DOCSLIB.ORG

Adding an Abstraction Barrier to ZF Set Theory Conference for Intelligent Computer Mathematics 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Adding an Abstraction Barrier to ZF Set Theory Conference for Intelligent Computer Mathematics 2020 Adding an Abstraction Barrier to ZF Set Theory Conference for Intelligent Computer Mathematics 2020 Ciar´anM. Dunne, J. B. Wells, and Fairouz Kamareddine http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~cmd1/ Pre-print: https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.13954 July 27, 2020 1 Foundations of Mathematics • Mathematical foundations are systems that use a small number of fundamental concepts to model the practice of mathematicians. • Such systems provide rigorous accounts of mathematical objects such as numbers, vectors, functions, groups and their properties. • Axiomatic set theories | particularly Zermelo-Frankel (ZF) with first-order logic (FOL) | are broadly accepted by mathematicians. • Type theories are foundations of mathematics often used in machine-assisted theorem proving, and also in programming languages. • Translation of mathematical text into a foundation is called formalisation. 2 Formalisation of Mathematics • Foundations are idealisations of mathematical practice, so formalisation requires significant translation. • Awkward compromises must constantly be made to fit the mathematics to the foundation. • Current foundations fail to accurately capture the practice of mathematicians. • We consider the consequences of founding a piece of mathematical text in ZF set theory to demonstrate one of these issues, and propose a solution to this particular issue. 3 Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory • ZF is a collection of axioms stated in first-order logic. • Initial system proposed by Ernst Zermelo (above) in 1909, amended by Abraham Fraenkel (below), von Neumann and Skolem in 1922. • The axioms describe a domain of objects called sets, and the behaviour of the set membership relation 2. • Logical deduction from these axioms provides us with a rich theory of sets. • Sets are used to represent mathematical objects, so that for many theorems about such objects there is a corresponding theorem about sets provable from ZF. 4 = Axiom of Extensionality 8 x; y :(8 a : a 2 x $ a 2 y) ! x = y \If two sets contain exactly the same members, then they are equal." [ P Axiom of Union 8 x : 9 y : 8 a : a 2 y $ (9 z 2 x : a 2 z) Axiom of Power Set \The union of all sets inside a set exists." 8 x : 9 y : 8 z : z 2 y $ z ⊆ x \The power set of a set exists." 5 Axiom Schema of Replacement 8 c1; c2; x :(8 a 2 x : 9! b :' ^(a; b)) ! (9 y : 8 b : b 2 y $ 9 a 2 x :' ^(a; b)) \For any formula' ^(a; b) with at most c1; c2; a; b free, if for each a 2 x there is a Axiom of Foundation unique b such that' ^(a; b) holds, then the set containing all such b exists`' 8 x : x = ;_ (9 y 2 x : y \ x = ;) \Every set is well-founded." • Used to define set-builder • Rules out infinitely descending notation: chains of sets X0 3 X1 3 · · · . f y j 9 x 2 B :' ^(x; y) g • e.g. no self-containing sets • Allows us to prove the existence X 2 X . of ;, fX ; Y g, f a 2 X j g. • Needed for results in set theory, as well as results such as the Borel determinacy theorem. 6 ··· succ succ succ Axiom of Infinity 9y : ; 2 y ^ (8x 2 y : succ(x) 2 y) succ(x) := x [ fxg \There exists a set containing ;, closed under the successor operation." • The von Neumann natural numbers can be defined as: 0 := ;; 1 := f0g; 2 := f0; 1g; 3 := f0; 1; 2g;::: • Infinity proves the existence of N, the natural numbers. • The set membership relation 2 acts like the < ordering on N. 7 Ordered Pairs in Set Theory • An ordered pair( a; b) is a container that holds two objects. • Any definition of ordered pairs must satisfy: Characteristic Property of Ordered Pairs (a; b) = (c; d) if and only if a = c and b = d. • Projection relations or functions { π1; π2 { are used to reason about the contents. For example: 3 π1 (3; 2) Definition Widely used set-theoretic definition given by Kuratowski in 1921: ha; bi = ffag; fa; bgg 8 Functions in ZF • Relations and functions are defined as sets of ordered pairs. • For relations, we define x R y := (x; y) 2 R. • For functions, f (x) is the unique y such that (x; y) 2 f . So for each x there must be at most one value y for which (x; y) 2 f . Example 2 A function that satisfies the formula 8 x 2 N : f (x) = x . 