DOCSLIB.ORG

Arxiv:1204.2193V2 [Math.GM] 13 Jun 2012

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arxiv:1204.2193V2 [Math.GM] 13 Jun 2012 Alternative Mathematics without Actual Infinity ∗ Toru Tsujishita 2012.6.12 Abstract An alternative mathematics based on qualitative plurality of finite- ness is developed to make non-standard mathematics independent of infinite set theory. The vague concept \accessibility" is used coherently within finite set theory whose separation axiom is restricted to defi- nite objective conditions. The weak equivalence relations are defined as binary relations with sorites phenomena. Continua are collection with weak equivalence relations called indistinguishability. The points of continua are the proper classes of mutually indistinguishable ele- ments and have identities with sorites paradox. Four continua formed by huge binary words are examined as a new type of continua. Ascoli- Arzela type theorem is given as an example indicating the feasibility of treating function spaces. The real numbers are defined to be points on linear continuum and have indefiniteness. Exponentiation is introduced by the Euler style and basic properties are established. Basic calculus is developed and the differentiability is captured by the behavior on a point. Main tools of Lebesgue measure theory is obtained in a similar way as Loeb measure. Differences from the current mathematics are examined, such as the indefiniteness of natural numbers, qualitative plurality of finiteness, mathematical usage of vague concepts, the continuum as a primary inexhaustible entity and the hitherto disregarded aspect of \internal measurement" in mathematics. arXiv:1204.2193v2 [math.GM] 13 Jun 2012 ∗Thanks to Ritsumeikan University for the sabbathical leave which allowed the author to concentrate on doing research on this theme. 1 2 Contents Abstract 1 Contents 2 0 Introdution 6 0.1 Nonstandard Approach as a Genuine Alternative . 6 0.2 Multiple Levels of Finiteness . 7 0.3 Points of Conflicts with Modern Mathematics . 9 0.4 Background . 10 0.4.1 Qualitative Plurality of Numbers . 10 0.4.2 Properties without Extension . 15 0.4.3 Coherence of Vague Concepts . 16 0.4.4 Continuum . 19 0.5 Outline of Contents . 21 1 Fundamentals 23 1.1 Numbers . 23 1.1.1 Accessibility . 23 1.1.2 Rational Numbers . 24 1.2 Sets and Classes . 25 1.2.1 Basic Concepts . 25 1.2.2 Subclasses and Subsets . 25 1.2.3 Objective Conditions and Semisets . 26 1.2.4 Class Constructions . 27 1.2.5 Functions . 27 1.2.6 σ-finite Classes . 29 1.3 Induction Axioms . 31 1.4 Overspill Principles . 32 1.5 Concrete Sequences . 33 2 Continuum 35 2.1 Sorites Relations . 35 3 2.2 Continuum . 36 2.2.1 Examples . 36 2.3 Morphism . 39 2.4 Equivalence . 40 2.4.1 Examples . 41 2.5 Saturation . 42 3 Topology of Continuum 44 3.1 Convergence of Sequences . 44 3.2 Compactness . 44 3.3 Connectedness . 46 3.4 Topology of Metric Continuum . 47 3.4.1 Completeness . 47 3.4.2 Compactness . 49 4 Continua of Binary Words 51 4.1 Binary Trees . 51 4.1.1 Hyperbolic Space . 52 4.1.2 Cantor Space . 54 4.2 Power Set . 55 4.3 Hypercube . 56 5 Continuum of Morphisms 59 5.1 Continuum of Functions . 59 5.2 Ascoli-Arzela Theorem . 61 6 Real Numbers 64 6.1 Real Numbers . 64 6.2 Arithmetic Operations . 65 6.3 Sequence . 69 6.4 Series . 71 7 Real Functions on Continua 73 7.1 Real Functions . 73 4 7.2 Examples . 76 7.2.1 Polynomial Functions . 76 7.2.2 Exponential . 76 7.2.3 Logarithm . 81 7.3 Mean Value Theorem . 83 7.4 Maximum Principle . 84 7.5 Behavior of Real Funcrtions on a Point . 84 8 Differentiation: Single variable 91 8.1 Difference Quotient . 91 8.2 Differentiability . 94 8.3 Infinitesimal Taylor Formula . 95 8.4 Chain Rule . 98 8.5 Inverse Function Theorem . 99 8.6 Second Order Differentiability . 101 8.7 Higher Order Differentiability . 104 8.8 Fundamental Theorem of Calculus . 107 8.9 Ordinary Differential Equation . 