Set Theory and Its Philosophy : a Critical Introduction

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Set Theory and Its Philosophy : a Critical Introduction This page intentionally left blank Set Theory and its Philosophy This page intentionally left blank Set Theory and its Philosophy A Critical Introduction Michael Potter 3 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Bangkok Buenos Aires Cape Town Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kolkata Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi Sao˜ Paulo Shanghai Taipei Tokyo Toronto Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York c Michael Potter 2004 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2004 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organizations. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Data available ISBN 0–19–926973–4 (hbk.) ISBN 0–19–927041–4 (pbk.) 13579108642 Typeset by the author Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by T J International Ltd., Padstow, Cornwall Preface This book was written for two groups of people, philosophically informed mathematicians with a serious interest in the philosophy of their subject, and philosophers with a serious interest in mathematics. Perhaps, therefore, I should begin by paying tribute to my publisher for expressing no nervous- ness concerning the size of the likely readership. Frege (1893–1903, I, p. xii) predicted that the form of his Grundgesetze would cause him to relinquish as readers all those mathematicians who, if they bump into logical expres- sions such as ‘concept’, ‘relation’, ‘judgment’, think: metaphysica sunt, non leguntur, and likewise those philosophers who at the sight of a formula cry: mathematica sunt, non leguntur. And, as he rightly observed, ‘the number of such persons is surely not small’. As then, so now. Any book which tries to form a bridge between math- ematics and philosophy risks vanishing into the gap. It is inevitable, however hard the writer strives for clarity, that the requirements of the subject matter place demands on the reader, sometimes mathematical, sometimes philosoph- ical. This is something which anyone who wants to make a serious study of the philosophy of mathematics must simply accept. To anyone who doubts it there are two bodies of work which stand as an awful warning: the philosoph- ical literature contains far too many articles marred by elementary technical misunderstandings,1 while mathematicians have often been tempted, espe- cially in later life, to commit to print philosophical reflections which are either wholly vacuous or hopelessly incoherent. Both mathematicians and philosophers, then, need to accept that studying the philosophy of mathematics confronts them with challenges for which their previous training may not have prepared them. It does not follow automat- ically, of course, that one should try, as I have done here, to cater for their differing needs in a single textbook. However, my main reason for writing the book was that I wanted to explore the constant interplay that set theory seems to exemplify between technical results and philosophical reflection, and this convinced me that there was more than expositional economy to be said for trying to address both readerships simultaneously. 1I should know: I have written one myself. vi Preface In this respect the book differs from its predecessor, Sets: An Introduction (1990), which was directed much more at philosophically ignorant mathem- aticians than at philosophers. The similarities between the new book and the old are certainly substantial, especially in the more technical parts, but even there the changes go well beyond the cosmetic. Technically informed readers may find a quick summary helpful. At the formal level the most significant change is that I have abandoned the supposition I made in Sets that the universe of collections contains a sub- universe which has all the sets as members but is nevertheless capable of be- longing to other collections (not, of course, sets) itself. The truth is that I only included it for two reasons: to make it easy to embed category theory; and to sidestep some irritating pieces of pedantry such as the difficulty we face when we try, without going metalinguistic, to say in standard set theory that the class of all ordinals is well-ordered. Neither reason now strikes me as sufficient to compensate for the complications positing a sub-universe creates: the cat- egory theorists never thanked me for accommodating them, and if they want a sub-universe, I now think that they can posit it for themselves; while the pedantry is going to have to be faced at some point, so postponing it does no one any favours. The style of set-theoretic formalism in which the sets form only a sub- universe (sometimes in the literature named after Grothendieck) has never found much favour. (Perhaps category theory is not popular enough.) So in this respect the new book is the more orthodox. In two other respects, though, I have persisted in eccentricity: I still allow there to be individuals; and I still do not include the axiom