DOCSLIB.ORG

Axiomatic Set Theory Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/pspum/013.2 AXIOMATIC SET THEORY PROCEEDINGS OF SYMPOSIA IN PURE MATHEMATICS VOLUME XIII, PART II AXIOMATIC SET THEORY AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND 1974 PROCEEDINGS OF THE SYMPOSIUM IN PURE MATHEMATICS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY HELD AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA JULY 10-AUGUST 5, 1967 EDITED BY THOMAS J. JECH Prepared by the American Mathematical Society with the partial support of National Science Foundation Grant GP-6698 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Symposium in Pure Mathematics, University of California, DDE Los Angeles, 1967. Axiomatic set theory. The papers in pt. 1 of the proceedings represent revised and generally more detailed versions of the lec• tures. Pt. 2 edited by T. J. Jech. Includes bibliographical references. 1. Axiomatic set theory-Congresses. I. Scott, Dana S. ed. II. Jech, Thomas J., ed. HI. Title. IV. Series. QA248.S95 1967 51l'.3 78-125172 ISBN 0-8218-0246-1 (v. 2) AMS (MOS) subject classifications (1970). Primary 02K99; Secondary 04-00 Copyright © 1974 by the American Mathematical Society Printed in the United States of America All rights reserved except those granted to the United States Government. This book may not be reproduced in any form without the permission of the publishers. CONTENTS Foreword vii Current problems in descriptive set theory 1 J. W. ADDISON Predicatively reducible systems of set theory 11 SOLOMON FEFERMAN Elementary embeddings of models of set-theory and certain subtheories 3 3 HAIM GAIFMAN Set-theoretic functions for elementary syntax 103 R. O. GANDY Second-order cardinal characterizability 127 STEPHEN J. GARLAND The consistency of partial set theory without extensionality 147 P. C. GlLMORE On the existence of certain cofinal subsets of "(D 155 STEPHEN H. HECHLER Measurable cardinals and the GCH 175 RONALD BJORN JENSEN The order extension principle 179 A. R. D. MATHIAS "Embedding classical type theory in 'intuitionistic' type theory." A correction 185 JOHN MYHILL Remarks on reflection principles, large cardinals, and elementary embeddings 189 W. N. REINHARDT Axiomatizing set theory 207 DANA SCOTT Author Index 215 Subject Index 217 Lectures delivered during the Institute 219 FOREWORD This volume is the second (and last) part of the Proceedings of the Summer Institute on Axiomatic Set Theory held at U.C.L.A., July 10—August 5, 1967. Many of the lectures delivered during the Institute have been published in the first volume of these PROCEEDINGS, edited by Dana S. Scott. Although we were unable to obtain all the remaining manuscripts, this volume contains most of them. A small number of the contributions was meanwhile published elsewhere; the complete list of lectures is provided at the end of this volume. For several reasons, the publication of this volume was slightly delayed. I wish to thank the authors of the papers for their patience. THOMAS J. JECH Author Index Roman numbers refer to pages on which a reference is made to an author or a work of an author. Italic numbers refer to pages on which a complete reference to a work by the author is given. Boldface numbers indicate the first page of the articles in the book. Ackermann, W., 192, 205 Hadamard, Jaques, 1 Addison, J. W., 1, 10, 128, 146 Hanf, W. P., 71, 101, 145, 146, 205 Aleksandrov, Pavel S., 5 Hausdorff, Felix, 2, 3, 8, 155, 173 Asser, G., 135, 146 