109 9 Differentiation: Multiple Variables 112 9.1 Partial Difference Quotients . 112 9.2 Differentiability . 113 9.3 Chain Rule . 115 9.4 Implicit Function Theorem . 116 9.5 Inverse Mapping Theorem . 120 9.6 Second Order Differentiability . 122 10 Measure 126 10.1 Probability Density . 126 10.2 Null Semisets . 126 10.3 Measurable Semisets . 128 10.4 Integration . 133 10.5 L1-functions . 135 5 11 Concluding Remarks 141 11.1 Recapitulation . 141 11.1.1 Vague Concepts and Semisets . 141 11.1.2 Treatment as Naive theory . 142 11.1.3 Continua and Points . 142 11.1.4 Idealization . 143 11.1.5 Transfer Principle . 144 11.2 Future Direction . 144 11.2.1 Accessibility of Higher Order Objects . 144 11.2.2 Relative Accessibility . 145 11.2.3 Continua of Syntactic Objects . 146 11.3 Philosophical Implications . 148 11.3.1 Rejection of Existence Absolutism . 148 11.3.2 Internal Measurement . 150 Acknowledgement . 151 References 152 Index 157 x0 Introduction 6 0 Introdution 0.1 Nonstandard Approach as a Genuine Alternative Mathematics has evolved by integrating paradoxes. The Galilei paradox and the Sorites paradox represent two logical phenomena concerning infin- ity. The former, the inevitable paradox of actual infinity that a part is the same size as the total is incorporated in mathematics as the very defini- tion of infinite sets. The latter, the inevitable paradox resulting from two incommensurable view points such as micro vs macro is in harmony with the infinite phenomena daily experienced by us and is taken in mathematics implicitly by nonstandard mathematics. As a result mathematics has currently two methods of treating infinity, Cantorian set theory and nonstandard mathematics. In contrast to the for- mer which handles infinity as a definite concept, the latter handles infinity as being \incarnated" in finiteness thus removing the inconvenient dichotomies such as infinite vs finite and continuous vs discrete. Nonstandard mathe- matics shows new ways of making mathematical discourse more intuitive without losing logical rigor and giving more flexible ways of constructing mathematical objects. We may say that by discriminating between \actual finiteness” and \ideal finiteness”, we obtain a better system of handling infinity than the \actual infinity" offers. Surely the nonstandard mathematics was born and has been bred in the realm of Cantorian set theory. Various axiomatic systems for nonstandard mathematics such as IST (Internal Set Theory) [Nel77] of E.Nelson, RST (Relative Set Theory ) [P´er92] of P´eraire and EST (Enlargement Set The- ory ) [Bal94] of D. Ballard are conservative extensions of ZFC, so that the statements of usual mathematics proved in the new axiomatic systems can be proved without them. It is natural that many researchers considered the conservativeness the crucial point since the significance of nonstandard mathematics at first was able to be claimed only through its relation to cur- rent mathematics. Besides one could believe the consistency of axiomatic systems of nonstandard mathematics only through reducing it to that of the standard systems. However as long as it remains grafted to Cantorian set theory, the non- standard mathematics will not unveil its seminal significance as a genuine alternative to modern mathematics and its potentiality will not be fully brought to fruition. It seems high time to break the fetters and to make nonstandard mathematics independent of Cantorian set theory. In fact, af- ter 50 years after its birth, there seems to be widespread conviction that most of modern mathematics can be rebuild more efficiently by nonstan- dard mathematics and that new wine must be put in new bottle, namely x0 Introduction 7 the foundation of nonstandard mathematics itself should be rebuild without recourse to infinite set theory. In fact, already in 1991, P. Vopˇenka [Vop91] clearly stated such a view as follows1. As long as this master-vassal