DOCSLIB.ORG

ON the AXIOMS of CHOICE and REGULARITY O. Introduction in § I

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ON the AXIOMS of CHOICE and REGULARITY O. Introduction in § I ON THE AXIOMS OF CHOICE A ND REGULARITY John H. HARRIS O. Introduction In § I a problem is posed which suggests a need fo r a ve ry strong axiom of choice or some extra axiom of set theory. The Axiom of Regularity (REG) is the extra axiom that is usually used. In § 2 some implications of REG are given. In terms of a general definition of "set" given in § 3 it is shown in § 4 that REG seems t o be tru e f o r classical mathematical structures. But the set theoretic mode of thought and modern mathematics are not limited to classical structures. In § 5 evidence against REG is given by introducing a new construction process which can be used to construct (reasonable ?) sets contradicting REG. The construction process of § 5 is clearly open to question and is st ill o n ly at the intuitive level. But the ma in point o f the article is not to prove REG false, but to show (as is done in § 5) that REG is a questionable rather than an obviously true axiom of set theory. So in § 6 a neutral viewpoint is adopted neither accepting REG nor its negation. However some limitation type axiom is necessary in order to eliminate such pathologies as -cycles like x (LIiM ) isx introduced and shown to be equivalent to a "no cyci les axiom". A lso L I M and REG a re shown t o be related to .each other in a ve ry natural wa y wit h L I M being a ve ry weakA and REG being a very strong limitation type axiom. Also sincen REG is no longer available to resolve the difficulty raised in A§ 1, a xsufficiently strong a xio m o f choice (A C*) is in tro - duiced too do the job. m o I. fA motivatin g problem L i mLet NBi G denote Von-Neumann-Bernays-G6del se t th e o ry (spt ecifiacally axioms A, B, C o f [4]). To NBG we need to add t i o n 274 JOHN H. HARRIS some form of the axiom of choice (abbrev.: AC) in order to do mathematics as currently practiced. Let us use the following class form. AC: Fo r every class X of pairwise disjoint sets, there exists a choice class C wh ich has exactly one point in common with each non-empty x G X: in symbols, (3C)(V x ) If some of txhe classes X formI (in NBC)[ xa *c0o llection having X Iev,e r, Xwe can gintuuitively think of such a collection. 'What if we h, aiveX an „int uitivae cosllect ion {X ) ,eo D f pairwise disjoint clas- e , l e a m r e[ enc t s ; ses ? Intuitively there exists a choice class C which has exactly h p ro o pwn e -r , onte poinht in c=oemmonn wi th e ach X ? ,. S i n c e bew proper, clee{arlyO AC is not strong enough to justify the exis- tsenccoe ofm asuceh an choice class. Let us first discuss h o w such a soitunatiofn oarise ]st ve] ry .naturally. t We hwill deefine an ordXered set to be any ordered pair < x , r > o) f sets, such that r Ç x X x. We think of x as (partly) ordered byc r aond wriute " u rlv" f odr ''< u , v > G r" . For example, x could be quasi, partially, totally, o r well-or- dered b y r. The case when r = 0 corresponds to considering x a s t o t a lly unordered, i.e., considering x abstracted f ro m any ordering on it such as is done when we consider the car- dinality of the set x. Let us define two ordered sets < x , r > and < y , s>as being similar o r order isomorphic (abbrev.: < x , r > < y , s>) if f there is a bijective f:x—>y which preserves ordering, i.e., urv f ( u ) s f(v) f o r a ll u, v e x . The equivalence classes wit h respect t o the equivalence re - lation " = " w i l l be called simila rity classes. Note that in the case when r = s = 0 the notion of order isomorphism reduces to that of 1:1 correspondence as used in cardinality arguments. THEOREM 1. I f < x , r > is an ordered set with x t O , then the ON THE AXIOMS OF CHOICE AND REGULARITY 275 similarity class containing < x , r > is a proper class: in sym- bols, {< y , s > I < x, r > < y , s > } 0 V . PROOF. Choose some element u boe the set obtained fro m x b y replacing u oede xnb.o tey Tth eh ureela. tnio n oAbtalinesd foro m r b y replacing a ll p a irs lf< u oe r t r upairsao <nu , yy> , < v , u >, o r < u , u > respectively. Then < x , r> u, <x„,e r„> . Cxlearly F, defined on V -x by F(u) = < x lav 1:u1 fuenction ont the p roper class V-x, hence x> , r u >u , i s R(F) = {f lu ) I u V - x } = < x , u i<s a proper class. But , r „ > I Y u <yE, s >V <-x ,x r>} < y , s > , huence is also a proper class, as claimed. QED. o Consider now the intuitive collection g of all similarity clas- s>es o f well-ordered sets. We ju st showed that each such si- m, ila rity class (with the one exception (< 0 , 0 > )) is a proper colass. Thus we can't use A C to prove the existence of an NBG crlas s C wh ich has e xa ctly one point in common wit h each < But in tu