scheme of replacement in the default theory. The reasons for these choices are discussed quite fully in the text, so here I will be brief. The first eccentricity — allowing individuals — seems to me to be something close to a philosophical necessity: as it complicates the treat- ment only very slightly, I can only recommend that mathematicians who do not see the need should regard it as a foible and humour me in it. The second — doing without replacement — was in fact a large part of my motivation to write Sets to begin with. I had whiled away my student days under the delusion that replacement is needed for the formalization of considerable amounts of mathematics, and when I discovered that this was false, I wanted to spread the word (spread it, that is to say, beyond the set theorists who knew it already). On this point my proselytizing zeal has hardly waned in the intervening dec- ade. One of the themes which I have tried to develop in the new book is the idea that set theory is a measure (not the only one, no doubt) of the degree of abstractness of mathematics, and it is at the very least a striking fact about mathematical practice, which many set theory textbooks contrive to obscure, that even before we try to reduce levels by clever use of coding, the over- whelming majority of mathematics sits comfortably inside the first couple of dozen levels of the hierarchy above the natural numbers. Preface vii The differences from standard treatments that I have described so far affect our conception of the extent of the set-theoretic hierarchy. One final differ- ence affecting not our conception of it but only the axiomatization is that the axioms I have used focus first on the notion of a level, and deduce the properties of sets (as subcollections of levels) only derivatively. The pioneer of this style of axiomatization was Scott (1974), but my earlier book used unpublished work of John Derrick to simplify his system significantly, and here I have taken the opportunity to make still more simplifications. Lecturers on the look-out for a course text may feel nervous about this. No executive, it is said, has ever been sacked for ordering IBM computers, even if they were not the best buy; by parity of reasoning, I suppose, no lecturer is ever sacked for teaching ZF. So it is worth stressing that ZU, the system which acts as a default throughout this book, is interpretable in ZF in the obvious manner: the theorems stated in this book are, word for word, theorems of ZF. So teaching from this book is not like teaching from Quine’s Mathematical Logic: you will find no self-membered sets here. Most of the exercises have very largely been taken unchanged from my earlier book. I recommend browsing them, at least: it is a worthwhile aid to understanding the text, even for those students who do not seriously attempt to do them all. It is a pleasure, in conclusion, to record my thanks: to Philip Meguire and Pierre Matet for correspondence about the weaknesses of my earlier book; to the members of the Cambridge seminar which discussed chapters of the new book in draft and exposed inadequacies of exposition; and especially to Timothy Smiley, Eric James, Peter Clark and Richard Zach, all of whom spent more time than I had any right to expect reading the text and giving me perceptive, judicious comments on it. M. D. P. This page intentionally left blank Contents I Sets 1 Introduction to Part I 3 1 Logic 6 1.1 The axiomatic method 6 1.2 The background logic 11 1.3 Schemes 13 1.4 The choice of logic 16 1.5 Definite descriptions 18 Notes 20 2 Collections 21 2.1 Collections and fusions 21 2.2 Membership 23 2.3 Russell’s paradox 25 2.4
Recommended publications
  • Truth and Provability
    Truth and provability Herman Ruge Jervell May 24, 2009 2 Contents 0.1 Incompleteness . 7 0.2 Truth . 8 0.3 Thinking from assumptions . 8 0.4 The pioneers . 9 1 Data structures and syntax 11 1.1 Skolems paper . 11 1.2 Pairs . 12 1.3 The language of pairs . 12 1.4 Representing syntax by pairs . 13 1.5 Natural numbers . 15 2 Elementary theories of syntax 19 2.1 The elementary theories . 19 2.2 The minimal theory . 19 2.3 Robinson theory . 21 2.4 Non standard models . 22 2.5 Induction . 23 2.6 Skolem theory . 23 3 Decidable theories 25 3.1 Decidable versus undecidable . 25 3.2 Automata theory . 25 3.3 Logic of acceptance . 27 3.4 Presburger arithmetic . 28 3.5 Arithmetic with only multiplication . 28 3.6 Numbers with addition and multiplication . 29 3.7 Infinite input . 29 3.8 Complement of infinite strings . 34 3.9 Complement of infinite trees . 35 4 Diagonalization 39 4.1 Cantors argument . 39 4.2 Russells paradox . 40 4.3 Fix point of functions . 41 3 4 CONTENTS 4.4 Diagonal lemma . 41 4.5 Self reference . 42 4.6 Currys paradox . 44 5 Provability 45 5.1 Representing syntax . 45 5.2 Provability as necessity . 46 5.3 Tarskis theorem . 49 5.4 Consistency . 49 5.5 G¨odels first incompleteness theorem . 50 5.6 G¨odels second incompleteness theorem . 50 6 Modality 53 6.1 The G¨odel-L¨obmodal logic . 53 6.2 Solovays first completeness theorem . 57 6.3 Solovays second completeness teorem .