relationship lasts, Non-standard Analysis cannot use all its potential, which lies mainly in new formalizations of various situations and not in new proofs of clas- sical theorems. ::: It is necessary to approach the study of nat- ural infinity directly and not through its pale reflection as found within Cantor's Set Theory. Such a direct approach is what Alternative Set Theory attempts. E. Nelson [Nel07] points out the importance of thinking of nonstandard analysis as a genuine alternative to modern mathematics. Heretofore nonstandard analysis has been used primarily to sim- plify proofs of theorems. But it can also be used to simplify theories. There are several reasons for doing this. First and foremost is the aesthetic impulse, to create beauty. Second and very important is our obligation to the larger scientific commu- nity, to make our theories more accessible to those who need to use them. To simplify theories we need to have the courage to leave results in simple, external form || fully to embrace non- standard analysis as a new paradigm for mathematics. Much can be done with what may be called minimal nonstandard analysis. 0.2 Multiple Levels of Finiteness The crucial point of the nonstandard mathematics is to afford qualitative multitudeness of finiteness. Unfortunately one must take currently a long de- tour to actualize the qualitative multitudeness of finiteness in modern math- ematics, because of its deep belief in the qualitative uniqueness of finiteness symbolized as \the infinite set N". However the presence of qualitatively dif- ferent levels of finiteness is an undeniable state of affairs in real life and may be assumed as a fundamental principle much more secure than the belief in the N-dogma. The importance of considering seriously the qualitatively different kind of natural numbers has been stressed repeatedly by many mathematicians from the middle of the last century. In 1952, E. Borel [Bor52] consid- ered \inaccessible numbers" would be important. Around 1960, E.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Biequivalence Vector Spaces in the Alternative Set Theory
    Comment.Math.Univ.Carolin. 32,3 (1991)517–544 517 Biequivalence vector spaces in the alternative set theory Miroslav Smˇ ´ıd, Pavol Zlatoˇs Abstract. As a counterpart to classical topological vector spaces in the alternative set the- ory, biequivalence vector spaces (over the field Q of all rational numbers) are introduced and their basic properties are listed. A methodological consequence opening a new view to- wards the relationship between the algebraic and topological dual is quoted. The existence of various types of valuations on a biequivalence vector space inducing its biequivalence is proved. Normability is characterized in terms of total convexity of the monad and/or of the galaxy of 0. Finally, the existence of a rather strong type of basis for a fairly extensive area of biequivalence vector spaces, containing all the most important particular cases, is established. Keywords: alternative set theory, biequivalence, vector space, monad, galaxy, symmetric Sd-closure, dual, valuation, norm, convex, basis Classification: Primary 46Q05, 46A06, 46A35; Secondary 03E70, 03H05, 46A09 Contents: 0. Introduction 1. Notation and preliminaries 2. Symmetric Sd-closures 3. Vector spaces over Q 4. Biequivalence vector spaces 5. Duals 6. Valuations on vector spaces 7. The envelope operation 8. Bases in biequivalence vector spaces 0. Introduction. The aim of this paper is to lay a foundation to the investigation of topological (or perhaps also bornological) vector spaces within the framework of the alternative set theory (AST), which could enable a rather elementary exposition of some topics of functional analysis reducing them to the study of formally finite dimensional vector spaces equipped with some additional “nonsharp” or “hazy” first order structure representing the topology.
