DOCSLIB.ORG

Euclid's Elements, from Hilbert's Axioms

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Euclid's Elements, from Hilbert's Axioms Euclid’s Elements, from Hilbert’s Axioms THESIS Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Peter James Ward Graduate Program in Mathematics The Ohio State University 2012 Master's Examination Committee: Professor Rodica Costin, Advisor Professor Ronald Solomon Copyright by Peter James Ward 2012 Abstract This project is an exposition of Book I of Euclid’s Elements consistent with modern mathematical rigor. This text is designed to serve as a first introduction to geometry, building from Hilbert’s axioms the tools necessary for a thorough investigation of planar geometry. ii Vita May 2006 .......................................................Christian Brothers Academy 2010................................................................B.A. Mathematics, Rutgers University 2010 to present ..............................................Graduate Teaching Associate, Department of Mathematics, The Ohio State University Fields of Study Major Field: Mathematics iii Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................... ii Vita ......................................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... vi 0. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 I. Axioms of Incidence ............................................................................................................ 10 II. Axioms of Order ................................................................................................................. 13 III. Axioms of Congruence of Segments .................................................................................. 34 IV. Axioms of Congruence of Angles ....................................................................................... 41 V. Triangles ............................................................................................................................ 58 VI. Axiom of Circles ................................................................................................................ 80 VII. Axiom of Parallels ............................................................................................................ 84 VIII. Archimedes Axiom and Area ........................................................................................... 94 IX. Axiom of Completeness .................................................................................................. 116 References ........................................................................................................................... 117 iv Appendix A: List of Axioms .................................................................................................. 119 Appendix B: A Note to the Instructor ................................................................................... 121 v List of Figures FIGURE 1: FINITE GEOMETRIES ............................................................................................................................ 12 FIGURE 2: O IS BETWEEN A AND B ........................................................................................................................ 13 FIGURE 3: O IS BETWEEN .................................................................................................................................... 21 FIGURE 4: LINE AND SEGMENT ............................................................................................................................. 14 FIGURE 5: DIAGRAMS WHICH SATISFY AXIOM II.4 .................................................................................................... 14 FIGURE 6: DIAGRAMS WHICH DON’T SATISFY AXIOM II.4 .......................................................................................... 15 FIGURE 7: THEOREM 2, CASE 1 ........................................................................................................................... 18 FIGURE 8: THEOREM 2, CASE 2 ........................................................................................................................... 19 FIGURE 9: THEOREM 2, CASE 1 ........................................................................................................................... 20 FIGURE 10: THEOREM 2, CASE 2 ......................................................................................................................... 20 FIGURE 11: ON THE LEFT, A AND B ARE ON THE SAME SIDE OF A; ON THE RIGHT, A AND B ARE ON DIFFERENT SIDES OF A ...... 21 FIGURE 12: ON THE LEFT, A AND B ARE ON THE SAME SIDE OF O; ON THE RIGHT, A AND B ARE ON DIFFERENT SIDES OF O ..... 21 FIGURE 13: RAY ................................................................................................................................................ 21 FIGURE 14: INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR OF AN ANGLE .................................................................................................. 22 FIGURE 15: THEOREM 3 ..................................................................................................................................... 25 FIGURE 16: COROLLARY TO THEOREM 3 ................................................................................................................ 25 FIGURE 17: THEOREM 4 ..................................................................................................................................... 26 FIGURE 18: THEOREM 5 ..................................................................................................................................... 27 FIGURE 19: THREE BROKEN LINES ......................................................................................................................... 28 FIGURE 20: THREE POLYGONS. THE TWO POLYGONS ON THE RIGHT ARE SIMPLE POLYGONS. ............................................. 29 FIGURE 21: INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR OF A POLYGON ................................................................................................ 29 FIGURE 22: CROSSBAR THEOREM ......................................................................................................................... 30 vi FIGURE 23: THEOREM 7 ..................................................................................................................................... 