.2.GalacticsetsandtheirconnectionwithTarskisets.....................5873 6.3. Characterization of Tarski sets. Characterization of natural models of the NBG theory . 5875 7. Characterization of Natural Models of the ZF Theory . ....................5876 7.1.Scheme-inaccessiblecardinalnumbersandscheme-inaccessiblecumulativesets......5876 7.2. Scheme-universal sets and their connection with scheme-inaccessible cumulative sets . 5880 7.3.SupertransitivestandardmodelsoftheZFtheoryintheZFtheory............5884 7.4. Tarski scheme sets. Theorem on the characterization of natural model of the ZF theory . 5888 References . ............................................5890 Translated from Itogi Nauki i Tekhniki, Seriya Sovremennaya Matematika i Ee Prilozheniya. Tematicheskie Obzory. Vol. 119, Set Theory, 2004. 5830 1072–3374/06/1384–5830 c 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. Introduction The crisis that appeared in the naive set theory at the beginning of the 20th century has led to the construction of several strict axiomatic set theories. The most useful among them is the set theory in the Zermelo–Fraenkel axiomatics (ZF) (1908, 1922 [8]) and the class and set theory in the von Neumann– Burnice–Hodel¨ axiomatics (NBG) (1928, 1937, 1940 [10]). In 1917, using transfinite induction Mirimanov [20] constructed the cumulative collection (≡hierarchy) of sets Vα for all order numbers α having the following properties: (1) V0 ≡∅; (2) Vα+1 = Vα ∪P(Vα)(P(Vα) denotes the set of all subsets of the set Vα); (3) Vα = ∪ Vβ|β ∈ α for any limit order number α. It turns out that cumulative sets Vα themselves and the collection Vα|α ∈ On as a whole have many remarkable properties. In particular, von Neumann proved in [22] that the regularity axiom in ZF is equivalent to the property ∀x∃α(α is an ordinal number ∧x ∈ Vα) and the class ∪ Vα|α ∈ On is an abstract (≡ class) standard model for the ZF theory in ZF. Models of the ZF and NBG theories of the form (Vα, =, ∈) are said to be natural. After the introduction of the concept of a (strongly) inaccessible cardinal number by Zermelo in [28] and by Sierpinski–Tarski in [24], Zermelo [28] (not strictly) and Shepherdson [23] (strictly) proved that a set U is a supertransitive standard model for the NBG theory iff it has the form Vκ+1 for a certain inaccessible cardinal number κ. Thus, the natural model of the NBG theory was explained. The Zermelo–Shepherdson theorem admits the following equivalent reformulation: a set U is a super- transitive standard model for the ZF theory with the strong replacement property (∀X∀f(X ∈ U ∧ f ∈ U X ⇒ rng f ∈ U)) iff it has the form Vκ for a certain inaccessible cardinal number κ. Starting from the requirements of category theory, instead of the metaconcept of a supertransitive standard model set with the strong replacement property for the ZF theory, Ehresmann [6], Dedecker [5], Sonner [25], and Grothendieck (see [9]), introduced an equivalent set-theoretic concept of a universal set U (see [18], I.6, [7], [12]), which is defined by the following properties: (1) x ∈ U ⇒ x ⊂ U; (2) x ∈ U ⇒P(x), ∪x ∈ U; (3) x, y ∈ U ⇒ x ∪ y, {x, y}, x, y ,x× y ∈ U; (4) x ∈ U ∧ f ∈ U x ⇒ rng f ∈ U (strong replacement property); (5) ω ∈ U (here, ω ≡{0, 1, 2,...} is the set of all finite ordinal numbers). To deal with categories in the set-theoretic framework, they suggested to strengthen the ZF theory by adding the universality axiom AU, according to which each set is an element of a certain universal set. The equivalent form of the Zermelo–Shepherdson theorem states that the universality axiom AU is equivalent to the inaccessibility axiom AI according to which for every ordinal number, there exists an inaccessible cardinal number strictly greater than it. For axiomatic construction of inaccessible cardinal numbers, in [26] (see also [17], IX, § 1and§ 5), Tarski introduced the concept of a Tarski set U, which is defined by the following properties: (1) x ∈ U ⇒ x ⊂ U (transitivity property); (2) x ∈ U ⇒P(x) ∈ U (exponentiality property); (2) (x ⊂ U ∧∀f(f ∈ U x ⇒ rng f = U) ⇒ x ∈ U (Tarski property). In [26], Tarskii proved that the set Vκ (≡ inaccessible cumulative set) is a Tarski set for each cardinal number κ. Also, in [26], Tarski proved that the inaccessibility axiom AI is equivalent to the Tarski axiom AT, according to which every set is an element of a certain Tarskii set. In connection with the Tarski theorem, the