    [Show full text]
  • Actual Infinitesimals in Leibniz's Early Thought
    Actual Infinitesimals in Leibniz’s Early Thought By RICHARD T. W. ARTHUR (HAMILTON, ONTARIO) Abstract Before establishing his mature interpretation of infinitesimals as fictions, Gottfried Leibniz had advocated their existence as actually existing entities in the continuum. In this paper I trace the development of these early attempts, distinguishing three distinct phases in his interpretation of infinitesimals prior to his adopting a fictionalist interpretation: (i) (1669) the continuum consists of assignable points separated by unassignable gaps; (ii) (1670-71) the continuum is composed of an infinity of indivisible points, or parts smaller than any assignable, with no gaps between them; (iii) (1672- 75) a continuous line is composed not of points but of infinitely many infinitesimal lines, each of which is divisible and proportional to a generating motion at an instant (conatus). In 1676, finally, Leibniz ceased to regard infinitesimals as actual, opting instead for an interpretation of them as fictitious entities which may be used as compendia loquendi to abbreviate mathematical reasonings. Introduction Gottfried Leibniz’s views on the status of infinitesimals are very subtle, and have led commentators to a variety of different interpretations. There is no proper common consensus, although the following may serve as a summary of received opinion: Leibniz developed the infinitesimal calculus in 1675-76, but during the ensuing twenty years was content to refine its techniques and explore the richness of its applications in co-operation with Johann and Jakob Bernoulli, Pierre Varignon, de l’Hospital and others, without worrying about the ontic status of infinitesimals. Only after the criticisms of Bernard Nieuwentijt and Michel Rolle did he turn himself to the question of the foundations of the calculus and 2 Richard T.
    [Show full text]
  • Cauchy, Infinitesimals and Ghosts of Departed Quantifiers 3
    CAUCHY, INFINITESIMALS AND GHOSTS OF DEPARTED QUANTIFIERS JACQUES BAIR, PIOTR BLASZCZYK, ROBERT ELY, VALERIE´ HENRY, VLADIMIR KANOVEI, KARIN U. KATZ, MIKHAIL G. KATZ, TARAS KUDRYK, SEMEN S. KUTATELADZE, THOMAS MCGAFFEY, THOMAS MORMANN, DAVID M. SCHAPS, AND DAVID SHERRY Abstract. Procedures relying on infinitesimals in Leibniz, Euler and Cauchy have been interpreted in both a Weierstrassian and Robinson’s frameworks. The latter provides closer proxies for the procedures of the classical masters. Thus, Leibniz’s distinction be- tween assignable and inassignable numbers finds a proxy in the distinction between standard and nonstandard numbers in Robin- son’s framework, while Leibniz’s law of homogeneity with the im- plied notion of equality up to negligible terms finds a mathematical formalisation in terms of standard part. It is hard to provide paral- lel formalisations in a Weierstrassian framework but scholars since Ishiguro have engaged in a quest for ghosts of departed quantifiers to provide a Weierstrassian account for Leibniz’s infinitesimals. Euler similarly had notions of equality up to negligible terms, of which he distinguished two types: geometric and arithmetic. Eu- ler routinely used product decompositions into a specific infinite number of factors, and used the binomial formula with an infi- nite exponent. Such procedures have immediate hyperfinite ana- logues in Robinson’s framework, while in a Weierstrassian frame- work they can only be reinterpreted by means of paraphrases de- parting significantly from Euler’s own presentation. Cauchy gives lucid definitions of continuity in terms of infinitesimals that find ready formalisations in Robinson’s framework but scholars working in a Weierstrassian framework bend over backwards either to claim that Cauchy was vague or to engage in a quest for ghosts of de- arXiv:1712.00226v1 [math.HO] 1 Dec 2017 parted quantifiers in his work.