itive ly the class of ordinals, denoted b y "On", isu just such a class C. Likewise we can't use A C to prove the existenceo o f a class K , called th e class o f cardinals, wh ich consist, of exactly one point from each simila rity class o r un- orderedu sets. Wh a t to do ? o In the case of the ordinals we are lucky. We can actually d>efi ne in NB C a particular (proper) class, denoted b y On, o f wr el l-ordered sets and then prove (even without the use of AC) thatb every well-ordered set is simila r to exactly one element oyf O n; p u t another way, class O n intersects each simila rity ctlass of well-ordered sets in exactly one point (cf. [9; p, 1791). hIn the case o f cardinals we are almost as lu cky. Using the tehe ory of ordinals we can actually define in NBG a particular c(proper) class K and prove (with the aid of AC) that every set ocan be put in 1:1 correspondence with exactly one element of Kr ;r pe us tp ao n od ti hn eg rn we aw y , c l a s s K i n t e r s e c t s e a c h s i m i l a r i t y c l a s s o f 276 JOHN H. HARRIS unordered sets in exactly one point. But what about the case of totally ordered sets, o r partially ordered sets ? 2. The Axiom of Regularity There is a candidate for an axiom of set theory, axiom D of [41, ca lle d th e A x io m o f Regularity (abbrev.: REG), wh ic h solves o u r difficulty. On e standard formulation o f REG says that any non-empty class X contains a t least one set wh ich has no element in common with X: in symbols VX[X v l y EX and v 11 X = 01]. The implications of this not very obvious axiom are far reach- ing, but some easily understandable conclusions are now given. (Cf. [9, pp. 201-3] fo r a more detailed treatment.) First, REG implies that there are n o in fin ite ly descending c c , e -chains ; i . e . , E E X1 E X0 t h e 'rToe p r o ve this, assume t h e contrary. L e t A = {x 0wherei x ,ixs x E iXversen o is. p rovable.) ,Tno Nehxt let us define a function F:0n--*V by eAs ne b—q u F((3) = P( U a<ri FM) y0wheree n " P ' denotes the power set operation, i.e., P(Y) = { R,yc c ye }. D efine H = U aeon F(u). We will say that x is a regular Eco set or x is regular iff x ( I n the literature these are usually Gof called well-founded sets.) Then REG implies V = H , i.e., every tns set is a regular set. Before proving this let us give a suggestive hte interpretation. We can think of V =H as giving us (to borrow ert a te rm fro m cosmology) a "big-bang" th e o ry o f sets. I n the ras beginning there was only one set, the empty set. edt Seixtage 0: The collection F(0) = P(0) = OP is made into a set. xc„ it1 si„ tn, sg0 axs niu x,c i1h Axt sih una cAt h. t( hU as ti n g A C e v e n t h e c o n - ON THE AXIOMS OF CHOICE AND REGULARITY 277 Stage 1: The collection F(1) = P(F(0)) = to, { C M i sa s et.m a d e i n t o Stage 13: The collection A — U OE<0 F(u ), i f m adne inotot a set.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Redalyc.Sets and Pluralities
    Red de Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal Sistema de Información Científica Gustavo Fernández Díez Sets and Pluralities Revista Colombiana de Filosofía de la Ciencia, vol. IX, núm. 19, 2009, pp. 5-22, Universidad El Bosque Colombia Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=41418349001 Revista Colombiana de Filosofía de la Ciencia, ISSN (Printed Version): 0124-4620 [email protected] Universidad El Bosque Colombia How to cite Complete issue More information about this article Journal's homepage www.redalyc.org Non-Profit Academic Project, developed under the Open Acces Initiative Sets and Pluralities1 Gustavo Fernández Díez2 Resumen En este artículo estudio el trasfondo filosófico del sistema de lógica conocido como “lógica plural”, o “lógica de cuantificadores plurales”, de aparición relativamente reciente (y en alza notable en los últimos años). En particular, comparo la noción de “conjunto” emanada de la teoría axiomática de conjuntos, con la noción de “plura- lidad” que se encuentra detrás de este nuevo sistema. Mi conclusión es que los dos son completamente diferentes en su alcance y sus límites, y que la diferencia proviene de las diferentes motivaciones que han dado lugar a cada uno. Mientras que la teoría de conjuntos es una teoría genuinamente matemática, que tiene el interés matemático como ingrediente principal, la lógica plural ha aparecido como respuesta a considera- ciones lingüísticas, relacionadas con la estructura lógica de los enunciados plurales del inglés y el resto de los lenguajes naturales. Palabras clave: conjunto, teoría de conjuntos, pluralidad, cuantificación plural, lógica plural. Abstract In this paper I study the philosophical background of the relatively recent (and in the last few years increasingly flourishing) system of logic called “plural logic”, or “logic of plural quantifiers”.
