DOCSLIB.ORG

Classical Set Theory: Theory of Sets and Classes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Classical Set Theory: Theory of Sets and Classes CLASSICAL SET THEORY: THEORY OF SETS AND CLASSES TARAS BANAKH Contents Introduction 4 Part 1. Naive Set Theory 5 1. Origins of Set Theory 5 2. Berry’s Paradox 6 3. The language and formulas of Set Theory 7 4. Russell’s Paradox 8 Part 2. Axiomatic Theories of Sets 10 5. Axioms of von Neumann–Bernays–G¨odel 10 6. Existence of Classes 15 7. G¨odel’s Theorem on class existence 16 8. Axiomatic Set Theory of Zermelo–Fraenkel 19 Part 3. Fundamental Constructions 21 9. Cartesian products of sets 21 10. Relations 21 11. Functions 22 12. Indexed families of classes 23 13. Cartesian products of classes 24 14. Reflexive and irreflexive relations 25 15. Equivalence relations 25 arXiv:2006.01613v1 [math.LO] 2 Jun 2020 16. Well-Founded relations 26 Part 4. Order 29 17. Order relations 29 18. Transitivity 31 19. Ordinals 32 20. Trees 35 21. Recursion Theorem 36 22. Ranks 40 23. Well-orders 41 Part 5. Foundation and Constructibility 44 24. Foundation 44 1 2 TARAS BANAKH 25. Constructibility 46 26. Inner Models 53 Part 6. Choice and Global Choice 56 27. Choice 56 28. Global Choice 63 Part 7. Ordinal Arithmetics 69 29. Transfinite Dynamics 69 30. Successors 71 31. Addition 72 32. Multiplication 74 33. Exponentiation 78 34. Cantor’s normal form 80 Part 8. Cardinals 82 35. Cardinalities and cardinals 82 36. Finite and Countable sets 84 37. Successor cardinals and alephs 89 38. Arithmetics of Cardinals 91 39. Cofinality of cardinals 94 40. (Generalized) Continuum Hypothesis 96 41. Inaccessible and measurable cardinals 98 Part 9. Linear orders 101 42. Completeness 101 43. Universality 102 44. Cuts 106 45. Gaps 108 Part 10. Numbers 112 46. Integer numbers 112 47. Rational numbers 114 48. Real numbers 115 49. Surreal numbers 117 Part 11. Mathematical Structures 122 50. Examples of Mathematical Structures 122 51. Morphisms of Mathematical Structures 127 52. A characterization of the real line 129 Part 12. Elements of Category Theory 131 53. Categories 131 54. Functors 137 55. Natural transformations 138 56. Skeleta and equivalence of categories 139 57. Limits and colimits 143 CLASSICALSETTHEORY:THEORYOFSETSANDCLASSES 3 57.1. Products and coproducts 143 57.2. Pullbacks and pushouts 145 57.3. Equalizers and coequalizers 146 57.4. Limits and colimits of diagrams 147 58. Characterizations of the category Set 149 59. Cartesian closed categories 154 60. Subobject classifiers 155 61. Elementary Topoi 158 Epilogue 161 References 162 4 TARAS BANAKH Introduction Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler. Albert Einstein This is a short introductory course to Set Theory and Category Theory, based on axioms of von Neumann–Bernays–G¨odel (briefly NBG). The text can be used as a base for a lecture course in Foundations of Mathematics, and contains a reasonable minimum which a good (post-graduate) student in Mathematics should know about foundations of this science. My aim is to give strict definitions of all set-theoretic notions and concepts that are widely used in mathematics. In particular, we shall introduce the sets N, Z, Q, R of numbers (natural, integer, rational and real) and will prove their basic order and algebraic properties. Since the system of NBG axioms is finite and does not involve advanced logics, it is more friendly for beginners than other axiomatic set theories (like ZFC). The legal use of classes in NBG will allow us to discuss freely Conway’s surreal numbers that form an ordered field No, which is a proper class and hence is not “visible” in ZFC. Also the language of NBG allows to give natural definitions of some basic notions of Category Theory: category, functor, natural transformation, which is done in the last part of this book. I would like to express my thanks for the help in writing this text to: • Pace Nielsen who motivated my interests in NBG; • Ulyana Banakh (my daughter) who was the