    [Show full text]
  • Fermat, Leibniz, Euler, and the Gang: the True History of the Concepts Of
    FERMAT, LEIBNIZ, EULER, AND THE GANG: THE TRUE HISTORY OF THE CONCEPTS OF LIMIT AND SHADOW TIZIANA BASCELLI, EMANUELE BOTTAZZI, FREDERIK HERZBERG, VLADIMIR KANOVEI, KARIN U. KATZ, MIKHAIL G. KATZ, TAHL NOWIK, DAVID SHERRY, AND STEVEN SHNIDER Abstract. Fermat, Leibniz, Euler, and Cauchy all used one or another form of approximate equality, or the idea of discarding “negligible” terms, so as to obtain a correct analytic answer. Their inferential moves find suitable proxies in the context of modern the- ories of infinitesimals, and specifically the concept of shadow. We give an application to decreasing rearrangements of real functions. Contents 1. Introduction 2 2. Methodological remarks 4 2.1. A-track and B-track 5 2.2. Formal epistemology: Easwaran on hyperreals 6 2.3. Zermelo–Fraenkel axioms and the Feferman–Levy model 8 2.4. Skolem integers and Robinson integers 9 2.5. Williamson, complexity, and other arguments 10 2.6. Infinity and infinitesimal: let both pretty severely alone 13 3. Fermat’s adequality 13 3.1. Summary of Fermat’s algorithm 14 arXiv:1407.0233v1 [math.HO] 1 Jul 2014 3.2. Tangent line and convexity of parabola 15 3.3. Fermat, Galileo, and Wallis 17 4. Leibniz’s Transcendental law of homogeneity 18 4.1. When are quantities equal? 19 4.2. Product rule 20 5. Euler’s Principle of Cancellation 20 6. What did Cauchy mean by “limit”? 22 6.1. Cauchy on Leibniz 23 6.2. Cauchy on continuity 23 7. Modern formalisations: a case study 25 8. A combinatorial approach to decreasing rearrangements 26 9.
    [Show full text]
  • Connes on the Role of Hyperreals in Mathematics
    Found Sci DOI 10.1007/s10699-012-9316-5 Tools, Objects, and Chimeras: Connes on the Role of Hyperreals in Mathematics Vladimir Kanovei · Mikhail G. Katz · Thomas Mormann © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012 Abstract We examine some of Connes’ criticisms of Robinson’s infinitesimals starting in 1995. Connes sought to exploit the Solovay model S as ammunition against non-standard analysis, but the model tends to boomerang, undercutting Connes’ own earlier work in func- tional analysis. Connes described the hyperreals as both a “virtual theory” and a “chimera”, yet acknowledged that his argument relies on the transfer principle. We analyze Connes’ “dart-throwing” thought experiment, but reach an opposite conclusion. In S, all definable sets of reals are Lebesgue measurable, suggesting that Connes views a theory as being “vir- tual” if it is not definable in a suitable model of ZFC. If so, Connes’ claim that a theory of the hyperreals is “virtual” is refuted by the existence of a definable model of the hyperreal field due to Kanovei and Shelah. Free ultrafilters aren’t definable, yet Connes exploited such ultrafilters both in his own earlier work on the classification of factors in the 1970s and 80s, and in Noncommutative Geometry, raising the question whether the latter may not be vulnera- ble to Connes’ criticism of virtuality. We analyze the philosophical underpinnings of Connes’ argument based on Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, and detect an apparent circularity in Connes’ logic. We document the reliance on non-constructive foundational material, and specifically on the Dixmier trace − (featured on the front cover of Connes’ magnum opus) V.