    [Show full text]
  • Purity in Arithmetic: Some Formal and Informal Issues
    PURITY IN ARITHMETIC: SOME FORMAL AND INFORMAL ISSUES ANDREW ARANA 1. INTRODUCTION There has been since antiquity a tradition in mathematics of preferring solutions to problems / proofs of theorems that are restricted to considerations “close” or “intrinsic” to what is being solved/proved. A classical example of such preference is the desire for “synthetic” geometrical solutions to geometrical problems rather than “analytic” solutions to those problems that have struck many mathematicians as “rather far” from the problems at hand. Arithmetic in particular has been the locus of much concern over purity. For instance, regarding Hadamard and de la Vallee´ Poussin’s 1896 proof of the prime number theorem using complex analysis, the distinguished number theorist A.E. Ingham remarked that it “may be held to be unsatisfactory in that it introduces ideas very remote from the original problem, and it is natural to ask for a proof of the prime number theorem not depending on the theory of a complex variable” (cf. [Ing32], pp. 5–6). Investigation of purity in mathematical practice reveals that there are several different strains of purity differentiated by how they measure what is “close” or “intrinsic” to what is being solved/proved. In [DA11] we settled on one such strain as the one most central to purity in historical practice, which we called the “topical” strain.1 Very roughly, a solution to a problem is “topically pure” if it draws only on what is “contained” in (the content of) that problem, where what is “contained” in a problem is what grounds its understanding and is what we call that problem’s “topic”.
    [Show full text]
  • Decision Problems for Skolem Arithmetic*
    Theoretical Computer Science 11 (1980) 123-143 @ North-Holland Publishing Company THE REACHABILITY PROBLEM FOR PETRI NETS AND DECISION PROBLEMS FOR SKOLEM ARITHMETIC* Egon BURGER Lehrstuhl Informatik II, Universitiit Dortrnund, D-4600 Dortmund SO, ERG. Hans KLEINE BONING Institut fiir mathematische Logik und Grundlagenforschung, D-4400 Miinster, F.R.G. Communicated by M. Nivat Received March 1978 Revised May 1979 Abstract. We show that the decision problem for the class COof all closed universal Horn formulae in prenex conjunctive normal form of extended Skolem arithmetic without equality (i.e. first order formulae built up from the multiplication sign, constants for the natural numbers and free occurring predicate symbols) is exponentially time bounded equivalent to the reachability problem for Petri nets if restricted to the class of formulae with (a) only monadic predicate symbols, with (6) only binary disjunctions in the quantifier free matrix and (c) without terms containing a variable more than once. We show that leaving out one of the restrictions (a) to (c) yields classes of formulae whose decision problem can assume any prescribed recursively enumerable complexity in terms of many-one degrees of unsolvability. 1. Introduction In the course of various attempts to solve the reachability problem for Petri nets’ by describing it thr ough logical formulae in classes with recursively solvable decision problem we found an interesting class of formulae whose decision problem not only incorporates the reachability problem bue is exponentially time bounded reducible to it and which cannot be extended in its expressive power with respect to certain well known criteria of logical complexity of formulae without yielding a class with recursively unsolvable-even arbitrarily Fomplex recursively enumerable-decision problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Model Checking Infinite-State Systems
    Model Checking Infinite-State Systems: Generic and Specific Approaches Anthony Widjaja To I V N E R U S E I T H Y T O H F G E R D I N B U Doctor of Philosophy Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science School of Informatics University of Edinburgh 2010 Abstract Model checking is a fully-automatic formal verification method that has been ex- tremely successful in validating and verifying safety-critical systems in the past three decades. In the past fifteen years, there has been a lot of work in extending many model checking algorithms over finite-state systems to finitely representable infinite- state systems. Unlike in the case of finite systems, decidability can easily become a problem in the case of infinite-state model checking. In this thesis, we present generic and specific techniques that can be used to derive decidability with near-optimal computational complexity for various model checking problems over infinite-state systems. Generic techniques and specific techniques pri- marily differ in the way in which a decidability result is derived. Generic techniques is a “top-down” approach wherein we start with a Turing-powerful formalism for infinite- state systems (in the sense of being able to generate the computation graphs of Turing machines up to isomorphisms), and then impose semantic restrictions whereby the desired model checking problem becomes decidable. In other words, to show that a subclass of the infinite-state systems that is generated by this formalism is decidable with respect to the model checking problem under consideration, we will simply have to prove that this subclass satisfies the semantic restriction.