first reader of this text; • Asaf Karagila for his valuable remarks concerning the Axiom of Choice; • the participant of zoom-seminar in Classical Set Theory (Serhii Bardyla, Oleksandr Maslyuchenko, Misha Popov, Alex Ravsky and others) for many valuable comments; • To be added. Lviv (at the time of quarantine) March–May, 2020. CLASSICALSETTHEORY:THEORYOFSETSANDCLASSES 5 Part 1. Naive Set Theory A set is a Many that allows itself to be thought of as a One. Georg Cantor 1. Origins of Set Theory The origins of (naive) Set Theory were created at the end of XIX century by Georg Cantor1 (1845–1918) in his papers published in 1874–1897. Cantors ideas made the notion of a set the principal (undefined) notion of Mathematics, which can be used to give precise definitions of all other mathematical concepts such as numbers or functions. According to Cantor, a set is an arbitrary collection of objects, called elements of the set. In particular, sets can be elements of other sets. The fact that a set x is an element of a set y is denoted by the symbol x ∈ y. If x is not an element of y, then we write x∈ / y. A set consisting of finitely many elements x1,...,xn is written as {x1,...,xn}. Two sets are equal if they consist of the same elements. For example, the sets {x,y} and {y,x} both have elements x,y and hence are equal. A set containing no elements at all is called the empty set and is denoted by ∅. Since sets with the same elements are equal, the empty set is unique. The theory developed so far, allows us to give a precise meaning to natural numbers (which are abstractions created by humans to facilitate counting): 0= ∅, 1= {0}, 2= {0, 1}, 3= {0, 1, 2}, 4= {0, 1, 2, 3}, 5= {0, 1, 2, 3, 4}, . The set {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,... } of all natural numbers2 is denoted by ω. The set {1, 2, 3, 4, 5,... } of non-zero natural numbers is denoted by N. Very often we need to create a set of objects possessing some property (for example, the set of odd numbers). In this case we use the constructor {x : ϕ(x)}, which yields exactly what we need: the set {x : ϕ(x)} of all objects x that have certain property ϕ(x). Using the constructor we can define some basic “algebraic” operations over sets X,Y : • the intersection X ∩ Y = {x : x ∈ X ∧ x ∈ Y } whose elements are objects that belong to X and Y ; 1Exercise: Read about Georg Cantor in Wikipedia. 2Remark: There are two meanings (Eastern and Western) of what to understand by a natural number. The western approach includes zero to natural numbers whereas the eastern tradition does not. This difference can be noticed in numbering floors in buildings in western or eastern countries. 6 TARAS BANAKH • the union X ∪ Y = {x : x ∈ X ∨ x ∈ Y } consisting of the objects that belong to X or Y or to both or them; • the difference X \ Y = {x : x ∈ X ∧ x∈ / Y } consisting of elements that belong to X but not to Y ; • the symmetric difference X△Y = (X ∪Y )\(X ∩Y ) consisting of elements that belong to the union X ∪ Y but not to the intersection X ∩ Y . In the formulas for the union and intersection we used the logical connectives ∧ and ∨ denoting the logical operations and and or. Below we present the truth table for these logical operations and also for three other logical operations: the negation ¬, the implication ⇒, the equivalence ⇔. x y x ∧ y x ∨ y x ⇒ y x ⇔ y ¬x 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Therefore, we have four basic operations over sets X,Y : X ∩ Y = {x : x ∈ X ∧ x ∈ Y }, X ∪ Y = {x : x ∈ X ∨ x ∈ Y }, X \ Y = {x : x ∈ X ∧ x∈ / Y }, X△Y = (X ∪ Y ) \ (X ∩ Y ). Exercise 1.1. For the sets X = {0, 1, 2, 4, 5} and Y = {1, 2, 3, 4}, find X ∩ Y , X ∪ Y , X \ Y , X△Y . 