    [Show full text]
  • Isomorphism Property in Nonstandard Extensions of the ZFC Universe'
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector ANNALS OF PURE AND APPLIED LOGIC Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 88 (1997) l-25 Isomorphism property in nonstandard extensions of the ZFC universe’ Vladimir Kanoveia, *,2, Michael Reekenb aDepartment of Mathematics, Moscow Transport Engineering Institute, Obraztsova 15, Moscow 101475, Russia b Fachbereich Mathematik. Bergische Universitiit GHS Wuppertal, Gauss Strasse 20, Wuppertal 42097, Germany Received 27 April 1996; received in revised form 5 February 1997; accepted 6 February 1997 Communicated by T. Jech Abstract We study models of HST (a nonstandard set theory which includes, in particular, the Re- placement and Separation schemata of ZFC in the language containing the membership and standardness predicates, and Saturation for well-orderable families of internal sets). This theory admits an adequate formulation of the isomorphism property IP, which postulates that any two elementarily equivalent internally presented structures of a well-orderable language are isomor- phic. We prove that IP is independent of HST (using the class of all sets constructible from internal sets) and consistent with HST (using generic extensions of a constructible model of HST by a sufficient number of generic isomorphisms). Keywords: Isomorphism property; Nonstandard set theory; Constructibility; Generic extensions 0. Introduction This article is a continuation of the authors’ series of papers [12-151 devoted to set theoretic foundations of nonstandard mathematics. Our aim is to accomodate an * Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]. ’ Expanded version of a talk presented at the Edinburg Meeting on Nonstandard Analysis (Edinburg, August 1996).
    [Show full text]
  • From Pythagoreans and Weierstrassians to True Infinitesimal Calculus
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Keck Graduate Institute Journal of Humanistic Mathematics Volume 7 | Issue 1 January 2017 From Pythagoreans and Weierstrassians to True Infinitesimal Calculus Mikhail Katz Bar-Ilan University Luie Polev Bar Ilan University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/jhm Part of the Analysis Commons, and the Logic and Foundations Commons Recommended Citation Katz, M. and Polev, L. "From Pythagoreans and Weierstrassians to True Infinitesimal Calculus," Journal of Humanistic Mathematics, Volume 7 Issue 1 (January 2017), pages 87-104. DOI: 10.5642/ jhummath.201701.07 . Available at: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/jhm/vol7/iss1/7 ©2017 by the authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. JHM is an open access bi-annual journal sponsored by the Claremont Center for the Mathematical Sciences and published by the Claremont Colleges Library | ISSN 2159-8118 | http://scholarship.claremont.edu/jhm/ The editorial staff of JHM works hard to make sure the scholarship disseminated in JHM is accurate and upholds professional ethical guidelines. However the views and opinions expressed in each published manuscript belong exclusively to the individual contributor(s). The publisher and the editors do not endorse or accept responsibility for them. See https://scholarship.claremont.edu/jhm/policies.html for more information. From Pythagoreans and Weierstrassians to True Infinitesimal Calculus Cover Page Footnote Israel Science Foundation grant 1517/12 (acknowledged also in the body of the paper). This article is available in Journal of Humanistic Mathematics: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/jhm/vol7/iss1/7 From Pythagoreans and Weierstrassians to True Infinitesimal Calculus Mikhail G.
    [Show full text]
  • Fundamental Theorems in Mathematics
    SOME FUNDAMENTAL THEOREMS IN MATHEMATICS OLIVER KNILL Abstract. An expository hitchhikers guide to some theorems in mathematics. Criteria for the current list of 243 theorems are whether the result can be formulated elegantly, whether it is beautiful or useful and whether it could serve as a guide [6] without leading to panic. The order is not a ranking but ordered along a time-line when things were writ- ten down. Since [556] stated “a mathematical theorem only becomes beautiful if presented as a crown jewel within a context" we try sometimes to give some context. Of course, any such list of theorems is a matter of personal preferences, taste and limitations. The num- ber of theorems is arbitrary, the initial obvious goal was 42 but that number got eventually surpassed as it is hard to stop, once started. As a compensation, there are 42 “tweetable" theorems with included proofs. More comments on the choice of the theorems is included in an epilogue. For literature on general mathematics, see [193, 189, 29, 235, 254, 619, 412, 138], for history [217, 625, 376, 73, 46, 208, 379, 365, 690, 113, 618, 79, 259, 341], for popular, beautiful or elegant things [12, 529, 201, 182, 17, 672, 673, 44, 204, 190, 245, 446, 616, 303, 201, 2, 127, 146, 128, 502, 261, 172]. For comprehensive overviews in large parts of math- ematics, [74, 165, 166, 51, 593] or predictions on developments [47]. For reflections about mathematics in general [145, 455, 45, 306, 439, 99, 561]. Encyclopedic source examples are [188, 705, 670, 102, 192, 152, 221, 191, 111, 635].
