DOCSLIB.ORG

From Theoretical Foundations to Practical Applications

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
From Theoretical Foundations to Practical Applications Numbers: from Theoretical Foundations to Practical Applications AM30MP Mathematics Project Calum Horrobin Aston University 6th May 2014 i Abstract The rewards of forming a well-established mathematical theory are unbounded. This provides a limitless source of philosophical knowledge and practical under- standing about how our universe works. Furthermore, any practical application of mathematics cannot be appreciated in isolation and solely by its real-world implications, but rather as a consequence of forming a well-established theory. In this project we have analysed the theoretical foundations of numbers and demonstrated their value to a practical application of cryptography. A coherent theory of numbers is valuable to mathematics since numbers are a key compo- nent in many pure areas such as analysis, topology, number theory and geometry. We have demonstrated how to establish a theory of numbers based on set theory, specifically using John Von Neumann's inductive sets to model the nat- ural numbers. We first prove that this construction of the natural numbers is valid under the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms. We also prove that various properties which are essential to the natural numbers are satisfied, namely Peano's postu- lates and the principles of induction and well-ordering. Ultimately, establishing the foundations of mathematics relies on being satisfied with an initial object or premise which is based on metamathematical grounds. The philosophy of using set theory as the foundations of mathematics is based on the acceptance of metamathematical concepts relating to the existence and nature of sets in the first place. Logical issues about the completeness and consistency of our set the- ory axiom system have implications to the completeness and consistency of our theory of numbers. We address the relevant philosophical and logical matters as appropriate. A rigorous treatment of the foundations gives way to an effective and well- rounded mathematical theory. We broaden the theoretical foundations to analyse and prove some results in number theory which give way to a practical application of cryptography. Thus, we appreciate the value of establishing the foundations of numbers and recognise how further developments in theoretical components would improve the results in applied areas. ii Preface This project is a continuation of my Mathematics Report [1]. The Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms will be the starting point of my mathematical analysis, for completeness and reference a list of these axioms is given below: Axiom of Extensionality: If two sets, X and Y , have the same elements then they are equal, X = Y . 8x(x 2 X , x 2 Y ) ) (X = Y ): Axiom of Empty Set: For any set, X, there exists a set, E, such that X is not a member of E. 8X9E : X2 = E: Axiom of Pairs: For any pair of sets, X and Y , there exists a set, Z, which either just contains X or just contains Y . 8X8Y (9Z : 8z(z 2 Z , (z = X _ z = Y ))): Axiom of Union: For any set, X, there exists a set, Y , which is the `union' of all elements of X. 8X9Y : 8y(y 2 Y , 9z :(z 2 X ^ y 2 z)): Axiom of Power Set: For any set, X, there exists a set, Y , which is the set of all subsets of X. 8X9Y : 8y(y 2 Y , y ⊆ X): Axiom of Foundation: For all non-empty sets, X, there is an element within X, w, such that X and w have no common elements. 8X(X 6= ? ) (9w 2 X :(6 9y :(y 2 X ^ y 2 w)))): Axiom of Infinity: There exists a set, X, such that ? 2 X, also such that if y 2 X then fyg 2 X. 9X : ((? 2 X) ^ 8y(y 2 X ) fyg 2 X)): Axiom of Subsets: Let X be a set and let L(w) be a logical property of sets which depends on the variable w, then there exists a set, Y , which is the set of all the elements, w, in X which satisfy L(w). 9Y : 8w(w 2 Y , (w 2 X ^ L(w))): The following fundamental theorems were proved in my previous report and will be needed for my work concerning set theory: Theorem 0.1. There is no set x such that it is an element of itself: 8x(x2 = x). Cantor's Theorem. Let S be a set. The cardinality of the power set of S, P (S), is strictly greater than the cardinality of S: card(S) < card(P (S)). iii Contents 1 Introduction and Context 1 2 The Foundations: from Set Theory to Number Theory 3 2.1 The Natural Numbers . 3 2.1.1 John Von Neumann's Ordinals . 4 2.1.2 Philosophical and Logical Implications . 8 2.1.3 Induction and Ordering of the Natural Numbers . 9 2.1.4 Reflections and the Infinitude of the Natural Numbers . 12 2.2 Extending the Natural Numbers . 14 2.2.1 Arithmetic . 14 2.2.2 The Sets of Integer and Rational Numbers . 17 2.3 The Real Numbers . 19 2.3.1 Analysis of Dedekind Cuts and Cauchy Sequences . 20 2.3.2 Decimal Representation . 22 3 Broadening the Theory of Numbers 25 3.1 Fundamental Results . 25 3.1.1 Factoring Natural Numbers . 25 3.1.2 Analytic Study of Primes . 27 3.1.3 Theorems with Applicable Results to RSA Cryptography . 31 3.2 Relevant Issues . 34 3.2.1 Computing with Number Theory . 35 3.2.2 Integer Factorisation Difficulties . 35 3.3 Primality Testing . 35 3.3.1 Fermat's Test . 37 3.3.2 Miller's Test . 37 4 Applying our Theoretical Results 40 4.1 The RSA Cryptosystem . 40 4.1.1 How Encryption and Decryption Works . 40 4.1.2 Security of the RSA Method . 41 4.2 Implementing Fermat's and Miller's tests . 42 4.3 Generating Random Large Primes . 44 4.3.1 Theory and Method . 44 4.3.2 Analysis of Results . 