2. Berry’s Paradox “The essence of mathematics is its freedom” Georg Cantor In 1906 Bertrand Russell, a famous British philosopher, published a paradox, which he attributed to G. Berry (1867–1928), a junior librarian at Oxford’s Bodleian library. To formulate this paradox, observe that each natural number can be described by some property. For example, zero is the smallest natural number, one is the smallest nonzero natural number, two is the smallest prime number, three is the smallest odd prime number, four is the smallest square, five is the smallest odd prime number which is larger than the smallest square and so on. Since there are only finitely many sentences of a given length, such sentences (of given length) can describe only finitely many numbers3. Consequently, infinitely many numbers cannot be described by short sentences, consisting of less than 100 symbols. Among such numbers take the smallest one and denote it by s. Now consider the characteristic property of this number: s is the smallest number that cannot be described by a sentence consisting less than 100 symbol. But the latter sentence consists of 96 symbols, which is less that 100, and uniquely defines the number s. 3The list of short descriptions of the first 10000 numbers can be found here: https://www2.stetson.edu/∼efriedma/numbers.html CLASSICALSETTHEORY:THEORYOFSETSANDCLASSES 7 Now we have a paradox4 on one hand, the numbers s belongs to the set of numbers that cannot be described by short sentences, and on the other hand, it has a short description.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 Elementary Set Theory
    1 Elementary Set Theory Notation: fg enclose a set. f1; 2; 3g = f3; 2; 2; 1; 3g because a set is not defined by order or multiplicity. f0; 2; 4;:::g = fxjx is an even natural numberg because two ways of writing a set are equivalent. ; is the empty set. x 2 A denotes x is an element of A. N = f0; 1; 2;:::g are the natural numbers. Z = f:::; −2; −1; 0; 1; 2;:::g are the integers. m Q = f n jm; n 2 Z and n 6= 0g are the rational numbers. R are the real numbers. Axiom 1.1. Axiom of Extensionality Let A; B be sets. If (8x)x 2 A iff x 2 B then A = B. Definition 1.1 (Subset). Let A; B be sets. Then A is a subset of B, written A ⊆ B iff (8x) if x 2 A then x 2 B. Theorem 1.1. If A ⊆ B and B ⊆ A then A = B. Proof. Let x be arbitrary. Because A ⊆ B if x 2 A then x 2 B Because B ⊆ A if x 2 B then x 2 A Hence, x 2 A iff x 2 B, thus A = B. Definition 1.2 (Union). Let A; B be sets. The Union A [ B of A and B is defined by x 2 A [ B if x 2 A or x 2 B. Theorem 1.2. A [ (B [ C) = (A [ B) [ C Proof. Let x be arbitrary. x 2 A [ (B [ C) iff x 2 A or x 2 B [ C iff x 2 A or (x 2 B or x 2 C) iff x 2 A or x 2 B or x 2 C iff (x 2 A or x 2 B) or x 2 C iff x 2 A [ B or x 2 C iff x 2 (A [ B) [ C Definition 1.3 (Intersection).
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 Preliminaries
    Chapter 1 Preliminaries 1.1 First-order theories In this section we recall some basic definitions and facts about first-order theories. Most proofs are postponed to the end of the chapter, as exercises for the reader. 1.1.1 Definitions Definition 1.1 (First-order theory) —A first-order theory T is defined by: A first-order language L , whose terms (notation: t, u, etc.) and formulas (notation: φ, • ψ, etc.) are constructed from a fixed set of function symbols (notation: f , g, h, etc.) and of predicate symbols (notation: P, Q, R, etc.) using the following grammar: Terms t ::= x f (t1,..., tk) | Formulas φ, ψ ::= t1 = t2 P(t1,..., tk) φ | | > | ⊥ | ¬ φ ψ φ ψ φ ψ x φ x φ | ⇒ | ∧ | ∨ | ∀ | ∃ (assuming that each use of a function symbol f or of a predicate symbol P matches its arity). As usual, we call a constant symbol any function symbol of arity 0. A set of closed formulas of the language L , written Ax(T ), whose elements are called • the axioms of the theory T . Given a closed formula φ of the language of T , we say that φ is derivable in T —or that φ is a theorem of T —and write T φ when there are finitely many axioms φ , . , φ Ax(T ) such ` 1 n ∈ that the sequent φ , . , φ φ (or the formula φ φ φ) is derivable in a deduction 1 n ` 1 ∧ · · · ∧ n ⇒ system for classical logic. The set of all theorems of T is written Th(T ). Conventions 1.2 (1) In this course, we only work with first-order theories with equality.