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Similarity in the Foundations
    Self-similarity in the Foundations Paul K. Gorbow Thesis submitted for the degree of Ph.D. in Logic, defended on June 14, 2018. Supervisors: Ali Enayat (primary) Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine (secondary) Zachiri McKenzie (secondary) University of Gothenburg Department of Philosophy, Linguistics, and Theory of Science Box 200, 405 30 GOTEBORG,¨ Sweden arXiv:1806.11310v1 [math.LO] 29 Jun 2018 2 Contents 1 Introduction 5 1.1 Introductiontoageneralaudience . ..... 5 1.2 Introduction for logicians . .. 7 2 Tour of the theories considered 11 2.1 PowerKripke-Plateksettheory . .... 11 2.2 Stratifiedsettheory ................................ .. 13 2.3 Categorical semantics and algebraic set theory . ....... 17 3 Motivation 19 3.1 Motivation behind research on embeddings between models of set theory. 19 3.2 Motivation behind stratified algebraic set theory . ...... 20 4 Logic, set theory and non-standard models 23 4.1 Basiclogicandmodeltheory ............................ 23 4.2 Ordertheoryandcategorytheory. ...... 26 4.3 PowerKripke-Plateksettheory . .... 28 4.4 First-order logic and partial satisfaction relations internal to KPP ........ 32 4.5 Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory and G¨odel-Bernays class theory............ 36 4.6 Non-standardmodelsofsettheory . ..... 38 5 Embeddings between models of set theory 47 5.1 Iterated ultrapowers with special self-embeddings . ......... 47 5.2 Embeddingsbetweenmodelsofsettheory . ..... 57 5.3 Characterizations.................................. .. 66 6 Stratified set theory and categorical semantics 73 6.1 Stratifiedsettheoryandclasstheory . ...... 73 6.2 Categoricalsemantics ............................... .. 77 7 Stratified algebraic set theory 85 7.1 Stratifiedcategoriesofclasses . ..... 85 7.2 Interpretation of the Set-theories in the Cat-theories ................ 90 7.3 ThesubtoposofstronglyCantorianobjects . ....... 99 8 Where to go from here? 103 8.1 Category theoretic approach to embeddings between models of settheory .
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1404.5658V1 [Math.LO] 22 Apr 2014 03F55
    TOWARD A CLARITY OF THE EXTREME VALUE THEOREM KARIN U. KATZ, MIKHAIL G. KATZ, AND TARAS KUDRYK Abstract. We apply a framework developed by C. S. Peirce to analyze the concept of clarity, so as to examine a pair of rival mathematical approaches to a typical result in analysis. Namely, we compare an intuitionist and an infinitesimal approaches to the extreme value theorem. We argue that a given pre-mathematical phenomenon may have several aspects that are not necessarily captured by a single formalisation, pointing to a complementar- ity rather than a rivalry of the approaches. Contents 1. Introduction 2 1.1. A historical re-appraisal 2 1.2. Practice and ontology 3 2. Grades of clarity according to Peirce 4 3. Perceptual continuity 5 4. Constructive clarity 7 5. Counterexample to the existence of a maximum 9 6. Reuniting the antipodes 10 7. Kronecker and constructivism 11 8. Infinitesimal clarity 13 8.1. Nominalistic reconstructions 13 8.2. Klein on rivalry of continua 14 arXiv:1404.5658v1 [math.LO] 22 Apr 2014 8.3. Formalizing Leibniz 15 8.4. Ultrapower 16 9. Hyperreal extreme value theorem 16 10. Approaches and invitations 18 11. Conclusion 19 References 19 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 26E35; 00A30, 01A85, 03F55. Key words and phrases. Benacerraf, Bishop, Cauchy, constructive analysis, con- tinuity, extreme value theorem, grades of clarity, hyperreal, infinitesimal, Kaestner, Kronecker, law of excluded middle, ontology, Peirce, principle of unique choice, procedure, trichotomy, uniqueness paradigm. 1 2 KARINU. KATZ, MIKHAILG. KATZ, ANDTARASKUDRYK 1. Introduction German physicist G. Lichtenberg (1742 - 1799) was born less than a decade after the publication of the cleric George Berkeley’s tract The Analyst, and would have certainly been influenced by it or at least aware of it.