following problem remains open unit now: to what extent is the axiomatic concept of Tarski set is wider than the constructive concept of inaccessible cumulative set? 5831 In this paper, we give an answer to this question: the concepts of an inaccessible cumulative set and that of an uncountable Tarski set are equivalent. The equivalence of the concepts of an inaccessible cumulative set and an uncountable Tarski set is proved by using the concept of a universal set. More precisely, it is proved that every uncountable Tarski set is universal. As a result, we obtain the following theorem on the characterization of natural models of the NBG theory: the following properties are equivalent for a set U: (1) U is an inaccessible cumulative set, i.e., U = Vκ for a certain inaccessible cardinal number κ; (2) P(U) is a supertransitive standard model for the NBG theory; (3) U is a supertransitive standard-model with the strong replacement property of the ZF theory; (4) U is a universal set; (5) U is an uncountable Tarski set. The Zermelo–Shepherdson theorem yields a canonical form of supertransitive standard models of the NBG theory and an (equivalent) canonical form of standard models with the strong replacement property of the ZF theory. However, Montague and Vaught proved in [21] that for any inaccessible cardinal number κ, there exists an ordinal number θ<κ such that it is inaccessible and the cumulative set Vθ is a supertransitive standard model of the ZF theory. Therefore, the problem on the canonical forms of supertransitive standard models of the ZF theory turned out to be more complicated. Since the concept of model in the ZF theory cannot be defined by a finite set of formulas, in this paper, using the formula schema and its relativization to the set Vθ, we introduce the concept of a (strongly) scheme-inaccessible cardinal number θ and prove a scheme analog of the Zermelo–Shepherdson theorem. To prove this theorem, we introduce the concept of a scheme-universal set, which is a scheme analog of the concept of a universal set. Moreover, in this paper, we introduce the concept of a scheme Tarski set, which is a scheme analog of the concept of a Tarski set. As a result, we prove the theorem on the characterization of natural models of the ZF theory: the following properties are equivalent for a set U: (1) U is a scheme-inaccessible cumulative set, i.e., U = Vθ for a certain scheme-inaccessible cardinal number θ; (2) U is a supertransitively standard model for the ZF theory; (3) U is a scheme-universal set; (4) U is a scheme Tarski set. In this paper, the problems mentioned above are solved for the ZF set theory (with the axiom of choice). For the NBG set theory, all things are equally true. For the reader’s convenience, we present all the necessary facts that are not sufficiently reflected in the literature or merely refer to the mathematical folklore, with complete proofs. 1. Some Facts From Zermelo–Fraenkel Set Theory 1.1. Classes in the ZF set theory. We first present a list of proper axioms and axiom schemes of the ZF theory, the Zermelo–Fraenkel theory with the axiom
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Notes on Set Theory, Part 2
    §11 Regular cardinals In what follows, κ , λ , µ , ν , ρ always denote cardinals. A cardinal κ is said to be regular if κ is infinite, and the union of fewer than κ sets, each of whose cardinality is less than κ , is of cardinality less than κ . In symbols: κ is regular if κ is infinite, and κ 〈 〉 ¡ κ for any set I with I ¡ < and any family Ai i∈I of sets such that Ai < ¤¦¥ £¢ κ for all i ∈ I , we have A ¡ < . i∈I i (Among finite cardinals, only 0 , 1 and 2 satisfy the displayed condition; it is not worth including these among the cardinals that we want to call "regular".) ℵ To see two examples, we know that 0 is regular: this is just to say that the union of finitely ℵ many finite sets is finite. We have also seen that 1 is regular: the meaning of this is that the union of countably many countable sets is countable. For future use, let us note the simple fact that the ordinal-least-upper-bound of any set of cardinals is a cardinal; for any set I , and cardinals λ for i∈I , lub λ is a cardinal. i i∈I i α Indeed, if α=lub λ , and β<α , then for some i∈I , β<λ . If we had β § , then by i∈I i i β λ ≤α β § λ λ < i , and Cantor-Bernstein, we would have i , contradicting the facts that i is β λ β α β ¨ α α a cardinal and < i .