    [Show full text]
  • Set-Theoretic Geology, the Ultimate Inner Model, and New Axioms
    Set-theoretic Geology, the Ultimate Inner Model, and New Axioms Justin William Henry Cavitt (860) 949-5686 [email protected] Advisor: W. Hugh Woodin Harvard University March 20, 2017 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics and Philosophy Contents 1 Introduction 2 1.1 Author’s Note . .4 1.2 Acknowledgements . .4 2 The Independence Problem 5 2.1 Gödelian Independence and Consistency Strength . .5 2.2 Forcing and Natural Independence . .7 2.2.1 Basics of Forcing . .8 2.2.2 Forcing Facts . 11 2.2.3 The Space of All Forcing Extensions: The Generic Multiverse 15 2.3 Recap . 16 3 Approaches to New Axioms 17 3.1 Large Cardinals . 17 3.2 Inner Model Theory . 25 3.2.1 Basic Facts . 26 3.2.2 The Constructible Universe . 30 3.2.3 Other Inner Models . 35 3.2.4 Relative Constructibility . 38 3.3 Recap . 39 4 Ultimate L 40 4.1 The Axiom V = Ultimate L ..................... 41 4.2 Central Features of Ultimate L .................... 42 4.3 Further Philosophical Considerations . 47 4.4 Recap . 51 1 5 Set-theoretic Geology 52 5.1 Preliminaries . 52 5.2 The Downward Directed Grounds Hypothesis . 54 5.2.1 Bukovský’s Theorem . 54 5.2.2 The Main Argument . 61 5.3 Main Results . 65 5.4 Recap . 74 6 Conclusion 74 7 Appendix 75 7.1 Notation . 75 7.2 The ZFC Axioms . 76 7.3 The Ordinals . 77 7.4 The Universe of Sets . 77 7.5 Transitive Models and Absoluteness .
    [Show full text]
  • A Taste of Set Theory for Philosophers
    Journal of the Indian Council of Philosophical Research, Vol. XXVII, No. 2. A Special Issue on "Logic and Philosophy Today", 143-163, 2010. Reprinted in "Logic and Philosophy Today" (edited by A. Gupta ans J.v.Benthem), College Publications vol 29, 141-162, 2011. A taste of set theory for philosophers Jouko Va¨an¨ anen¨ ∗ Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Helsinki and Institute for Logic, Language and Computation University of Amsterdam November 17, 2010 Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Elementary set theory 2 3 Cardinal and ordinal numbers 3 3.1 Equipollence . 4 3.2 Countable sets . 6 3.3 Ordinals . 7 3.4 Cardinals . 8 4 Axiomatic set theory 9 5 Axiom of Choice 12 6 Independence results 13 7 Some recent work 14 7.1 Descriptive Set Theory . 14 7.2 Non well-founded set theory . 14 7.3 Constructive set theory . 15 8 Historical Remarks and Further Reading 15 ∗Research partially supported by grant 40734 of the Academy of Finland and by the EUROCORES LogICCC LINT programme. I Journal of the Indian Council of Philosophical Research, Vol. XXVII, No. 2. A Special Issue on "Logic and Philosophy Today", 143-163, 2010. Reprinted in "Logic and Philosophy Today" (edited by A. Gupta ans J.v.Benthem), College Publications vol 29, 141-162, 2011. 1 Introduction Originally set theory was a theory of infinity, an attempt to understand infinity in ex- act terms. Later it became a universal language for mathematics and an attempt to give a foundation for all of mathematics, and thereby to all sciences that are based on mathematics.