    [Show full text]
  • Infinitesimals
    Infinitesimals: History & Application Joel A. Tropp Plan II Honors Program, WCH 4.104, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712 Abstract. An infinitesimal is a number whose magnitude ex- ceeds zero but somehow fails to exceed any finite, positive num- ber. Although logically problematic, infinitesimals are extremely appealing for investigating continuous phenomena. They were used extensively by mathematicians until the late 19th century, at which point they were purged because they lacked a rigorous founda- tion. In 1960, the logician Abraham Robinson revived them by constructing a number system, the hyperreals, which contains in- finitesimals and infinitely large quantities. This thesis introduces Nonstandard Analysis (NSA), the set of techniques which Robinson invented. It contains a rigorous de- velopment of the hyperreals and shows how they can be used to prove the fundamental theorems of real analysis in a direct, natural way. (Incredibly, a great deal of the presentation echoes the work of Leibniz, which was performed in the 17th century.) NSA has also extended mathematics in directions which exceed the scope of this thesis. These investigations may eventually result in fruitful discoveries. Contents Introduction: Why Infinitesimals? vi Chapter 1. Historical Background 1 1.1. Overview 1 1.2. Origins 1 1.3. Continuity 3 1.4. Eudoxus and Archimedes 5 1.5. Apply when Necessary 7 1.6. Banished 10 1.7. Regained 12 1.8. The Future 13 Chapter 2. Rigorous Infinitesimals 15 2.1. Developing Nonstandard Analysis 15 2.2. Direct Ultrapower Construction of ∗R 17 2.3. Principles of NSA 28 2.4. Working with Hyperreals 32 Chapter 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Forcing in the Alternative Set Theory I
    Comment.Math.Univ.Carolin. 32,2 (1991)323–337 323 Forcing in the alternative set theory I Jirˇ´ı Sgall Abstract. The technique of forcing is developed for the alternative set theory (AST) and similar weak theories, where it can be used to prove some new independence results. There are also introduced some new extensions of AST. Keywords: alternative set theory, forcing, generic extension, symmetric extension, axiom of constructibility Classification: Primary 03E70; Secondary 03E25, 03E35, 03E45 We develop the method of forcing in the alternative set theory (AST) and similar weak theories like the second order arithmetic to settle some questions on indepen- dence of some axioms not included in AST. The material is divided into two parts. In this paper, the technique is developed and in its continuation (A. Sochor and J. Sgall: Forcing in the AST II, to appear in CMUC) concrete results will be proved. Most of them concern some forms of the axiom of choice not included in the basic axiomatics of AST. The main results are: (1) The axiom of constructibility is independent of AST plus the strong scheme of choice plus the scheme of dependent choices. (2) The scheme of choice is independent of A2 (the second order arithmetic). This is already known, but our proof works in A3, while the old one uses cardinals up to ℵω, which needs much stronger theory. (3) The scheme of choice is independent of AST. Let us sketch the main points different from the technique of forcing in the classical set theory: We construct generic extensions such that sets are absolute (i.e.
    [Show full text]