    [Show full text]
  • The Iterative Conception of Set Author(S): George Boolos Reviewed Work(S): Source: the Journal of Philosophy, Vol
    Journal of Philosophy, Inc. The Iterative Conception of Set Author(s): George Boolos Reviewed work(s): Source: The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 68, No. 8, Philosophy of Logic and Mathematics (Apr. 22, 1971), pp. 215-231 Published by: Journal of Philosophy, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2025204 . Accessed: 12/01/2013 10:53 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Journal of Philosophy, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Philosophy. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded on Sat, 12 Jan 2013 10:53:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions THE JOURNALOF PHILOSOPHY VOLUME LXVIII, NO. 8, APRIL 22, I97I _ ~ ~~~~~~- ~ '- ' THE ITERATIVE CONCEPTION OF SET A SET, accordingto Cantor,is "any collection.., intoa whole of definite,well-distinguished objects... of our intuitionor thought.'1Cantor alo sdefineda set as a "many, whichcan be thoughtof as one, i.e., a totalityof definiteelements that can be combinedinto a whole by a law.'2 One mightobject to the firstdefi- nitionon the groundsthat it uses the conceptsof collectionand whole, which are notionsno betterunderstood than that of set,that there ought to be sets of objects that are not objects of our thought,that 'intuition'is a termladen with a theoryof knowledgethat no one should believe, that any object is "definite,"that there should be sets of ill-distinguishedobjects, such as waves and trains,etc., etc.
    [Show full text]
  • PROBLEM SET 1. the AXIOM of FOUNDATION Early on in the Book
    PROBLEM SET 1. THE AXIOM OF FOUNDATION Early on in the book (page 6) it is indicated that throughout the formal development ‘set’ is going to mean ‘pure set’, or set whose elements, elements of elements, and so on, are all sets and not items of any other kind such as chairs or tables. This convention applies also to these problems. 1. A set y is called an epsilon-minimal element of a set x if y Î x, but there is no z Î x such that z Î y, or equivalently x Ç y = Ø. The axiom of foundation, also called the axiom of regularity, asserts that any set that has any element at all (any nonempty set) has an epsilon-minimal element. Show that this axiom implies the following: (a) There is no set x such that x Î x. (b) There are no sets x and y such that x Î y and y Î x. (c) There are no sets x and y and z such that x Î y and y Î z and z Î x. 2. In the book the axiom of foundation or regularity is considered only in a late chapter, and until that point no use of it is made of it in proofs. But some results earlier in the book become significantly easier to prove if one does use it. Show, for example, how to use it to give an easy proof of the existence for any sets x and y of a set x* such that x* and y are disjoint (have empty intersection) and there is a bijection (one-to-one onto function) from x to x*, a result called the exchange principle.