    [Show full text]
  • Some First-Order Probability Logics
    Theoretical Computer Science 247 (2000) 191–212 www.elsevier.com/locate/tcs View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE Some ÿrst-order probability logics provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Zoran Ognjanovic a;∗, Miodrag RaÄskovic b a MatematickiÄ institut, Kneza Mihaila 35, 11000 Beograd, Yugoslavia b Prirodno-matematickiÄ fakultet, R. Domanovicaà 12, 34000 Kragujevac, Yugoslavia Received June 1998 Communicated by M. Nivat Abstract We present some ÿrst-order probability logics. The logics allow making statements such as P¿s , with the intended meaning “the probability of truthfulness of is greater than or equal to s”. We describe the corresponding probability models. We give a sound and complete inÿnitary axiomatic system for the most general of our logics, while for some restrictions of this logic we provide ÿnitary axiomatic systems. We study the decidability of our logics. We discuss some of the related papers. c 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: First order logic; Probability; Possible worlds; Completeness 1. Introduction In recent years there is a growing interest in uncertainty reasoning. A part of inves- tigation concerns its formal framework – probability logics [1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 13, 15, 17–20]. Probability languages are obtained by adding probability operators of the form (in our notation) P¿s to classical languages. The probability logics allow making formulas such as P¿s , with the intended meaning “the probability of truthfulness of is greater than or equal to s”. Probability models similar to Kripke models are used to give semantics to the probability formulas so that interpreted formulas are either true or false.
    [Show full text]
  • Automated ZFC Theorem Proving with E
    Automated ZFC Theorem Proving with E John Hester Department of Mathematics, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA https://people.clas.ufl.edu/hesterj/ [email protected] Abstract. I introduce an approach for automated reasoning in first or- der set theories that are not finitely axiomatizable, such as ZFC, and describe its implementation alongside the automated theorem proving software E. I then compare the results of proof search in the class based set theory NBG with those of ZFC. Keywords: ZFC · ATP · E. 1 Introduction Historically, automated reasoning in first order set theories has faced a fun- damental problem in the axiomatizations. Some theories such as ZFC widely considered as candidates for the foundations of mathematics are not finitely axiomatizable. Axiom schemas such as the schema of comprehension and the schema of replacement in ZFC are infinite, and so cannot be entirely incorpo- rated in to the prover at the beginning of a proof search. Indeed, there is no finite axiomatization of ZFC [1]. As a result, when reasoning about sufficiently strong set theories that could no longer be considered naive, some have taken the alternative approach of using extensions of ZFC that admit objects such as proper classes as first order objects, but this is not without its problems for the individual interested in proving set-theoretic propositions. As an alternative, I have programmed an extension to the automated the- orem prover E [2] that generates instances of parameter free replacement and comprehension from well formuled formulas of ZFC that are passed to it, when eligible, and adds them to the proof state while the prover is running.
    [Show full text]
  • Cantor-Von Neumann Set-Theory Fa Muller
    Logique & Analyse 213 (2011), x–x CANTOR-VON NEUMANN SET-THEORY F.A. MULLER Abstract In this elementary paper we establish a few novel results in set the- ory; their interest is wholly foundational-philosophical in motiva- tion. We show that in Cantor-Von Neumann Set-Theory, which is a reformulation of Von Neumann's original theory of functions and things that does not introduce `classes' (let alone `proper classes'), developed in the 1920ies, both the Pairing Axiom and `half' the Axiom of Limitation are redundant — the last result is novel. Fur- ther we show, in contrast to how things are usually done, that some theorems, notably the Pairing Axiom, can be proved without invok- ing the Replacement Schema (F) and the Power-Set Axiom. Also the Axiom of Choice is redundant in CVN, because it a theorem of CVN. The philosophical interest of Cantor-Von Neumann Set- Theory, which is very succinctly indicated, lies in the fact that it is far better suited than Zermelo-Fraenkel Set-Theory as an axioma- tisation of what Hilbert famously called Cantor's Paradise. From Cantor one needs to jump to Von Neumann, over the heads of Zer- melo and Fraenkel, and then reformulate. 0. Introduction In 1928, Von Neumann published his grand axiomatisation of Cantorian Set- Theory [1925; 1928]. Although Von Neumann's motivation was thoroughly Cantorian, he did not take the concept of a set and the membership-relation as primitive notions, but the concepts of a thing and a function — for rea- sons we do not go into here. This, and Von Neumann's cumbersome nota- tion and terminology (II-things, II.I-things) are the main reasons why ini- tially his theory remained comparatively obscure.