2 f := f hx; x i j x 2 N g = fh0; 0i; h1; 1i; h2; 4i; h3; 9i;:::g 9 Functions in ZF • A user may want to define a function acting on a domain containing sets and ordered pairs which satisfies the following logical constraints: • D = (N × N) [Pfin(N) • g : D ! N ( p + q if x = hp; qi for some p; q 2 N g(x) = • Pn i=1 pi if x = fp1;:::; png ⊆ N • Does ZF provide a function g satisfying the specification? • What is g (h0; 1i)? g (f1; 2g)? 10 Functions in ZF • From the specification, we might expect that g(h0; 1i) = 1, and g(f1; 2g) = 3. • However, by definition of Kuratowski ordered pairs: h0; 1i = ff0g; f0; 1gg. • By definition of von Neumann natural numbers: f1; 2g = ff0g; f0; 1gg. • So by definition of function, there must be only one y such that hff0g; f0; 1gg; yi 2 g, and hence only one result for g(h0; 1i) and g(f1; 2g). • What went wrong? 11 • The behaviour of the specified function is based on cases of the `type' of the object, which is only visible at the meta-level. • We assumed the cases were mutually exclusive, because N × N and Pfin(N) are considered to be disjoint, as ordered pairs are not usually thought of as sets. • We are using a naive Kuratowski Pairs translation of mathematical × text to ZF sets, roughly: N N ∗ ∗ ∗ Pfin(N) fb1;:::; bng = fb1;:::; bng (b; c)∗ = ffb∗g; fb∗; c∗gg ZF Sets (n + 1)∗ = n∗ [ fn∗g • Reasoning on a mixture of sets and objects represented by ZF sets requires us to ensure the collections of ZF sets in use are disjoint for each `type'. 12 Types? • In type-theoretic foundations, every typeable term x has at least one type τ, written x : τ. Example 42 : Nat (2; 5) : Nat ∗ Nat (·)2 : Nat ! Nat • Types are used to organise the operations that may be performed on objects, and characterise the objects that can exist. • Overloading of operations can be safely performed since type information can often be inferred by an algorithm. 13 Maybe Not. • Overloading allows us to define g1 : (Nat ∗ Nat) ! Nat and g2 : P(Nat) ! Nat, and then: 8 <g1(x) if the type of x is Nat ∗ Nat g(x) = :g2(x) if the type of x is P(Nat) • However, the typing rules are often very complicated, and require machine assistance to carry them out. • A large portion of mathematics is written as if it is founded in set theory. Formulating it in type theory may be confusing for mathematicians. 14 Tagging in Set Theory • What if we want to stay within set theory? g1 i1 N × N B1 i2 g2 B2 N Pfin(N) Definition i1 : N × N ! B1 i2 : Pfin(N) ! B2 such that i1; i2 are injective and B1 \ B2 = ;. Definition g1 : B1 ! N g2 : B2 ! N Pn g1(i1(hp; qi)) = p + q g2(i2(fp1;:::; png)) = i=1 pi 15 Tagging: Results • The function g can then be defined as g1 [ g2 with domain B1 [ B2, and the user may apply i1 and i2 tell g whether to use g1 or g2. • The mappings x 7! h0; xi, x 7! h1; xi are often used for i1; i2. • Tagging is ugly and annoying, as we would like to reason about sets and pairs without the use of tags. • If you don't want to do tagging, there isn't much choice for resolving this issue whilst staying within set-theoretic foundations. 16 What else? • Some set theories have non-set objects called atoms or urelements, though they usually have no relational structure. • Long term goal: a set theory with an information hiding mechanism in which the user can specify a set-theoretic representation of a class of mathematical objects, and hide the gritty details using genuine non-sets. • These special non-sets will have the properties of a set representation provided by the user, but without the properties the user considers irrelevant. • As a first instance of this aim, we arrive at ZFP (ZF with Ordered Pairs), which hides the representation of ordered pairs. 