    [Show full text]
  • Some New Results in Monadic Second-Order Arithmetic STANISLAV O
    2 August 2016 DEPOSIT Some New Results in Monadic Second-Order Arithmetic STANISLAV O. SPERANSKI Sobolev Institute of Mathematics, Novosibirsk, Russia This is a version of the article published in Computability 4:2, 159–174 (2015). DOI: 10.3233/COM-150036 Abstract. Let s be a signature and A a s-structure with domain N. Say that a monadic second- 1 order s-formula is Pn iff it has the form 8X1 9X2 8X3 ::: Xn y with X1;:::;Xn set variables and y containing no set quantifiers. Consider the following properties: 1 1 AC for each n 2 N n f0g, the set of Pn-s-sentences true in A is Pn-complete; 1 AD for each n 2 N n f0g, if A ⊆ N is Pn-definable in the standard model of arithmetic and closed 1 under automorphisms of A, then it is Pn-definable in A. We use j and ? to denote the divisibility relation and the coprimeness relation, respectively. Given a x+y prime p, let bcp be the function which maps every (x;y) 2 N × N into x mod p. In this paper we prove: hN; ji and all hN;bcp;=i have both AC and AD; in effect, even hN;?i has AC. Notice — these results readily generalise to arbitrary arithmetical expansions of the corresponding structures, provi- ded that the extended signature is finite. x1. Introduction Let f0;f1;::: be a list of all computable functions and R0;R1;::: be a list of all computable relations. Then the standard model N of arithmetic expands to T := hN;f0;f1;:::;R0;R1;:::i: The paper is devoted to monadic second-order properties of natural reducts of T — which are considerably less studied than first-order properties of such structures (see (Bes,` 2002; Korec, 2001; Cegielski, 1996) for further information and references).
    [Show full text]
  • Circuit Satisfiability and Constraint Satisfaction Around Skolem Arithmetic
    Circuit Satisfiability and Constraint Satisfaction around Skolem Arithmetic Christian Glaßer1, Peter Jonsson2?, and Barnaby Martin3?? 1 Theoretische Informatik, Julius-Maximilians-Universit¨at,W¨urzburg,Germany 2 Dept. of Computer and Information Science, Link¨opingsUniversitet, SE-581 83 Link¨oping,Sweden 3 School of Science and Technology, Middlesex University, The Burroughs, Hendon, London NW4 4BT Abstract. We study interactions between Skolem Arithmetic and cer- tain classes of Circuit Satisfiability and Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSPs). We revisit results of Glaßer et al. [16] in the context of CSPs and settle the major open question from that paper, finding a certain satis- fiability problem on circuits|involving complement, intersection, union and multiplication|to be decidable. This we prove using the decidability of Skolem Arithmetic. Then we solve a second question left open in [16] by proving a tight upper bound for the similar circuit satisfiability prob- lem involving just intersection, union and multiplication. We continue by studying first-order expansions of Skolem Arithmetic without constants, (N; ×), as CSPs. We find already here a rich landscape of problems with non-trivial instances that are in P as well as those that are NP-complete. 1 Introduction Skolem Arithmetic is the weak fragment of first-order arithmetic involving only multiplication. Thoralf Skolem gave a quantifier-elimination technique and ar- gued for decidability of the theory in [28]. However, his proof was rather vague and a robust demonstration was not given of this result until Mostowski [23]. Skolem Arithmetic is somewhat less fashionable than Presburger Arithmetic, which involves only addition, and was proved decidable by Presburger in [26].