    [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]
  • Elements of Set Theory
    Elements of set theory April 1, 2014 ii Contents 1 Zermelo{Fraenkel axiomatization 1 1.1 Historical context . 1 1.2 The language of the theory . 3 1.3 The most basic axioms . 4 1.4 Axiom of Infinity . 4 1.5 Axiom schema of Comprehension . 5 1.6 Functions . 6 1.7 Axiom of Choice . 7 1.8 Axiom schema of Replacement . 9 1.9 Axiom of Regularity . 9 2 Basic notions 11 2.1 Transitive sets . 11 2.2 Von Neumann's natural numbers . 11 2.3 Finite and infinite sets . 15 2.4 Cardinality . 17 2.5 Countable and uncountable sets . 19 3 Ordinals 21 3.1 Basic definitions . 21 3.2 Transfinite induction and recursion . 25 3.3 Applications with choice . 26 3.4 Applications without choice . 29 3.5 Cardinal numbers . 31 4 Descriptive set theory 35 4.1 Rational and real numbers . 35 4.2 Topological spaces . 37 4.3 Polish spaces . 39 4.4 Borel sets . 43 4.5 Analytic sets . 46 4.6 Lebesgue's mistake . 48 iii iv CONTENTS 5 Formal logic 51 5.1 Propositional logic . 51 5.1.1 Propositional logic: syntax . 51 5.1.2 Propositional logic: semantics . 52 5.1.3 Propositional logic: completeness . 53 5.2 First order logic . 56 5.2.1 First order logic: syntax . 56 5.2.2 First order logic: semantics . 59 5.2.3 Completeness theorem . 60 6 Model theory 67 6.1 Basic notions . 67 6.2 Ultraproducts and nonstandard analysis . 68 6.3 Quantifier elimination and the real closed fields .
    [Show full text]
  • Commentationes Mathematicae Universitatis Carolinae
    Commentationes Mathematicae Universitatis Carolinae Antonín Sochor Metamathematics of the alternative set theory. I. Commentationes Mathematicae Universitatis Carolinae, Vol. 20 (1979), No. 4, 697--722 Persistent URL: http://dml.cz/dmlcz/105962 Terms of use: © Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, 1979 Institute of Mathematics of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic provides access to digitized documents strictly for personal use. Each copy of any part of this document must contain these Terms of use. This paper has been digitized, optimized for electronic delivery and stamped with digital signature within the project DML-CZ: The Czech Digital Mathematics Library http://project.dml.cz COMMENTATIONES MATHEMATICAE UN.VERSITATIS CAROLINAE 20, 4 (1979) METAMATHEMATICS OF THE ALTERNATIVE SET THEORY Antonin SOCHOR Abstract: In this paper the alternative set theory (AST) is described as a formal system. We show that there is an interpretation of Kelley-Morse set theory of finite sets in a very weak fragment of AST. This result is used to the formalization of metamathematics in AST. The article is the first paper of a series of papers describing metamathe- matics of AST. Key words: Alternative set theory, axiomatic system, interpretation, formalization of metamathematics, finite formula. Classification: Primary 02K10, 02K25 Secondary 02K05 This paper begins a series of articles dealing with me­ tamathematics of the alternative set theory (AST; see tVD). The first aim of our work (§ 1) is an introduction of AST as a formal system - we are going to formulate the axi­ oms of AST and define the basic notions of this theory. Do­ ing this we limit ourselves really to the formal side of the matter and the reader is referred to tV3 for the motivation of our axioms (although the author considers good motivati­ ons decisive for the whole work in AST).
    [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]
  • Math 310 Class Notes 1: Axioms of Set Theory
    MATH 310 CLASS NOTES 1: AXIOMS OF SET THEORY Intuitively, we think of a set as an organization and an element be- longing to a set as a member of the organization. Accordingly, it also seems intuitively clear that (1) when we collect all objects of a certain kind the collection forms an organization, i.e., forms a set, and, moreover, (2) it is natural that when we collect members of a certain kind of an organization, the collection is a sub-organization, i.e., a subset. Item (1) above was challenged by Bertrand Russell in 1901 if we accept the natural item (2), i.e., we must be careful when we use the word \all": (Russell Paradox) The collection of all sets is not a set! Proof. Suppose the collection of all sets is a set S. Consider the subset U of S that consists of all sets x with the property that each x does not belong to x itself. Now since U is a set, U belongs to S. Let us ask whether U belongs to U itself. Since U is the collection of all sets each of which does not belong to itself, thus if U belongs to U, then as an element of the set U we must have that U does not belong to U itself, a contradiction. So, it must be that U does not belong to U. But then U belongs to U itself by the very definition of U, another contradiction. The absurdity results because we assume S is a set.