Hechler, Stephen H., 155 Hinman, Peter G., 7 Baire, Rene, 1, 2, 3 Barnes, Robert F., Jr., 4 Jech, T., 183, 183, 198, 205 Barwise, J., 103, 126 Jensen, Roland Bjorn, 103, 104, 106, 108, 109, Bennett, J. H., 122, 126, 135, 146 126, 175, 179, 183 Benson, Guy M., 5 Johsson, B., 179, 183 Bernays, P., 195, 205 Borel, Emile, 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9 Kalmar, Laszlo, 4, 8, 9 Brouwer, Luitzen Egbertus Jan, 4 Kantorovic, Leonid, 6 Karp, C, 103, 108, 126 Cantor, Georg, 2 Keisler, H. J., 68, 84, 96, 100, 101 Cohen, Paul J., 10, 100, 144, 146, 155, 159, 161, Kleene, Stephen C, 4, 137, 138, 146 165, 173 Kolmogorov, Andrei N., 7, 8 Coppleston, F., 198, 205 Kreisel, G„ 17, 21, 30, 31, 32, 32, 125, 126 Kripke, S., 30, 32 Kunen, K., 37, 38, 65, 71, 72, 76, 92, 95, 96, Devlin, K. J., 104, 126 101, 131, 144, 146, 200, 201, 205 Feferman, Solomon, 11, 11, 12, 16, 17, 20, 21, La Vallee Poussin, Charles J. de, 2 30, 32,32, 116, 125, 126 Lavrent'ev, Mihail A., 3 Fitch, F. B., 149, 153 Lebesgue, Henri, 1, 3 Fraenkel, Abraham A., 8, 9 Levy, A., 103, 108, 126, 141, 146, 192, 194, 196, Friedman, H., 32, 32 205 Livenson, E. M., 6 Gaifman, Haim, 33, 36, 37, 42, 46, 95, 96, 100, Luzin, Nikolai N., 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 101 Lyndon, Roger C, 148, 149, 150, 153 Gandy, R. O., 30, 31, 32, 103, 126 Garland, Stephen J., 127 Magidor, M., 86, 88, 94, 101 Gilmore, P. C, 147, 147, 150, 153 Martin, Donald Anthony, 10 Godel, K., 10, 111, 126, 186, 187, 188 Mathias, A. R. D., 175, 179 Grzegorczyk, A., 104, 126 Montague, R. M., 143, 146 215 216 AUTHOR INDEX Moschovakis, Yiannis N., 6, 10, 126, 128, 146 Sierpinski, Waclaw, 155, 173 Mostowski, Andrzej, 181, 183 Silver, J. H., 9, 36, 72, 101, 145, 146, 198, 205 Myhill, John, 185, 185 Smullyan, R. M., 104, 122, 126 Sochor, A., 183, 183 Pincus, D., 183, 183 Solovay, Robert M., 35, 78, 86, 94, 101, 155, Platek, R., 30, 32 173, 189 Powell, W. C, 35, 91, 94, 101, 198, 205 Suslin, Mihail Ya., 5, 6, 7, 8 Suzuki, Y., 137, 146 Reinhardt, W. N., 35, 78, 86, 94, 101, 189, 192, 198, 200, 205 Tarski, Alfred, 68, 96, 100, 101 Ritchie, R. W., 121, 126 Tennenbaum, Stanley, 155, 173 Rogers, Hartley, Jr., 2 Rowbottom, F., 36, 101 Urysohn, P. S., 5 Scholz, H., 135, 146 Scott, Dana S., 13, 71, 95, 101, 145, 146, 200, 205, 207 Vaught, R. L., 42, 101, 205 Selivanovskil, E. A., 5 Shoenfield, J. R., 71, 74, 101, 132, 136, 137, 146, Zermelo, Ernst, 8, 9 198, 205 Zykov, A. A., 130, 146 Subject Index AJ, 128 A0 predicates, 105, 106, 108, 114-117 a-scale, 155 A0-separation, 12 Alternating sum, 3 Definability, 36, 39 Antitone, 3 general concept, 41, 42 Approximations of embeddings (y-approxima- Definable, 1 tions, < ^-approximations), 34, 78-83, 86, Defining schema, 39, 40, 41, 42 87 Descriptive set theory, 1 Axiom(s) Detail, 4 Vv la (Ra exists Av e Ra], 33, 54 OJ,128 of constructibility, 9 Direct limit, 36, 41, 46, 47 of definable determinateness, 10 Duals, 3 of extendibility, 199 of infinity, 9, 189, 199 Embeddings of measurable cardinals, 9 of intuitionistic type theory, 185 recognizing, 204-205 ordinals and the first ordinal move by, 34, 35, 67, 75, 85-87 Basic closure, 109 critical ordinals of, 67 Basic functions, 105 see also: Approximations of embeddings, Co- Basic numerals, 118 final embeddings, and "Local" conditions Bilateral, 3 Exhaustion principle, 5 Blowing up small structures, 72-75 VJ, 128 Borel hierarchy, 2 Extendible, 192, 197, 199, 202 Cardinals in models of ZC+, 95 Extendible cardinals, 35, 