31 FIGURE 24: EXERCISE 5 ...................................................................................................................................... 33 FIGURE 25: AB ≡ CD ≡ EF, AND GH ≡ JK. ....................................................................................................... 35 FIGURE 26: AXIOM III.3 ..................................................................................................................................... 35 FIGURE 27: AB + CD ≡ AE ............................................................................................................................... 36 FIGURE 28: AB – CD ≡ AE ............................................................................................................................... 37 FIGURE 29: AB < CD < EF < GH < JK < LM .......................................................................................................... 38 FIGURE 30: COROLLARY TO THEOREM 8 ................................................................................................................ 40 FIGURE 31: ∡ABC ≡ ∡DEF AND ∡GHJ ≡ ∡JHK ≡ ∡KHL .................................................................................. 42 FIGURE 32: CONGRUENT TRIANGLES ..................................................................................................................... 43 FIGURE 33: THEOREM 9 ..................................................................................................................................... 44 FIGURE 34: SUPPLEMENTARY ANGLES ................................................................................................................... 45 FIGURE 35: THEOREM 10 ................................................................................................................................... 46 FIGURE 36: VERTICAL ANGLES ............................................................................................................................. 47 FIGURE 37: COROLLARY TO THEOREM 10 .............................................................................................................. 47 FIGURE 38: THEOREM 11 ................................................................................................................................... 49 FIGURE 39: ∡ABC + ∡DEF ≡ ∡ABG ................................................................................................................. 50 FIGURE 40: ∡ABG - ∡DEF ≡ ∡ABC ................................................................................................................. 51 FIGURE 41: ∡ABC < ∡DEF ................................................................................................................................ 52 FIGURE 42: THEOREM
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Structure, Classification, and Conformal Symmetry, of Elementary
    Lett Math Phys (2009) 89:171–182 DOI 10.1007/s11005-009-0351-2 Structure, Classification, and Conformal Symmetry, of Elementary Particles over Non-Archimedean Space–Time V. S. VARADARAJAN and JUKKA VIRTANEN Department of Mathematics, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1555, USA. e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] Received: 3 April 2009 / Revised: 12 September 2009 / Accepted: 12 September 2009 Publishedonline:23September2009–©TheAuthor(s)2009. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract. It is known that no length or time measurements are possible in sub-Planckian regions of spacetime. The Volovich hypothesis postulates that the micro-geometry of space- time may therefore be assumed to be non-archimedean. In this letter, the consequences of this hypothesis for the structure, classification, and conformal symmetry of elementary particles, when spacetime is a flat space over a non-archimedean field such as the p-adic numbers, is explored. Both the Poincare´ and Galilean groups are treated. The results are based on a new variant of the Mackey machine for projective unitary representations of semidirect product groups which are locally compact and second countable. Conformal spacetime is constructed over p-adic fields and the impossibility of conformal symmetry of massive and eventually massive particles is proved. Mathematics Subject Classification (2000). 22E50, 22E70, 20C35, 81R05. Keywords. Volovich hypothesis, non-archimedean fields, Poincare´ group, Galilean group, semidirect product, cocycles, affine action, conformal spacetime, conformal symmetry, massive, eventually massive, massless particles. 1. Introduction In the 1970s many physicists, concerned about the divergences in quantum field theories, started exploring the micro-structure of space–time itself as a possible source of these problems.
    [Show full text]
  • MOTIVATING HILBERT SYSTEMS Hilbert Systems Are Formal Systems
    MOTIVATING HILBERT SYSTEMS Hilbert systems are formal systems that encode the notion of a mathematical proof, which are used in the branch of mathematics known as proof theory. There are other formal systems that proof theorists use, with their own advantages and disadvantages. The advantage of Hilbert systems is that they are simpler than the alternatives in terms of the number of primitive notions they involve. Formal systems for proof theory work by deriving theorems from axioms using rules of inference. The distinctive characteristic of Hilbert systems is that they have very few primitive rules of inference|in fact a Hilbert system with just one primitive rule of inference, modus ponens, suffices to formalize proofs using first- order logic, and first-order logic is sufficient for all mathematical reasoning. Modus ponens is the rule of inference that says that if we have theorems of the forms p ! q and p, where p and q are formulas, then χ is also a theorem. This makes sense given the interpretation of p ! q as meaning \if p is true, then so is q". The simplicity of inference in Hilbert systems is compensated for by a somewhat more complicated set of axioms. For minimal propositional logic, the two axiom schemes below suffice: (1) For every pair of formulas p and q, the formula p ! (q ! p) is an axiom. (2) For every triple of formulas p, q and r, the formula (p ! (q ! r)) ! ((p ! q) ! (p ! r)) is an axiom. One thing that had always bothered me when reading about Hilbert systems was that I couldn't see how people could come up with these axioms other than by a stroke of luck or genius.