17 ZFP: Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory with (Ordered) Pairs Introduction to ZFP • ZFP extends ZF with ordered pairs as non-set objects. • The domain of objects is split into pairs and sets. • For any objects A; B, there exists a non-set ordered pair hhA; Bii, i.e. 8c : c 2=hhA; Bii. • Gained by modifying ZF's axioms to allow non-sets, and axiomatising relation symbols π1; π2 with desired properties. • So that hhA; Bii is the unique p such that A π1 p and B π2 p. • The domain of ZFP contains all of the pure sets of ZF, including Kuratowski pairs ha; bi. 18 Diagram ha; bi hha; bii 2 2 π1 π2 fa; bg fag a b 2 2 2 a a b 19 Facts • Sets can have pairs as their members, and pairs can have sets as their projections. • Cartesian product can defined using Replacement nested inside Replacement: A × B = [ f z j 9 c 2 A : z = f p j 9 d 2 B : p = hhc; diigg • If p = hha; bii, then P(p) = ; and [ p = ;, etc.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Lecture 3: Constructing the Natural Numbers 1 Building
    Math/CS 120: Intro. to Math Professor: Padraic Bartlett Lecture 3: Constructing the Natural Numbers Weeks 3-4 UCSB 2014 When we defined what a proof was in our first set of lectures, we mentioned that we wanted our proofs to only start by assuming \true" statements, which we said were either previously proven-to-be-true statements or a small handful of axioms, mathematical statements which we are assuming to be true. At the time, we \handwaved" away what those axioms were, in favor of using known properties/definitions to prove results! In this talk, however, we're going to delve into the bedrock of exactly \what" properties are needed to build up some of our favorite number systems. 1 Building the Natural Numbers 1.1 First attempts. Intuitively, we think of the natural numbers as the following set: Definition. The natural numbers, denoted as N, is the set of the positive whole numbers. We denote it as follows: N = f0; 1; 2; 3;:::g This is a fine definition for most of the mathematics we will perform in this class! However, suppose that you were feeling particularly paranoid about your fellow mathematicians; i.e. you have a sneaking suspicion that the Goldbach conjecture is false, and it somehow boils down to the natural numbers being ill-defined. Or you think that you can prove P = NP with the corollary that P = NP, and to do that you need to figure out what people mean by these blackboard-bolded letters. Or you just wanted to troll your professors in CCS.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 9: Axiomatic Set Theory
    Lecture 9: Axiomatic Set Theory December 16, 2014 Lecture 9: Axiomatic Set Theory Key points of today's lecture: I The iterative concept of set. I The language of set theory (LOST). I The axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZFC). I Justification of the axioms based on the iterative concept of set. Today Lecture 9: Axiomatic Set Theory I The iterative concept of set. I The language of set theory (LOST). I The axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZFC). I Justification of the axioms based on the iterative concept of set. Today Key points of today's lecture: Lecture 9: Axiomatic Set Theory I The language of set theory (LOST). I The axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZFC). I Justification of the axioms based on the iterative concept of set. Today Key points of today's lecture: I The iterative concept of set. Lecture 9: Axiomatic Set Theory I The axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZFC). I Justification of the axioms based on the iterative concept of set. Today Key points of today's lecture: I The iterative concept of set. I The language of set theory (LOST). Lecture 9: Axiomatic Set Theory I Justification of the axioms based on the iterative concept of set. Today Key points of today's lecture: I The iterative concept of set. I The language of set theory (LOST). I The axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZFC). Lecture 9: Axiomatic Set Theory Today Key points of today's lecture: I The iterative concept of set. I The language of set theory (LOST).