94, 197, 199 Cardinals, see Large cardinals various concepts of extendibility, complete Cartesian product, 105, 111 extendibility, 86, 87, 94, 95 Category (of structures), 40, 41 Extensionality axiom, 147 Characterizable cardinals, 128 Extension operators, 36, 39-42, 95-99 Classes (as distinguished from sets), 37, 50-54 Iterations of—see Iterations of extension Classical descriptive set theory, 2 operators Cofinal embedding, 33, 34, 36, 54-60, 79, 90, 91 y and < y-cofinality, 34, 35, 78-84 First separation principles, 7 Consistency results, 144, 147 First separation property, 7 Constructible closure, 111 Forcing, 156 Construction principle, 3 Functor, 41, 45, 49 Coreduction property, 7 Fusion, 5 S-separated, 8 General recursive functions, 2 Decomposition of embeddings, 34, 82, 83 Generalized continuum hypothesis, 131 Sm, 136 Godel embedding, 185 217 218 SUBJECT INDEX Hausdorff hierarchy, 3 Predicatively reducible systems, 11 Hierarchies, 2,128 Projections, 5 Higher-order definability, 143 Projective hierarchy, 6 Hyperarithmetic comprehension rule, 16 Provably definite relative to 5, 18 Provably 2 H II formula, 13 Inclusion principle, 5 Pushing up ordinals, 37, 68, 69, 72 Indexing of functions, 123 Indiscernibles, 49, 50, 68, 71 R-sets, 7 Inner quantifier, 10 Ramsey cardinals, 36, 145 Intuitionistic type theory, 185 Random reals, 155 Invariant for e-extensions relative to S, 17 Recursive function theory, 2 Irreducible cover, 201, 202 Reduction property, 7 Iterations of extension operators, 36-38, 43-54, Reflection principles, 190 60-62, 64-78 Representation structures (which are ordinally coded well-founded trees in OJ), 12 Rudimentary predicates, 104,121 Kalmar hierarchy, 4 Rudimentary functions, 104 A-extendible, 94,199 S-admissible set, 30 Large cardinal(s), 145 Scales, 155 definitions of, via elementary embeddings, Self-extension(s), 58 35, 85-88, 189, 198 see also: Extension operator properties, 193 Separated unions, 9 in iterated extensions, 75-78 Separation Urprinciple, 8 see also: Measurable cardinals, Extendible X H 11-separation rule, 14 cardinals and Supercompactness X-formula, 13 Liftings of embeddings, 35, 36, 88-93 ^-reflection rule, 12 Limit ultrapowers, 34, 83-85 Simple predicate, 104 "Local*' conditions on elementary embeddings, Spectrum, 128 35, 86-88 Spectrum problem, 135 Luzin hierarchy, 6 Strongly compact, 202 Strong separation principle, 7 Measurable cardinal(s), 36, 68, 74, 75,145 Subtheories of set theory Models of set theory, 144 Z+, 33, 54 Z\ 55 Natural extension operator, see Extension ^finite* 55, 59 operators + ZC , 33, 78 Supercompactness, 35, 86, 87, 202 O-classes, 198, 199, 200, 201 Suslin hierarchy, 5 Operation (A), 5 Syntax, elementary, functions and predicates of, Operator, see Extension operators Operator R, 7 103-104,122,125 m Ordinal functions K (fi) and the ordinal r0» 12 Ordinal sufficiency rule, 13 Theory of definability, 1 Outer quantifier, 10 Transfinite induction rule, 16 Partial set, 147 recursion rule, 16 Persistent for 8-extensions relative to S, 17 Il-formula, 13 Undefinability, 2 Predicative predicate, 109 Uniformization problem, 1 see also: Simple predicate Predicative set theories, 115 Well-foundedness, 37,62-64, 73-75, 88-90,101 LECTURES DELIVERED DURING THE INSTITUTE John Addison Current problems in descriptive set theory Robert Bradford Undecidability of the theory of Dedekind cardinal addition C.
Recommended publications
  • “The Church-Turing “Thesis” As a Special Corollary of Gödel's