    [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]
  • Abstract Consequence and Logics
    Abstract Consequence and Logics Essays in honor of Edelcio G. de Souza edited by Alexandre Costa-Leite Contents Introduction Alexandre Costa-Leite On Edelcio G. de Souza PART 1 Abstraction, unity and logic 3 Jean-Yves Beziau Logical structures from a model-theoretical viewpoint 17 Gerhard Schurz Universal translatability: optimality-based justification of (not necessarily) classical logic 37 Roderick Batchelor Abstract logic with vocables 67 Juliano Maranh~ao An abstract definition of normative system 79 Newton C. A. da Costa and Decio Krause Suppes predicate for classes of structures and the notion of transportability 99 Patr´ıciaDel Nero Velasco On a reconstruction of the valuation concept PART 2 Categories, logics and arithmetic 115 Vladimir L. Vasyukov Internal logic of the H − B topos 135 Marcelo E. Coniglio On categorial combination of logics 173 Walter Carnielli and David Fuenmayor Godel's¨ incompleteness theorems from a paraconsistent perspective 199 Edgar L. B. Almeida and Rodrigo A. Freire On existence in arithmetic PART 3 Non-classical inferences 221 Arnon Avron A note on semi-implication with negation 227 Diana Costa and Manuel A. Martins A roadmap of paraconsistent hybrid logics 243 H´erculesde Araujo Feitosa, Angela Pereira Rodrigues Moreira and Marcelo Reicher Soares A relational model for the logic of deduction 251 Andrew Schumann From pragmatic truths to emotional truths 263 Hilan Bensusan and Gregory Carneiro Paraconsistentization through antimonotonicity: towards a logic of supplement PART 4 Philosophy and history of logic 277 Diogo H. B. Dias Hans Hahn and the foundations of mathematics 289 Cassiano Terra Rodrigues A first survey of Charles S.
    [Show full text]
  • Axioms of Set Theory and Equivalents of Axiom of Choice Farighon Abdul Rahim Boise State University, [email protected]
    Boise State University ScholarWorks Mathematics Undergraduate Theses Department of Mathematics 5-2014 Axioms of Set Theory and Equivalents of Axiom of Choice Farighon Abdul Rahim Boise State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/ math_undergraduate_theses Part of the Set Theory Commons Recommended Citation Rahim, Farighon Abdul, "Axioms of Set Theory and Equivalents of Axiom of Choice" (2014). Mathematics Undergraduate Theses. Paper 1. Axioms of Set Theory and Equivalents of Axiom of Choice Farighon Abdul Rahim Advisor: Samuel Coskey Boise State University May 2014 1 Introduction Sets are all around us. A bag of potato chips, for instance, is a set containing certain number of individual chip’s that are its elements. University is another example of a set with students as its elements. By elements, we mean members. But sets should not be confused as to what they really are. A daughter of a blacksmith is an element of a set that contains her mother, father, and her siblings. Then this set is an element of a set that contains all the other families that live in the nearby town. So a set itself can be an element of a bigger set. In mathematics, axiom is defined to be a rule or a statement that is accepted to be true regardless of having to prove it. In a sense, axioms are self evident. In set theory, we deal with sets. Each time we state an axiom, we will do so by considering sets. Example of the set containing the blacksmith family might make it seem as if sets are finite.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Theory of Sets As a Foundation for Category Theory and Its Connection with the Zermelo–Fraenkel Set Theory
    Journal of Mathematical Sciences, Vol. 138, No. 4, 2006 LOCAL THEORY OF SETS AS A FOUNDATION FOR CATEGORY THEORY AND ITS CONNECTION WITH THE ZERMELO–FRAENKEL SET THEORY V. K. Zakharov, E. I. Bunina, A. V. Mikhalev, and P. V. Andreev UDC 510.223, 512.581 CONTENTS Introduction..............................................5764 1. First-Order Theories and LTS ....................................5767 1.1. Language of first-order theories ................................5767 1.2. Deducibility in a first-order theory . ............................5768 1.3.Aninterpretationofafirst-ordertheoryinasettheory...................5770 2.LocalTheoryofSets.........................................5772 