    [Show full text]
  • Axiomatic Set Teory P.D.Welch
    Axiomatic Set Teory P.D.Welch. August 16, 2020 Contents Page 1 Axioms and Formal Systems 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Preliminaries: axioms and formal systems. 3 1.2.1 The formal language of ZF set theory; terms 4 1.2.2 The Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms 7 1.3 Transfinite Recursion 9 1.4 Relativisation of terms and formulae 11 2 Initial segments of the Universe 17 2.1 Singular ordinals: cofinality 17 2.1.1 Cofinality 17 2.1.2 Normal Functions and closed and unbounded classes 19 2.1.3 Stationary Sets 22 2.2 Some further cardinal arithmetic 24 2.3 Transitive Models 25 2.4 The H sets 27 2.4.1 H - the hereditarily finite sets 28 2.4.2 H - the hereditarily countable sets 29 2.5 The Montague-Levy Reflection theorem 30 2.5.1 Absoluteness 30 2.5.2 Reflection Theorems 32 2.6 Inaccessible Cardinals 34 2.6.1 Inaccessible cardinals 35 2.6.2 A menagerie of other large cardinals 36 3 Formalising semantics within ZF 39 3.1 Definite terms and formulae 39 3.1.1 The non-finite axiomatisability of ZF 44 3.2 Formalising syntax 45 3.3 Formalising the satisfaction relation 46 3.4 Formalising definability: the function Def. 47 3.5 More on correctness and consistency 48 ii iii 3.5.1 Incompleteness and Consistency Arguments 50 4 The Constructible Hierarchy 53 4.1 The L -hierarchy 53 4.2 The Axiom of Choice in L 56 4.3 The Axiom of Constructibility 57 4.4 The Generalised Continuum Hypothesis in L.
    [Show full text]
  • Propositional Logic
    Propositional Logic - Review Predicate Logic - Review Propositional Logic: formalisation of reasoning involving propositions Predicate (First-order) Logic: formalisation of reasoning involving predicates. • Proposition: a statement that can be either true or false. • Propositional variable: variable intended to represent the most • Predicate (sometimes called parameterized proposition): primitive propositions relevant to our purposes a Boolean-valued function. • Given a set S of propositional variables, the set F of propositional formulas is defined recursively as: • Domain: the set of possible values for a predicate’s Basis: any propositional variable in S is in F arguments. Induction step: if p and q are in F, then so are ⌐p, (p /\ q), (p \/ q), (p → q) and (p ↔ q) 1 2 Predicate Logic – Review cont’ Predicate Logic - Review cont’ Given a first-order language L, the set F of predicate (first-order) •A first-order language consists of: formulas is constructed inductively as follows: - an infinite set of variables Basis: any atomic formula in L is in F - a set of predicate symbols Inductive step: if e and f are in F and x is a variable in L, - a set of constant symbols then so are the following: ⌐e, (e /\ f), (e \/ f), (e → f), (e ↔ f), ∀ x e, ∃ s e. •A term is a variable or a constant symbol • An occurrence of a variable x is free in a formula f if and only •An atomic formula is an expression of the form p(t1,…,tn), if it does not occur within a subformula e of f of the form ∀ x e where p is a n-ary predicate symbol and each ti is a term.