    “The Church-Turing “Thesis” As a Special Corollary of Gödel's

    “The Church-Turing “Thesis” as a Special Corollary of Gödel’s Completeness Theorem,” in Computability: Turing, Gödel, Church, and Beyond, B. J. Copeland, C. Posy, and O. Shagrir (eds.), MIT Press (Cambridge), 2013, pp. 77-104. Saul A. Kripke This is the published version of the book chapter indicated above, which can be obtained from the publisher at https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/computability. It is reproduced here by permission of the publisher who holds the copyright. © The MIT Press The Church-Turing “ Thesis ” as a Special Corollary of G ö del ’ s 4 Completeness Theorem 1 Saul A. Kripke Traditionally, many writers, following Kleene (1952) , thought of the Church-Turing thesis as unprovable by its nature but having various strong arguments in its favor, including Turing ’ s analysis of human computation. More recently, the beauty, power, and obvious fundamental importance of this analysis — what Turing (1936) calls “ argument I ” — has led some writers to give an almost exclusive emphasis on this argument as the unique justification for the Church-Turing thesis. In this chapter I advocate an alternative justification, essentially presupposed by Turing himself in what he calls “ argument II. ” The idea is that computation is a special form of math- ematical deduction. Assuming the steps of the deduction can be stated in a first- order language, the Church-Turing thesis follows as a special case of G ö del ’ s completeness theorem (first-order algorithm theorem). I propose this idea as an alternative foundation for the Church-Turing thesis, both for human and machine computation. Clearly the relevant assumptions are justified for computations pres- ently known.
  • Creating New Concepts in Mathematics: Freedom and Limitations. the Case of Category Theory

    Creating New Concepts in Mathematics: Freedom and Limitations. the Case of Category Theory

    Creating new concepts in mathematics: freedom and limitations. The case of Category Theory Zbigniew Semadeni Institute of Mathematics, University of Warsaw Abstract In the paper we discuss the problem of limitations of freedom in mathematics and search for criteria which would differentiate the new concepts stemming from the historical ones from the new concepts that have opened unexpected ways of thinking and reasoning. We also investigate the emergence of category theory (CT) and its origins. In particular we explore the origins of the term functor and present the strong evidence that Eilenberg and Carnap could have learned the term from Kotarbinski´ and Tarski. Keywords categories, functors, Eilenberg-Mac Lane Program, mathematical cognitive transgressions, phylogeny, platonism. CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 • 1. Introduction he celebrated dictum of Georg Cantor that “The essence of math- Tematics lies precisely in its freedom” expressed the idea that in mathematics one can freely introduce new notions (which may, how- Philosophical Problems in Science (Zagadnienia FilozoficzneNo w Nauce) 69 (2020), pp. 33–65 34 Zbigniew Semadeni ever, be abandoned if found unfruitful or inconvenient).1 This way Cantor declared his opposition to claims of Leopold Kronecker who objected to the free introduction of new notions (particularly those related to the infinite). Some years earlier Richard Dedekind stated that—by forming, in his theory, a cut for an irrational number—we create a new number. For him this was an example of a constructed notion which was a free creation of the human mind (Dedekind, 1872, § 4). In 1910 Jan Łukasiewicz distinguished constructive notions from empirical reconstructive ones.
  • Unfolding of Systems of Inductive Definitions