2.1.Properaxiomsandaxiomschemesofthelocaltheoryofsets................5772 2.2.Someconstructionsinthelocaltheoryofsets........................5775 3. Formalization of the Naive Category Theory within the Framework oftheLocalTheoryofSets.....................................5776 3.1.Definitionofalocalcategoryinthelocaltheoryofsets...................5776 3.2. Functors and natural transformations and the “category of categories” and the “category of functors” in the local theory of sets generated by them . ................5777 4. Zermelo–Fraenkel Set Theory and Mirimanov–von Neumann Sets ................5779 4.1.TheproperaxiomsandaxiomschemesoftheZFsettheory................5779 4.2.OrdinalsandcardinalsintheZFsettheory.........................5782 4.3.Mirimanov–vonNeumannsetsintheZFsettheory.....................5786 5. Universes, Ordinals, Cardinals, and Mirimanov–von
    [Show full text]
  • First-Order Logic in a Nutshell Syntax
    First-Order Logic in a Nutshell 27 numbers is empty, and hence cannot be a member of itself (otherwise, it would not be empty). Now, call a set x good if x is not a member of itself and let C be the col- lection of all sets which are good. Is C, as a set, good or not? If C is good, then C is not a member of itself, but since C contains all sets which are good, C is a member of C, a contradiction. Otherwise, if C is a member of itself, then C must be good, again a contradiction. In order to avoid this paradox we have to exclude the collec- tion C from being a set, but then, we have to give reasons why certain collections are sets and others are not. The axiomatic way to do this is described by Zermelo as follows: Starting with the historically grown Set Theory, one has to search for the principles required for the foundations of this mathematical discipline. In solving the problem we must, on the one hand, restrict these principles sufficiently to ex- clude all contradictions and, on the other hand, take them sufficiently wide to retain all the features of this theory. The principles, which are called axioms, will tell us how to get new sets from already existing ones. In fact, most of the axioms of Set Theory are constructive to some extent, i.e., they tell us how new sets are constructed from already existing ones and what elements they contain. However, before we state the axioms of Set Theory we would like to introduce informally the formal language in which these axioms will be formulated.
    [Show full text]
  • A Dictionary of PHILOSOPHICAL LOGIC
    a dictionary of a dictionary of PHILOSOPHICAL LOGIC This dictionary introduces undergraduate and graduate students PHILOSOPHICAL LOGIC in philosophy, mathematics, and computer science to the main problems and positions in philosophical logic. Coverage includes not only key figures, positions, terminology, and debates within philosophical logic itself, but issues in related, overlapping disciplines such as set theory and the philosophy of mathematics as well. Entries are extensively cross-referenced, so that each entry can be easily located within the context of wider debates, thereby providing a dictionary of a valuable reference both for tracking the connections between concepts within logic and for examining the manner in which these PHILOSOPHICAL LOGIC concepts are applied in other philosophical disciplines. Roy T. Cook is Assistant Professor in the Department of Philosophy at Roy T. Cook the University of Minnesota and an Associate Fellow at Arché, the Philosophical Research Centre for Logic, Language, Metaphysics and Epistemology at the University of St Andrews. He works primarily in the philosophy of logic, language, and mathematics, and has also Cook Roy T. published papers on seventeenth-century philosophy. ISBN 978 0 7486 2559 8 Edinburgh University Press E 22 George Square dinburgh Edinburgh EH8 9LF www.euppublishing.com Cover image: www.istockphoto.com Cover design: www.paulsmithdesign.com 1004 01 pages i-vi:Layout 1 16/2/09 15:18 Page i A DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHICAL LOGIC 1004 01 pages i-vi:Layout 1 16/2/09 15:18 Page ii Dedicated to my mother, Carol C. Cook, who made sure that I got to learn all this stuff, and to George Schumm, Stewart Shapiro, and Neil Tennant, who taught me much of it.