    [Show full text]
  • CDM FOL Theories
    CDM 1 Theories and Models FOL Theories Decidability and Completeness Klaus Sutner Carnegie Mellon University Derivations and Proofs 42-fol-theories 2017/12/15 23:21 Compactness Incompleteness and Undecidability Structures and Models 3 Semantic Consequence 4 Definition Recall from last time that we have a notion of a structure being a model of a Given a set Γ of sentences and a sentence ϕ, we say that ϕ is valid in Γ or a semantic consequence of Γ if any structure that satisfies all formulae in Γ sentence, or a whole set of sentences. A also satisfies ϕ: = Γ implies = ϕ. A | A | = Γ A | Notation: Γ = ϕ | To really make sense out of this, we need some background theory that allows For example, for a ground term t us to talk about the corresponding first-order structures. Typically this is handled via Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. ϕ(t) = x ϕ(x) | ∃ ϕ, ϕ ψ = ψ → | Less Obvious 5 Theories 6 The last two examples are purely logical, but semantic entailment is not always so easy to see. Fix some first-order language L once and for all. As always, we are only For example, the standard group axioms interested in languages with a finite or at most countable supply of non-logical symbols, and decidable syntax. x (y z) = (x y) z ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ x e = e x = x ∗ ∗ Definition 1 1 x x− = x− x = e A theory (over L) is an arbitrary collection of sentences (over L). ∗ ∗ A theory T is satisfiable if there is some structure A such that A = T .
    [Show full text]
  • Durham Research Online
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Durham Research Online Durham Research Online Deposited in DRO: 12 September 2017 Version of attached le: Accepted Version Peer-review status of attached le: Peer-reviewed Citation for published item: Glaßer, Christian and Jonsson, Peter and Martin, Barnaby (2017) 'Circuit satisability and constraint satisfaction around Skolem arithmetic.', Theoretical computer science., 703 . pp. 18-36. Further information on publisher's website: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2017.08.025 Publisher's copyright statement: c 2017 This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United Kingdom Tel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 | Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971 http://dro.dur.ac.uk Circuit Satisfiability and Constraint Satisfaction around Skolem ArithmeticI Christian Glaßera, Peter Jonssonb,∗, Barnaby Martinc,∗∗ aTheoretische Informatik, Julius-Maximilians-Universit¨at,W¨urzburg, Germany bDepartment of Computer and Information Science, Link¨opingsUniversitet, SE-581 83 Link¨oping,Sweden cSchool of Engineering & Computing Sciences, Durham University, Durham, UK.
    [Show full text]
  • Durham Research Online
    Durham Research Online Deposited in DRO: 12 September 2017 Version of attached le: Accepted Version Peer-review status of attached le: Peer-reviewed Citation for published item: Glaßer, Christian and Jonsson, Peter and Martin, Barnaby (2017) 'Circuit satisability and constraint satisfaction around Skolem arithmetic.', Theoretical computer science., 703 . pp. 18-36. Further information on publisher's website: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2017.08.025 Publisher's copyright statement: c 2017 This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Additional information: Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United Kingdom Tel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 | Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971 https://dro.dur.ac.uk Circuit Satisfiability and Constraint Satisfaction around Skolem ArithmeticI Christian Glaßera, Peter Jonssonb,∗, Barnaby Martinc,∗∗ aTheoretische Informatik, Julius-Maximilians-Universit¨at,W¨urzburg, Germany bDepartment of Computer and Information Science, Link¨opingsUniversitet, SE-581 83 Link¨oping,Sweden cSchool of Engineering & Computing Sciences, Durham University, Durham, UK.
    [Show full text]