    Unfolding of Systems of Inductive Definitions

    UNFOLDINGOFSYSTEMSOFINDUCTIVE DEFINITIONS A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND THE COMMITTEE OF GRADUATE STUDIES OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FORTHEDEGREEOF DOCTOROFPHILOSOPHY Ulrik Torben Buchholtz December 2013 © 2013 by Ulrik Torben Buchholtz. All Rights Reserved This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA. This dissertation is online at: http://purl.stanford.edu/kg627pm6592 ii I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Solomon Feferman, Primary Adviser I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Grigori Mints, Co-Adviser I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Thomas Strahm Approved for the Stanford University Committee on Graduate Studies. Patricia J. Gumport, Vice Provost for Graduate Education An original signed hard copy of the signature page is on file in University Archives. iii iv ABSTRACT This thesis is a contribution to Solomon Feferman’s Unfolding Program which aims to provide a general method of capturing the operations on individuals and predicates (and the principles governing them) that are implicit in a formal axiomatic system based on open-ended schemata.
  • Notices of the American Mathematical Society

    Notices of the American Mathematical Society

    June 18 and 19)- Page 341 Vl 0 ~ Mathematical Society Calendar of AMS Meetings THIS CALENDAR lists all meetings which have been approved by the Council prior to the date this issue of the Notices was sent to press. The summer and annual meetings are joint meetings of the Mathematical Association of America and the Ameri· can Mathematical Society. The meeting dates which fall rather far in the future are subject to change; this is particularly true of meetings to which no numbers have yet been assigned. Programs of the meetings will appear in the issues indicated below. First and second announcements of the meetings will have appeared in earlier issues. ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS presented at a meeting of the Society are published in the journal Abstracts of papers presented to the American Mathematical Society in the issue corresponding to that of the Notices which contains the program of the meet­ ing. Abstracts should be submitted on special forms which are available in many departments of mathematics and from the office of the Society in Providence. Abstracts of papers to be presented at the meeting must be received at the headquarters of the Society in Providence, Rhode Island, on or before the deadline given below for the meeting. Note that the deadline for ab· stracts submitted for consideration for presentation at special sessions is usually three weeks earlier than that specified below. For additional information consult the meeting announcement and the list of organizers of special sessions. MEETING ABSTRACT NUMBER DATE PLACE DEADLINE
  • Toward a Mathematical Semantics for Computer Languages

    Toward a Mathematical Semantics for Computer Languages

    (! 1 J TOWARD A MATHEMATICAL SEMANTICS FOR COMPUTER LANGUAGES by Dana Scott and - Christopher Strachey Oxford University Computing Laboratory Programming Research Group-Library 8-11 Keble Road Oxford OX, 3QD Oxford (0865) 54141 Oxford University Computing Laboratory Programming Research Group tI. cr• "';' """, ":.\ ' OXFORD UNIVERSITY COMPUTING LABORATORY PROGRAMMING RESEARCH GROUP ~ 4S BANBURY ROAD \LJ OXFORD ~ .. 4 OCT 1971 ~In (UY'Y L TOWARD A ~ATHEMATICAL SEMANTICS FOR COMPUTER LANGUAGES by Dana Scott Princeton University and Christopher Strachey Oxford University Technical Monograph PRG-6 August 1971 Oxford University Computing Laboratory. Programming Research Group, 45 Banbury Road, Oxford. ~ 1971 Dana Scott and Christopher Strachey Department of Philosophy, Oxford University Computing Laboratory. 1879 lIall, Programming Research Group. Princeton University, 45 Banbury Road. Princeton. New Jersey 08540. Oxford OX2 6PE. This pape r is also to appear in Fl'(.'ceedinBs 0;- the .';y-,;;;o:illT:: on ComputeT's and AutoJ7'ata. lo-licroloo'ave Research Institute Symposia Series Volume 21. Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn. and appears as a Technical Monograph by special aJ"rangement ...·ith the publishers. RefeJ"~nces in the Ii terature should be:- made to the _"!'OL·,-,',~;r:gs, as the texts are identical and the Symposia Sl?ries is gcaerally available in libraries. ABSTRACT Compilers for high-level languages aTe generally constructed to give the complete translation of the programs into machme language. As machines merely juggle bit patterns, the concepts of the original language may be lost or at least obscured during this passage. The purpose of a mathematical semantics is to give a correct and meaningful correspondence between programs and mathematical entities in a way that is entirely independent of an implementation.
  • Why Mathematical Proof?