    [Show full text]
  • Logic of Paradoxes in Classical Set Theories
    Logic of Paradoxes in Classical Set Theories Boris Culinaˇ Department of Mathematics University of Applied Sciences Velika Gorica Zagrebaˇcka cesta 5, 10410 Velika Gorica, Croatia e-mail: [email protected] Logistic is not sterile; it engenders antinomies. H. Poincar´e Abstract According to Georg Cantor [Can83, Can99] a set is any multitude which can be thought of as one ("jedes Viele, welches sich als Eines denken l¨aßt”)without contradiction { a consistent multitude. Other multitudes are inconsistent or paradoxical. Set theoretical paradoxes have common root { lack of understanding why some multitudes are not sets. Why some multitudes of objects of thought cannot themselves be objects of thought? Moreover, it is a logical truth that such multitudes do exist. However we do not understand this logical truth so well as we understand, for example, the logical truth 8x x = x. In this paper we formulate a logical truth which we call the productivity principle. Bertrand Rusell [Rus06] was the first one to formulate this principle, but in a restricted form and with a different purpose. The principle explicates a logical mechanism that lies behind paradoxical multitudes, and is understandable as well as any simple logical truth. However, it does not explain the concept of set. It only sets logical bounds of the concept within the framework of the classical two valued 2 - language. The principle behaves as a logical regulator of any theory we formulate to explain and describe sets. It provides tools to identify paradoxical classes inside the theory. We show how the known paradoxical classes follow from the productivity principle and how the principle gives us a uniform way to generate new paradoxical classes.
    [Show full text]
  • Axioms and Models for an Extended Set Theory
    AXIOMS AND MODELS FOR AN EXTENDED SET THEORY ANDREAS BLASS AND D L CHILDS Abstract. We present the axioms of extended set theory (XST) and the ideas underlying the axioms. We also present an interpre- tation of XST in ZFC plus “there exist arbitrarily large inaccessible cardinals,” thereby proving the consistency of XST relative to this mild large-cardinal extension of ZFC. 1. Introduction This paper presents an extended set theory (XST) and proves its consistency relative to the classical Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice (ZFC) and an axiom asserting the existence of arbitrarily large inaccessible cardinals (also known as Grothendieck’s axiom of universes). The original motivation for this development of XST was to provide an improved, flexible mathematical foundation for certain constructions, like tuples and functions, that play important roles in computing. Subsequent developments revealed that XST also provides a smooth way of handling the set-class distinction that turns up especially in category theory. We shall comment on these matters in more detail after the axioms of XST have been introduced. The extended set theory XST differs from Zermelo-Fraenkel set the- ory ZFC in three major ways (and several minor ways). The biggest difference between XST and ZFC is that the fundamental membership relation of XST is a ternary relation, written x ∈s y and read “x is an element of y with scope s.” Most of the axioms of XST are analogs of traditional ZFC axioms, modified to account for membership scopes, and allowing atoms (also called urelements). This aspect of XST can be interpreted in ZFC quite straightforwardly.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2101.01698V4 [Math.LO] 16 Mar 2021
    Broad Infinity and Generation Principles Paul Blain Levy, University of Birmingham March 17, 2021 Abstract This paper introduces Broad Infinity, a new and arguably intuitive axiom scheme. It states that “broad numbers”, which are three-dimensional trees whose growth is controlled, form a set. If the Axiom of Choice is assumed, then Broad Infinity is equivalent to the Ord-is-Mahlo scheme: every closed unbounded class of ordinals contains a regular ordinal. Whereas the axiom of Infinity leads to generation principles for sets and fam- ilies and ordinals, Broad Infinity leads to more advanced versions of these prin- ciples. The paper relates these principles under various prior assumptions: the Axiom of Choice, the Law of Excluded Middle, and weaker assumptions. 1 Introduction 1.1 Summary of the Paper This paper has three main contributions: • To introduce a new axiom scheme, called Broad Infinity. • To show that Broad Infinity provides generation principles for families, and— provided the Axiom of Choice (AC) is assumed—for sets and ordinals. • To show that—again provided AC is assumed—Broad Infinity is equivalent to a previously studied principle called Ord-is-Mahlo [20, 39, 16]. arXiv:2101.01698v4 [math.LO] 16 Mar 2021 In the course of this introduction, we present the new axiom scheme (Section 1.4), and the generation priniciples for sets (Section 1.5), families (Section 1.6) and ordinals (Section 1.7). Section 1.8 explains the connection to Ord-is-Mahlo. Following the introduction, we come to the main part of the paper. It begins (Sec- tion 2) by formulating a base theory that is weak enough to let us track various as- sumptions in our proofs, such as the Law of Excluded Middle.