    [Show full text]
  • 6.5 the Recursion Theorem
    6.5. THE RECURSION THEOREM 417 6.5 The Recursion Theorem The recursion Theorem, due to Kleene, is a fundamental result in recursion theory. Theorem 6.5.1 (Recursion Theorem, Version 1 )Letϕ0,ϕ1,... be any ac- ceptable indexing of the partial recursive functions. For every total recursive function f, there is some n such that ϕn = ϕf(n). The recursion Theorem can be strengthened as follows. Theorem 6.5.2 (Recursion Theorem, Version 2 )Letϕ0,ϕ1,... be any ac- ceptable indexing of the partial recursive functions. There is a total recursive function h such that for all x ∈ N,ifϕx is total, then ϕϕx(h(x)) = ϕh(x). 418 CHAPTER 6. ELEMENTARY RECURSIVE FUNCTION THEORY A third version of the recursion Theorem is given below. Theorem 6.5.3 (Recursion Theorem, Version 3 ) For all n ≥ 1, there is a total recursive function h of n +1 arguments, such that for all x ∈ N,ifϕx is a total recursive function of n +1arguments, then ϕϕx(h(x,x1,...,xn),x1,...,xn) = ϕh(x,x1,...,xn), for all x1,...,xn ∈ N. As a first application of the recursion theorem, we can show that there is an index n such that ϕn is the constant function with output n. Loosely speaking, ϕn prints its own name. Let f be the recursive function such that f(x, y)=x for all x, y ∈ N. 6.5. THE RECURSION THEOREM 419 By the s-m-n Theorem, there is a recursive function g such that ϕg(x)(y)=f(x, y)=x for all x, y ∈ N.
    [Show full text]
  • April 22 7.1 Recursion Theorem
    CSE 431 Theory of Computation Spring 2014 Lecture 7: April 22 Lecturer: James R. Lee Scribe: Eric Lei Disclaimer: These notes have not been subjected to the usual scrutiny reserved for formal publications. They may be distributed outside this class only with the permission of the Instructor. An interesting question about Turing machines is whether they can reproduce themselves. A Turing machine cannot be be defined in terms of itself, but can it still somehow print its own source code? The answer to this question is yes, as we will see in the recursion theorem. Afterward we will see some applications of this result. 7.1 Recursion Theorem Our end goal is to have a Turing machine that prints its own source code and operates on it. Last lecture we proved the existence of a Turing machine called SELF that ignores its input and prints its source code. We construct a similar proof for the recursion theorem. We will also need the following lemma proved last lecture. ∗ ∗ Lemma 7.1 There exists a computable function q :Σ ! Σ such that q(w) = hPwi, where Pw is a Turing machine that prints w and hats. Theorem 7.2 (Recursion theorem) Let T be a Turing machine that computes a function t :Σ∗ × Σ∗ ! Σ∗. There exists a Turing machine R that computes a function r :Σ∗ ! Σ∗, where for every w, r(w) = t(hRi; w): The theorem says that for an arbitrary computable function t, there is a Turing machine R that computes t on hRi and some input. Proof: We construct a Turing Machine R in three parts, A, B, and T , where T is given by the statement of the theorem.
    [Show full text]
  • Intuitionism on Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem
    The Yale Undergraduate Research Journal Volume 2 Issue 1 Spring 2021 Article 31 2021 Incomplete? Or Indefinite? Intuitionism on Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem Quinn Crawford Yale University Follow this and additional works at: https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/yurj Part of the Mathematics Commons, and the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Crawford, Quinn (2021) "Incomplete? Or Indefinite? Intuitionism on Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem," The Yale Undergraduate Research Journal: Vol. 2 : Iss. 1 , Article 31. Available at: https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/yurj/vol2/iss1/31 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by EliScholar – A Digital Platform for Scholarly Publishing at Yale. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Yale Undergraduate Research Journal by an authorized editor of EliScholar – A Digital Platform for Scholarly Publishing at Yale. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Incomplete? Or Indefinite? Intuitionism on Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem Cover Page Footnote Written for Professor Sun-Joo Shin’s course PHIL 437: Philosophy of Mathematics. This article is available in The Yale Undergraduate Research Journal: https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/yurj/vol2/iss1/ 31 Crawford: Intuitionism on Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem Crawford | Philosophy Incomplete? Or Indefinite? Intuitionism on Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem By Quinn Crawford1 1Department of Philosophy, Yale University ABSTRACT This paper analyzes two natural-looking arguments that seek to leverage Gödel’s first incompleteness theo- rem for and against intuitionism, concluding in both cases that the argument is unsound because it equivo- cates on the meaning of “proof,” which differs between formalism and intuitionism.