    Why Mathematical Proof?

    Why Mathematical Proof? Dana S. Scott, FBA, FNAS University Professor Emeritus Carnegie Mellon University Visiting Scholar University of California, Berkeley NOTICE! The author has plagiarized text and graphics from innumerable publications and sites, and he has failed to record attributions! But, as this lecture is intended as an entertainment and is not intended for publication, he regards such copying, therefore, as “fair use”. Keep this quiet, and do please forgive him. A Timeline for Geometry Some Greek Geometers Thales of Miletus (ca. 624 – 548 BC). Pythagoras of Samos (ca. 580 – 500 BC). Plato (428 – 347 BC). Archytas (428 – 347 BC). Theaetetus (ca. 417 – 369 BC). Eudoxus of Cnidus (ca. 408 – 347 BC). Aristotle (384 – 322 BC). Euclid (ca. 325 – ca. 265 BC). Archimedes of Syracuse (ca. 287 – ca. 212 BC). Apollonius of Perga (ca. 262 – ca. 190 BC). Claudius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy)(ca. 90 AD – ca. 168 AD). Diophantus of Alexandria (ca. 200 – 298 AD). Pappus of Alexandria (ca. 290 – ca. 350 AD). Proclus Lycaeus (412 – 485 AD). There is no Royal Road to Geometry Euclid of Alexandria ca. 325 — ca. 265 BC Euclid taught at Alexandria in the time of Ptolemy I Soter, who reigned over Egypt from 323 to 285 BC. He authored the most successful textbook ever produced — and put his sources into obscurity! Moreover, he made us struggle with proofs ever since. Why Has Euclidean Geometry Been So Successful? • Our naive feeling for space is Euclidean. • Its methods have been very useful. • Euclid also shows us a mysterious connection between (visual) intuition and proof. The Pythagorean Theorem Euclid's Elements: Proposition 47 of Book 1 The Pythagorean Theorem Generalized If it holds for one Three triple, Similar it holds Figures for all.
  • Ralph Martin Kaufmann Publications 1. Kaufmann, Ralph

    Ralph Martin Kaufmann Publications 1. Kaufmann, Ralph

    Ralph Martin Kaufmann Department of Mathematics, Purdue University 150 N. University Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907{2067 Tel.: (765) 494-1205 Fax: (765) 494-0548 Publications 1. Kaufmann, Ralph M., Khlebnikov, Sergei, and Wehefritz-Kaufmann, Birgit \Local models and global constraints for degeneracies and band crossings" J. of Geometry and Physics 158 (2020) 103892. 2. Galvez-Carillo, Imma, Kaufmann, Ralph M., and Tonks, Andrew. \Three Hopf algebras from number theory, physics & topology, and their common background I: operadic & simplicial aspects" Comm. in Numb. Th. and Physics (CNTP), vol 14,1 (2020), 1-90. 3. Galvez-Carillo, Imma, Kaufmann, Ralph M., and Tonks, Andrew. \Three Hopf algebras from number theory, physics & topology, and their common background II: general categorical formulation" Comm. in Numb. Th. and Physics (CNTP), vol 14,1 (2020), 91-169. 4. Kaufmann, Ralph M. \Lectures on Feynman categories", 2016 MATRIX annals, 375{438, MATRIX Book Ser., 1, Springer, Cham, 2018. 5. Kaufmann, Ralph M. and Kaufmann-Wehfritz, B. Theoretical Properties of Materials Formed as Wire Network Graphs from Triply Periodic CMC Surfaces, Especially the Gyroid in: \The Role of Topology in Materials", Eds: Gupta, S. and Saxena, A., Springer series in Solid State Sciences. Springer, 2018 6. Kaufmann, Ralph and Lucas, Jason. \Decorated Feynman categories". J. of Noncommutative Geometry, 1 (2017), no 4 1437-1464 7. Berger, C. and Kaufmann R. M. \Comprehensive Factorization Systems". Special Issue in honor of Professors Peter J. Freyd and F.William Lawvere on the occasion of their 80th birthdays, Tbilisi Mathematical Journal 10 (2017), no. 3,. 255-277 8. Kaufmann, Ralph M.
  • The Origins of Structural Operational Semantics