    [Show full text]
  • Logic and Set Theory
    Part II | Logic and Set Theory Based on lectures by I. B. Leader Notes taken by Dexter Chua Lent 2015 These notes are not endorsed by the lecturers, and I have modified them (often significantly) after lectures. They are nowhere near accurate representations of what was actually lectured, and in particular, all errors are almost surely mine. No specific prerequisites. Ordinals and cardinals Well-orderings and order-types. Examples of countable ordinals. Uncountable ordi- nals and Hartogs' lemma. Induction and recursion for ordinals. Ordinal arithmetic. Cardinals; the hierarchy of alephs. Cardinal arithmetic. [5] Posets and Zorn's lemma Partially ordered sets; Hasse diagrams, chains, maximal elements. Lattices and Boolean algebras. Complete and chain-complete posets; fixed-point theorems. The axiom of choice and Zorn's lemma. Applications of Zorn's lemma in mathematics. The well- ordering principle. [5] Propositional logic The propositional calculus. Semantic and syntactic entailment. The deduction and completeness theorems. Applications: compactness and decidability. [3] Predicate logic The predicate calculus with equality. Examples of first-order languages and theories. Statement of the completeness theorem; *sketch of proof*. The compactness theorem and the Lowenheim-Skolem theorems. Limitations of first-order logic. Model theory. [5] Set theory Set theory as a first-order theory; the axioms of ZF set theory. Transitive closures, epsilon-induction and epsilon-recursion. Well-founded relations. Mostowski's collapsing theorem. The rank function and the von Neumann hierarchy. [5] Consistency *Problems of consistency and independence* [1] 1 Contents II Logic and Set Theory Contents 0 Introduction 3 1 Propositional calculus 4 1.1 Propositions . .4 1.2 Semantic entailment .
    [Show full text]
  • MATH 320 SET THEORY Contents 0. Prelude 0.1. Some Historical
    MATH 320 SET THEORY BURAK KAYA Abstract. These are the lecture notes I used for a 14-week introductory set theory class I taught at the Department of Mathematics of Middle East Tech- nical University during Spring 2018. In order to determine the course content and prepare the lecture notes, I mainly used the textbook by Hrbacek and Jech [1], which I also listed as a supplementary resource for the course. Contents 0. Prelude 0.1. Some historical remarks. 0.2. The language of set theory and well-formed formulas 0.3. What are sets anyway? 0.4. Classes vs. Sets 0.5. Notational remarks 1. Some axioms of ZFC and their elementary consequences 1.1. And G said, \Let there be sets"; and there were sets. 1.2. Constructing more sets 2. From Pairs to Products 2.1. Relations 2.2. Functions 2.3. Products and sequences 2.4. To choose or not to choose 3. Equivalence Relations and Order Relations 3.1. Equivalence relations, partitions and transversals. 3.2. A Game of Thrones, Prisoners and Hats. 3.3. Order relations 3.4. Well-orders. 3.5. Well-founded relations and the Axiom of Foundation 4. Natural Numbers 4.1. The construction of the set of natural numbers 4.2. Arithmetic on the set of natural numbers 5. Equinumerosity 5.1. Finite sets 5.2. To infinity and beyond 6. Construction of various number systems 6.1. Integers 6.2. Rational numbers 6.3. Real numbers 7. Ordinal numbers 7.1. How do the ordinals look like? BURAK KAYA 7.2.
    [Show full text]