    [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]
  • Noncommutative Geometry and the Spectral Model of Space-Time
    S´eminaire Poincar´eX (2007) 179 – 202 S´eminaire Poincar´e Noncommutative geometry and the spectral model of space-time Alain Connes IHES´ 35, route de Chartres 91440 Bures-sur-Yvette - France Abstract. This is a report on our joint work with A. Chamseddine and M. Marcolli. This essay gives a short introduction to a potential application in physics of a new type of geometry based on spectral considerations which is convenient when dealing with noncommutative spaces i.e. spaces in which the simplifying rule of commutativity is no longer applied to the coordinates. Starting from the phenomenological Lagrangian of gravity coupled with matter one infers, using the spectral action principle, that space-time admits a fine structure which is a subtle mixture of the usual 4-dimensional continuum with a finite discrete structure F . Under the (unrealistic) hypothesis that this structure remains valid (i.e. one does not have any “hyperfine” modification) until the unification scale, one obtains a number of predictions whose approximate validity is a basic test of the approach. 1 Background Our knowledge of space-time can be summarized by the transition from the flat Minkowski metric ds2 = − dt2 + dx2 + dy2 + dz2 (1) to the Lorentzian metric 2 µ ν ds = gµν dx dx (2) of curved space-time with gravitational potential gµν . The basic principle is the Einstein-Hilbert action principle Z 1 √ 4 SE[ gµν ] = r g d x (3) G M where r is the scalar curvature of the space-time manifold M. This action principle only accounts for the gravitational forces and a full account of the forces observed so far requires the addition of new fields, and of corresponding new terms SSM in the action, which constitute the Standard Model so that the total action is of the form, S = SE + SSM .
    [Show full text]
  • Connections Between Graph Theory, Additive Combinatorics, and Finite
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO Connections between graph theory, additive combinatorics, and finite incidence geometry A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics by Michael Tait Committee in charge: Professor Jacques Verstra¨ete,Chair Professor Fan Chung Graham Professor Ronald Graham Professor Shachar Lovett Professor Brendon Rhoades 2016 Copyright Michael Tait, 2016 All rights reserved. The dissertation of Michael Tait is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically: Chair University of California, San Diego 2016 iii DEDICATION To Lexi. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page . iii Dedication . iv Table of Contents . .v List of Figures . vii Acknowledgements . viii Vita........................................x Abstract of the Dissertation . xi 1 Introduction . .1 1.1 Polarity graphs and the Tur´annumber for C4 ......2 1.2 Sidon sets and sum-product estimates . .3 1.3 Subplanes of projective planes . .4 1.4 Frequently used notation . .5 2 Quadrilateral-free graphs . .7 2.1 Introduction . .7 2.2 Preliminaries . .9 2.3 Proof of Theorem 2.1.1 and Corollary 2.1.2 . 11 2.4 Concluding remarks . 14 3 Coloring ERq ........................... 16 3.1 Introduction . 16 3.2 Proof of Theorem 3.1.7 . 21 3.3 Proof of Theorems 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 . 23 3.3.1 q a square . 24 3.3.2 q not a square . 26 3.4 Proof of Theorem 3.1.8 . 34 3.5 Concluding remarks on coloring ERq ........... 36 4 Chromatic and Independence Numbers of General Polarity Graphs .