    The Origins of Structural Operational Semantics

    The Origins of Structural Operational Semantics Gordon D. Plotkin Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, King’s Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, Scotland I am delighted to see my Aarhus notes [59] on SOS, Structural Operational Semantics, published as part of this special issue. The notes already contain some historical remarks, but the reader may be interested to know more of the personal intellectual context in which they arose. I must straightaway admit that at this distance in time I do not claim total accuracy or completeness: what I write should rather be considered as a reconstruction, based on (possibly faulty) memory, papers, old notes and consultations with colleagues. As a postgraduate I learnt the untyped λ-calculus from Rod Burstall. I was further deeply impressed by the work of Peter Landin on the semantics of pro- gramming languages [34–37] which includes his abstract SECD machine. One should also single out John McCarthy’s contributions [45–48], which include his 1962 introduction of abstract syntax, an essential tool, then and since, for all approaches to the semantics of programming languages. The IBM Vienna school [42, 41] were interested in specifying real programming languages, and, in particular, worked on an abstract interpreting machine for PL/I using VDL, their Vienna Definition Language; they were influenced by the ideas of McCarthy, Landin and Elgot [18]. I remember attending a seminar at Edinburgh where the intricacies of their PL/I abstract machine were explained. The states of these machines are tuples of various kinds of complex trees and there is also a stack of environments; the transition rules involve much tree traversal to access syntactical control points, handle jumps, and to manage concurrency.
  • An Interview with F. William Lawvere

    An Interview with F. William Lawvere

    An Interview with F. William Lawvere You have written a paper, published for the first time in 1986, entitled \Taking categories seriously"1. Why should we take categories seriously ? In all those areas where category theory is actively used the categorical concept of adjoint functor has come to play a key role. Such a universal instrument for guiding the learning, development, and use of advanced mathematics does not fail to have its indications also in areas of school and college mathematics, in the most basic relationships of space and quantity and the calculations based on those relationships. By saying \take categories seriously", I meant that one should seek, cultivate, and teach helpful examples of an elementary nature. The relation between teaching and research is partly embodied in simple general concepts that can guide the elaboration of examples in both. No- tions and constructions, such as the spectral analysis of dynamical systems, have important aspects that can be understood and pursued without the complications of limiting the models to specific classical categories. The application of some simple general concepts from category theory can lead from a clarification of basic con- structions on dynamical systems to a F. William Lawvere (Braga, March 2007) construction of the real number system with its structure as a closed cate- gory; applied to that particular closed category, the general enriched category theory leads inexorably to embedding the- orems and to notions of Cauchy completeness, rotation, convex hull, radius, and 1Revista Colombiana de Matematicas 20 (1986) 147-178. Reprinted in Repr. Theory Appl. Categ. 8 (2005) 1-24 (electronic).
  • Proof Theory Synthese Library