    [Show full text]
  • Set-Theoretical Background 1.1 Ordinals and Cardinals
    Set-Theoretical Background 11 February 2019 Our set-theoretical framework will be the Zermelo{Fraenkel axioms with the axiom of choice (ZFC): • Axiom of Extensionality. If X and Y have the same elements, then X = Y . • Axiom of Pairing. For all a and b there exists a set fa; bg that contains exactly a and b. • Axiom Schema of Separation. If P is a property (with a parameter p), then for all X and p there exists a set Y = fx 2 X : P (x; p)g that contains all those x 2 X that have the property P . • Axiom of Union. For any X there exists a set Y = S X, the union of all elements of X. • Axiom of Power Set. For any X there exists a set Y = P (X), the set of all subsets of X. • Axiom of Infinity. There exists an infinite set. • Axiom Schema of Replacement. If a class F is a function, then for any X there exists a set Y = F (X) = fF (x): x 2 Xg. • Axiom of Regularity. Every nonempty set has a minimal element for the membership relation. • Axiom of Choice. Every family of nonempty sets has a choice function. 1.1 Ordinals and cardinals A set X is well ordered if it is equipped with a total order relation such that every nonempty subset S ⊆ X has a smallest element. The statement that every set admits a well ordering is equivalent to the axiom of choice. A set X is transitive if every element of an element of X is an element of X.
    [Show full text]
  • SET THEORY Andrea K. Dieterly a Thesis Submitted to the Graduate
    SET THEORY Andrea K. Dieterly A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS August 2011 Committee: Warren Wm. McGovern, Advisor Juan Bes Rieuwert Blok i Abstract Warren Wm. McGovern, Advisor This manuscript was to show the equivalency of the Axiom of Choice, Zorn's Lemma and Zermelo's Well-Ordering Principle. Starting with a brief history of the development of set history, this work introduced the Axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel, common applications of the axioms, and set theoretic descriptions of sets of numbers. The book, Introduction to Set Theory, by Karel Hrbacek and Thomas Jech was the primary resource with other sources providing additional background information. ii Acknowledgements I would like to thank Warren Wm. McGovern for his assistance and guidance while working and writing this thesis. I also want to thank Reiuwert Blok and Juan Bes for being on my committee. Thank you to Dan Shifflet and Nate Iverson for help with the typesetting program LATEX. A personal thank you to my husband, Don, for his love and support. iii Contents Contents . iii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Naive Set Theory . 2 1.2 The Axiom of Choice . 4 1.3 Russell's Paradox . 5 2 Axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel 7 2.1 First Order Logic . 7 2.2 The Axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel . 8 2.3 The Recursive Theorem . 13 3 Development of Numbers 16 3.1 Natural Numbers and Integers . 16 3.2 Rational Numbers . 20 3.3 Real Numbers .
    [Show full text]
  • Set Theory Handout
    Salem State College MAT 420 Set Theory L. Pedro Poitevin October 25, 2007 1 Foundations De¯nition (Informal). We de¯ne a set A to be any unordered collection of objects, e.g., f3; 8; 5; 1g is a set. If x is an object, we say that x is an element of A or x 2 A if x lies in the collection; otherwise we say that x is not an element of A and write x2 = A. For instance, 3 2 f1; 2; 3; 4; 5g but 7 2= f1; 2; 3; 4; 5g. Axiom 1 (Sets are objects). If A is a set, then A is also an object. In particular, given two sets A and B, it is meaningful to ask whether A is an element of B. De¯nition (Equality of sets). Two sets A and B are equal|in notation A = B|if and only if every element of A is an element of B and vice versa. Axiom 2 (Empty set). There exists a set ;, known as the empty set, which contains no elements, i.e. for every object x we have x2 = ;. Exercise. Prove that there is only one empty set. Lemma 1 (Single choice). Let A be a nonempty set. Then there exists an object x such that x 2 A. Axiom 3 (Singletons). If a is an object, then there exists a set fag whose only element is a. Axiom 4 (Pairwise union). Given any two sets A and B, there exists a set A [ B called the union of A and B, whose elements are all objects which are elements of A or B.