    [Show full text]
  • The Axiom of Choice
    THE AXIOM OF CHOICE THOMAS J. JECH State University of New York at Bufalo and The Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, New Jersey 1973 NORTH-HOLLAND PUBLISHING COMPANY - AMSTERDAM LONDON AMERICAN ELSEVIER PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC. - NEW YORK 0 NORTH-HOLLAND PUBLISHING COMPANY - 1973 AN Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the Copyright owner. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 73-15535 North-Holland ISBN for the series 0 7204 2200 0 for this volume 0 1204 2215 2 American Elsevier ISBN 0 444 10484 4 Published by: North-Holland Publishing Company - Amsterdam North-Holland Publishing Company, Ltd. - London Sole distributors for the U.S.A. and Canada: American Elsevier Publishing Company, Inc. 52 Vanderbilt Avenue New York, N.Y. 10017 PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS To my parents PREFACE The book was written in the long Buffalo winter of 1971-72. It is an attempt to show the place of the Axiom of Choice in contemporary mathe- matics. Most of the material covered in the book deals with independence and relative strength of various weaker versions and consequences of the Axiom of Choice. Also included are some other results that I found relevant to the subject. The selection of the topics and results is fairly comprehensive, nevertheless it is a selection and as such reflects the personal taste of the author. So does the treatment of the subject. The main tool used throughout the text is Cohen’s method of forcing.
    [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]
  • Minicourse on the Axioms of Zermelo and Fraenkel
    Minicourse on The Axioms of Zermelo and Fraenkel Heike Mildenberger January 15, 2021 Abstract These are the notes for a minicourse of four hours in the DAAD-summerschool in mathematical logic 2020. To be held virtually in G¨ottingen,October 10-16, 2020. 1 The Zermelo Fraenkel Axioms Axiom: a plausible postulate, seen as evident truth that needs not be proved. Logical axioms, e.g. A∧B → A for any statements A, B. We assume the Hilbert axioms, see below. Now we focus on the non-logical axioms, the ones about the underlying set the- oretic structure. Most of nowadays mathematics can be justified as built within the set theoretic universe or one of its extensions by classes or even a hierarchy of classes. In my lecture I will report on the Zermelo Fraenkel Axioms. If no axioms are mentioned, usually the proof is based on these axioms. However, be careful, for example nowaday’s known and accepted proof of Fermat’s last theorem by Wiles uses “ZFC and there are infinitely many strongly inaccessible cardinals”. It is conjectured that ZFC or even the Peano Arithmetic will do. The language of the Zermelo Fraenkel axioms is the first order logic L (τ) with signature τ = {∈}. The symbol ∈ stands for a binary relation. However, we will work in English and thus expand the language by many defined notions. If you are worried about how this is compatible with the statement “the language of set theory is L({∈})” you can study the theory of language expansions by defined symbols. E.g., you may read page 85ff in [15].
    [Show full text]
  • Constructing Cardinals from Below
    Constructing Cardinals from Below W. W. Tait∗ The totality Ω of transfinite numbers was first introduced in [Cantor, 1883] by means of the principle If the initial segment Σ of Ω is a set, then it has a least strict upper bound S(Σ) ∈ Ω. Thus, for numbers α = S(Σ) and β = S(Σ0), α < β iff α ∈ Σ0; α = β iff Σ = Σ0; S(∅) is the least number 0 (although Cantor himself took the least number to be 1); if Σ has a greatest element γ, then α is its successor γ + 1; and if Σ is non-null and has no greatest element, then α is the least upper bound of Σ. The problem with the definition, of course, is in determining what it means for an initial segment to be a set. Obviously, not all of them are: for the totality Ω of all numbers is an initial segment, but to admit it as a set would yield S(Ω) < S(Ω), contradicting the assumption that Ω is well-ordered by <. Cantor himself understood this already in 1883. In his earlier writings, e.g. [1882], he had essentially defined a set ‘in some conceptual sphere’ such as arithmetic or geometry, to be the extension of a well-defined property. But in these cases, he was considering sets of objects of some type A, where being an object of type A is itself is not defined in terms of the notion of a set of objects of type A. But with his definition of the transfinite numbers, an entirely novel situation arises: the definition of Ω depends on the notion of a subset of Ω.
    [Show full text]