    [Show full text]
  • David Hilbert's Contributions to Logical Theory
    David Hilbert’s contributions to logical theory CURTIS FRANKS 1. A mathematician’s cast of mind Charles Sanders Peirce famously declared that “no two things could be more directly opposite than the cast of mind of the logician and that of the mathematician” (Peirce 1976, p. 595), and one who would take his word for it could only ascribe to David Hilbert that mindset opposed to the thought of his contemporaries, Frege, Gentzen, Godel,¨ Heyting, Łukasiewicz, and Skolem. They were the logicians par excellence of a generation that saw Hilbert seated at the helm of German mathematical research. Of Hilbert’s numerous scientific achievements, not one properly belongs to the domain of logic. In fact several of the great logical discoveries of the 20th century revealed deep errors in Hilbert’s intuitions—exemplifying, one might say, Peirce’s bald generalization. Yet to Peirce’s addendum that “[i]t is almost inconceivable that a man should be great in both ways” (Ibid.), Hilbert stands as perhaps history’s principle counter-example. It is to Hilbert that we owe the fundamental ideas and goals (indeed, even the name) of proof theory, the first systematic development and application of the methods (even if the field would be named only half a century later) of model theory, and the statement of the first definitive problem in recursion theory. And he did more. Beyond giving shape to the various sub-disciplines of modern logic, Hilbert brought them each under the umbrella of mainstream mathematical activity, so that for the first time in history teams of researchers shared a common sense of logic’s open problems, key concepts, and central techniques.
    [Show full text]
  • Set-Theoretic Foundations1
    To appear in A. Caicedo et al, eds., Foundations of Mathematics, (Providence, RI: AMS). Set-theoretic Foundations1 It’s more or less standard orthodoxy these days that set theory - - ZFC, extended by large cardinals -- provides a foundation for classical mathematics. Oddly enough, it’s less clear what ‘providing a foundation’ comes to. Still, there are those who argue strenuously that category theory would do this job better than set theory does, or even that set theory can’t do it at all, and that category theory can. There are also those insist that set theory should be understood, not as the study of a single universe, V, purportedly described by ZFC + LCs, but as the study of a so-called ‘multiverse’ of set-theoretic universes -- while retaining its foundational role. I won’t pretend to sort out all these complex and contentious matters, but I do hope to compile a few relevant observations that might help bring illumination somewhat closer to hand. 1 It’s an honor to be included in this 60th birthday tribute to Hugh Woodin, who’s done so much to further, and often enough to re-orient, research on the fundamentals of contemporary set theory. I’m grateful to the organizers for this opportunity, and especially, to Professor Woodin for his many contributions. 2 I. Foundational uses of set theory The most common characterization of set theory’s foundational role, the characterization found in textbooks, is illustrated in the opening sentences of Kunen’s classic book on forcing: Set theory is the foundation of mathematics. All mathematical concepts are defined in terms of the primitive notions of set and membership.
    [Show full text]
  • Einstein and Hilbert: the Creation of General Relativity
    EINSTEIN AND HILBERT: THE CREATION OF GENERAL RELATIVITY ∗ Ivan T. Todorov Institut f¨ur Theoretische Physik, Universit¨at G¨ottingen, Friedrich-Hund-Platz 1 D-37077 G¨ottingen, Germany; e-mail: [email protected] and Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Tsarigradsko Chaussee 72, BG-1784 Sofia, Bulgaria;∗∗e-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT It took eight years after Einstein announced the basic physical ideas behind the relativistic gravity theory before the proper mathematical formulation of general relativity was mastered. The efforts of the greatest physicist and of the greatest mathematician of the time were involved and reached a breathtaking concentration during the last month of the work. Recent controversy, raised by a much publicized 1997 reading of Hilbert’s proof- sheets of his article of November 1915, is also discussed. arXiv:physics/0504179v1 [physics.hist-ph] 25 Apr 2005 ∗ Expanded version of a Colloquium lecture held at the International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, 9 December 1992 and (updated) at the International University Bremen, 15 March 2005. ∗∗ Permanent address. Introduction Since the supergravity fashion and especially since the birth of superstrings a new science emerged which may be called “high energy mathematical physics”. One fad changes the other each going further away from accessible experiments and into mathe- matical models, ending up, at best, with the solution of an interesting problem in pure mathematics. The realization of the grand original design seems to be, decades later, nowhere in sight. For quite some time, though, the temptation for mathematical physi- cists (including leading mathematicians) was hard to resist.
    [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]