    [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]
  • The Axiom of Choice and Its Implications in Mathematics
    Treball final de grau GRAU DE MATEMATIQUES` Facultat de Matem`atiquesi Inform`atica Universitat de Barcelona The Axiom of Choice and its implications in mathematics Autor: Gina Garcia Tarrach Director: Dr. Joan Bagaria Realitzat a: Departament de Matem`atiques i Inform`atica Barcelona, 29 de juny de 2017 Abstract The Axiom of Choice is an axiom of set theory which states that, given a collection of non-empty sets, it is possible to choose an element out of each set of the collection. The implications of the acceptance of the Axiom are many, some of them essential to the de- velopment of contemporary mathematics. In this work, we give a basic presentation of the Axiom and its consequences: we study the Axiom of Choice as well as some of its equivalent forms such as the Well Ordering Theorem and Zorn's Lemma, some weaker choice principles, the implications of the Axiom in different fields of mathematics, so- me paradoxical results implied by it, and its role within the Zermelo-Fraenkel axiomatic theory. i Contents Introduction 1 0 Some preliminary notes on well-orders, ordinal and cardinal numbers 3 1 Historical background 6 2 The Axiom of Choice and its Equivalent Forms 9 2.1 The Axiom of Choice . 9 2.2 The Well Ordering Theorem . 10 2.3 Zorn's Lemma . 12 2.4 Other equivalent forms . 13 3 Weaker Forms of the Axiom of Choice 14 3.1 The Axiom of Dependent Choice . 14 3.2 The Axiom of Countable Choice . 15 3.3 The Boolean Prime Ideal Theorem .
    [Show full text]
  • Basic Set Theory
    Basic set theory Richard Pettigrew January 26, 2012 1 A set and its members • A set is a collection of objects. • The objects in a set are called its elements or members. • If x is a set and z is a member of x, then we write z 2 x. • If x is a set and z is not a member of x, then we write z 62 x. • If x and y are sets and if all members of x are also members of y, then we say that x is a subset of y. We write this x ⊆ y. Thus, we have: x ⊆ y $ 8z(z 2 x ! z 2 y) • The members of a set determine that set. That is, there are no two distinct sets with the same members. This distinguishes sets from properties, concepts, and other intensional notions. This is codified in the following axiom of set theory: Axiom 1 (Axiom of Extensionality) 8x8y[x = y $ (8z)(z 2 x $ z 2 y)] Another way of stating this is that if x ⊆ y and y ⊆ x, then x = y. This axiom is reasonably uncontroversial and it is shared by nearly all versions of set theory. 2 Which sets are there? 2.1 Na¨ıve set theory Na¨ıveSet Theory has two axioms: • The Axiom of Extensionality. • The Axiom of Unrestricted Comprehension. This says that, for any property, there is a set of all and only those things that have that property. More precisely, we restrict to properties that can be defined by formulae in the language of set theory with parameters: 1 Axiom 2 (Axiom of Unrestricted Comprehension) Given a formula Φ(x; w1; : : : ; wn) in the language of set theory, 8w1; : : : ; wn9x8z[z 2 x $ Φ(z; w1; : : : ; wn)] Given a formula Φ(x; w1; : : : ; wn) and values w1, :::, wn, we write this set fx : Φ(x; w1; : : : ; wn)g.
    [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]
  • Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory and Related Axioms Games Again, Infinite Style
    Axiom of Choice, Maximal Independent Sets, Argumentation and Dialogue Games Christof Spanring Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, UK Institute of Information Systems, Vienna University of Technology, Austria PhDs Tea Talk Liverpool, October 3, 2014 Outline 1 Introduction Games and Motivations Infinity and Questions 2 Backgrounds Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory and related Axioms Games Again, Infinite Style 3 The Stuff Abstract Argumentation An Equivalence Proof Christof Spanring, PhDs Tea Talk Choice and Argumentation 2 / 16 A minor example Example (Games played on Argument Graphs) Can you defend an argument a beyond doubt, i.e. defeat any attackers without running into conflict with your own argument base? Who has a winning strategy, you as the proponent or your oponent? a b c ... Christof Spanring, PhDs Tea Talk Choice and Argumentation 3 / 16 A minor example Example (Games played on Argument Graphs) Can you defend an argument a beyond doubt, i.e. defeat any attackers without running into conflict with your own argument base? Who has a winning strategy, you as the proponent or your oponent? a b c d ... Christof Spanring, PhDs Tea Talk Choice and Argumentation 3 / 16 A minor example Example (Games played on Argument Graphs) Can you defend an argument a beyond doubt, i.e. defeat any attackers without running into conflict with your own argument base? Who has a winning strategy, you as the proponent or your oponent? a b c d ... Christof Spanring, PhDs Tea Talk Choice and Argumentation 3 / 16 Question p How many rational numbers
    [Show full text]