    Proof Theory Synthese Library

    PROOF THEORY SYNTHESE LIBRARY STUDIES IN EPISTEMOLOGY, LOGIC, METHODOLOGY, AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Managing Editor: JAAKKO HINTIKKA, Boston University Editors: DIRK VAN DALEN, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands DONALD DAVIDSON, University of California, Berkeley THEO A.F. KUIPERS, University of Groningen, The Netherlands PATRICK SUPPES, Stanford University, California JAN WOLENSKI, iagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland VOLUME 292 PROOF THEORY History and Philosophical Significance Edited by VINCENT F. HENDRICKS University of Copenhagen. Denmark STIG ANDUR PEDERSEN and KLAUS FROVIN J0RGENSEN University of Roskilde, Denmark SPRINGER-SCIENCE+BUSINESS MEDIA, B.V. A c.I.P. Catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN 978-90-481-5553-8 ISBN 978-94-017-2796-9 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-2796-9 Printed on acid-free paper All Rights Reserved © 2000 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht Originally published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 2000 Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2000 No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner. CONTENTS Preface ................................................................. ix Contributing Authors ................................................. , xi HENDRICKS, PEDERSEN AND J0RGENSEN / Introduction .......... 1 PART 1. REVIEW OF PROOF THEORY SOLOMON FEFERMAN / Highlights in Proof Theory ................ , 11 1. Review of Hilbert's Program and Finitary Proof Theory ......... , 11 2. Results of Finitary Proof Theory via Gentzen's L-Calculi ......... 14 3. Shifting Paradigms .............................................. 21 4. Countably Infinitary Methods (Getting the Most Out of Logic) ..
  • GRASSMANN's DIALECTICS and CATEGORY THEORY in Several

    GRASSMANN's DIALECTICS and CATEGORY THEORY in Several

    F. WILLIAM LAWVERE GRASSMANN'S DIALECTICS AND CATEGORY THEORY PROGRAMMATIC OUTLINE In several key connections in his foundations of geometrical algebra, Grassmann makes significant use of the dialectical philosophy of 150 years ago. Now, after fifty years of development of category theory as a means for making explicit some nontrivial general arguments in geometry, it is possible to recover some of Grassmann's insights and to express these in ways comprehensible to the modem geometer. For example, the category J/. of affine-linear spaces and maps (a monument to Grassmann) has a canonical adjoint functor to the category of (anti)commutative graded algebras, which as in Grassmann's detailed description yields a sixteen-dimensional algebra when applied to a three­ dimensional affine space (unlike the eight-dimensional exterior algebra of a three-dimensional vector space). The natural algebraic structure of these algebras includes a boundary operator d which satisfies the (signed) Leibniz rule; for example, if A, B are points of the affine space then the product AB is the axial vector from A to B which the boundary degrades to the corresponding translation vector: d(AB) = B-A (since dA = dB = I for points). Grassmann philosophically motivated a notion of a "simple law of change," but his editors in the 1890' s found this notion incoherent and decided he must have meant mere translations. However, translations are insufficient for the foundational task of deciding when two formal products are geometrically equal axial vectors. But if "Iaw of change" is understood as an action of the additive monoid of time, "simple" turns out to mean that the action is internal to the category J/.
  • Actor Model of Computation

    Actor Model of Computation

    Published in ArXiv http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.1459 Actor Model of Computation Carl Hewitt http://carlhewitt.info This paper is dedicated to Alonzo Church and Dana Scott. The Actor model is a mathematical theory that treats “Actors” as the universal primitives of concurrent digital computation. The model has been used both as a framework for a theoretical understanding of concurrency, and as the theoretical basis for several practical implementations of concurrent systems. Unlike previous models of computation, the Actor model was inspired by physical laws. It was also influenced by the programming languages Lisp, Simula 67 and Smalltalk-72, as well as ideas for Petri Nets, capability-based systems and packet switching. The advent of massive concurrency through client- cloud computing and many-core computer architectures has galvanized interest in the Actor model. An Actor is a computational entity that, in response to a message it receives, can concurrently: send a finite number of messages to other Actors; create a finite number of new Actors; designate the behavior to be used for the next message it receives. There is no assumed order to the above actions and they could be carried out concurrently. In addition two messages sent concurrently can arrive in either order. Decoupling the sender from communications sent was a fundamental advance of the Actor model enabling asynchronous communication and control structures as patterns of passing messages. November 7, 2010 Page 1 of 25 Contents Introduction ............................................................ 3 Fundamental concepts ............................................ 3 Illustrations ............................................................ 3 Modularity thru Direct communication and asynchrony ............................................................. 3 Indeterminacy and Quasi-commutativity ............... 4 Locality and Security ............................................