    [Show full text]
  • Open-Logic-Enderton Rev: C8c9782 (2021-09-28) by OLP/ CC–BY
    An Open Mathematical Introduction to Logic Example OLP Text `ala Enderton Open Logic Project open-logic-enderton rev: c8c9782 (2021-09-28) by OLP/ CC{BY Contents I Propositional Logic7 1 Syntax and Semantics9 1.0 Introduction............................ 9 1.1 Propositional Wffs......................... 10 1.2 Preliminaries............................ 11 1.3 Valuations and Satisfaction.................... 12 1.4 Semantic Notions ......................... 14 Problems ................................. 14 2 Derivation Systems 17 2.0 Introduction............................ 17 2.1 The Sequent Calculus....................... 18 2.2 Natural Deduction......................... 19 2.3 Tableaux.............................. 20 2.4 Axiomatic Derivations ...................... 22 3 Axiomatic Derivations 25 3.0 Rules and Derivations....................... 25 3.1 Axiom and Rules for the Propositional Connectives . 26 3.2 Examples of Derivations ..................... 27 3.3 Proof-Theoretic Notions ..................... 29 3.4 The Deduction Theorem ..................... 30 1 Contents 3.5 Derivability and Consistency................... 32 3.6 Derivability and the Propositional Connectives......... 32 3.7 Soundness ............................. 33 Problems ................................. 34 4 The Completeness Theorem 35 4.0 Introduction............................ 35 4.1 Outline of the Proof........................ 36 4.2 Complete Consistent Sets of Sentences ............. 37 4.3 Lindenbaum's Lemma....................... 38 4.4 Construction of a Model
    [Show full text]
  • First Order Logic and Nonstandard Analysis
    First Order Logic and Nonstandard Analysis Julian Hartman September 4, 2010 Abstract This paper is intended as an exploration of nonstandard analysis, and the rigorous use of infinitesimals and infinite elements to explore properties of the real numbers. I first define and explore first order logic, and model theory. Then, I prove the compact- ness theorem, and use this to form a nonstandard structure of the real numbers. Using this nonstandard structure, it it easy to to various proofs without the use of limits that would otherwise require their use. Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 An Introduction to First Order Logic 2 2.1 Propositional Logic . 2 2.2 Logical Symbols . 2 2.3 Predicates, Constants and Functions . 2 2.4 Well-Formed Formulas . 3 3 Models 3 3.1 Structure . 3 3.2 Truth . 4 3.2.1 Satisfaction . 5 4 The Compactness Theorem 6 4.1 Soundness and Completeness . 6 5 Nonstandard Analysis 7 5.1 Making a Nonstandard Structure . 7 5.2 Applications of a Nonstandard Structure . 9 6 Sources 10 1 1 Introduction The founders of modern calculus had a less than perfect understanding of the nuts and bolts of what made it work. Both Newton and Leibniz used the notion of infinitesimal, without a rigorous understanding of what they were. Infinitely small real numbers that were still not zero was a hard thing for mathematicians to accept, and with the rigorous development of limits by the likes of Cauchy and Weierstrass, the discussion of infinitesimals subsided. Now, using first order logic for nonstandard analysis, it is possible to create a model of the real numbers that has the same properties as the traditional conception of the real numbers, but also has rigorously defined infinite and infinitesimal elements.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 7 1 Overview 2 Sequences and Cartesian Products
    COMPSCI 230: Discrete Mathematics for Computer Science February 4, 2019 Lecture 7 Lecturer: Debmalya Panigrahi Scribe: Erin Taylor 1 Overview In this lecture, we introduce sequences and Cartesian products. We also define relations and study their properties. 2 Sequences and Cartesian Products Recall that two fundamental properties of sets are the following: 1. A set does not contain multiple copies of the same element. 2. The order of elements in a set does not matter. For example, if S = f1, 4, 3g then S is also equal to f4, 1, 3g and f1, 1, 3, 4, 3g. If we remove these two properties from a set, the result is known as a sequence. Definition 1. A sequence is an ordered collection of elements where an element may repeat multiple times. An example of a sequence with three elements is (1, 4, 3). This sequence, unlike the statement above for sets, is not equal to (4, 1, 3), nor is it equal to (1, 1, 3, 4, 3). Often the following shorthand notation is used to define a sequence: 1 s = 8i 2 N i 2i Here the sequence (s1, s2, ... ) is formed by plugging i = 1, 2, ... into the expression to find s1, s2, and so on. This sequence is (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, ... ). We now define a new set operator; the result of this operator is a set whose elements are two-element sequences. Definition 2. The Cartesian product of sets A and B, denoted by A × B, is a set defined as follows: A × B = f(a, b) : a 2 A, b 2 Bg.
    [Show full text]