45 5 Conclusion 47 Appendix: Transcript of Codes 49 References 52 iv 1 Introduction and Context 1 Introduction and Context My previous report [1] demonstrated the importance of setting a sensible basis to un- derlie our mathematical theory, which consists of logic, undefined terms and axioms. Logically and philosophically speaking, practical applications of mathematics rely on these foundations as they form a consistent and effective theory. The objective of this work is to gain a deeper understanding of the foundations of mathematics and to demonstrate their fundamental importance to practical situations. To achieve this we first rigorously establish the foundations of numbers by using set theory. Building on this, we then develop the theory of numbers further to give way to a practical applica- tion of cryptography. As motivation for studying the foundations of the natural numbers, it is in fact logi- cally impossible to define the set of natural numbers in such a way that every natural number is a member of that set. This is contrary to what we might expect. The reason is because a `set' has to be well-defined, as analysed in my previous report, it must satisfy one of the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms of set theory. In Section 2.1 we discuss how Georg Cantor was aware of the contradictions caused by the set of all ordinal numbers and in Section 2.1.1 we examine this further using John Von Neumann's definition of an ordinal number. It is of fundamental importance that the definition of an ordinal number must be in such a way as to deal with the problem of there being infinitely many natural numbers. Also, a valid definition should preserve the ordering properties of trichotomy and well-ordering, we will analyse order in section 2.1.3. As given in my previous conclusion, an example of how an unsophisticated treatment of the natural numbers can lead to awkward problems is thus, `does the set N = f0; 1; 2;:::g have more elements than the set Nnf1g = f0; 2; 3;:::g?' The nature of our work for this project has a strong theoretical component. In order to show its value to an applied area we have focussed on its application to RSA (Rivest, Shamir and Adleman) cryptography. Cryptography is fundamental to the safety of electronic communication and is heavily relied upon in today's world. In Section 3.1.3 we prove various results with direct applications to RSA cryptography and in Section 4 we show how the mathematical theory can be implemented in order to ensure the security of encryption. Page 1 of 53 1 Introduction and Context Statement of Contributions 1. Through rigorous analysis of set theory, I have demonstrated how to establish a coherent theory of numbers based on the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms; 2. I have made original reflections which delve deeper into the subject; 3. I have illustrated the application of fundamental results by programming a rea- sonably functional random prime generator; 4. This project is the result of much research and reflection, it is oriented to enhance the connection between purely theoretical foundations and practical applications; 5. This project has been written to invite the reader to reflect on the value of studying abstract foundations of mathematical theories. Page 2 of 53 2 The Foundations: from Set Theory to Number Theory 2 The Foundations: from Set Theory to Number Theory Our objective here is to establish the foundations upon which we can base a theory of numbers using set theory. We first study how various properties which determine the nature of numbers can be understood and derived, beginning with the natural numbers. Extending this, we then reflect on techniques of constructing the real numbers from the natural numbers and discuss some interesting observations of how we are able to represent numbers.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Axiom of Infinity and the Natural Numbers
    Axiom of Infinity Natural Numbers Axiomatic Systems The Axiom of Infinity and The Natural Numbers Bernd Schroder¨ logo1 Bernd Schroder¨ Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science The Axiom of Infinity and The Natural Numbers 1. The axioms that we have introduced so far provide for a rich theory. 2. But they do not guarantee the existence of infinite sets. 3. In fact, the superstructure over the empty set is a model that satisfies all the axioms so far and which does not contain any infinite sets. (Remember that the superstructure itself is not a set in the model.) Axiom of Infinity Natural Numbers Axiomatic Systems Infinite Sets logo1 Bernd Schroder¨ Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science The Axiom of Infinity and The Natural Numbers 2. But they do not guarantee the existence of infinite sets. 3. In fact, the superstructure over the empty set is a model that satisfies all the axioms so far and which does not contain any infinite sets. (Remember that the superstructure itself is not a set in the model.) Axiom of Infinity Natural Numbers Axiomatic Systems Infinite Sets 1. The axioms that we have introduced so far provide for a rich theory. logo1 Bernd Schroder¨ Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science The Axiom of Infinity and The Natural Numbers 3. In fact, the superstructure over the empty set is a model that satisfies all the axioms so far and which does not contain any infinite sets. (Remember that the superstructure itself is not a set in the model.) Axiom of Infinity Natural Numbers Axiomatic Systems Infinite Sets 1.
    [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]
  • Axioms of Set Theory and Equivalents of Axiom of Choice Farighon Abdul Rahim Boise State University, [email protected]
    Boise State University ScholarWorks Mathematics Undergraduate Theses Department of Mathematics 5-2014 Axioms of Set Theory and Equivalents of Axiom of Choice Farighon Abdul Rahim Boise State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/ math_undergraduate_theses Part of the Set Theory Commons Recommended Citation Rahim, Farighon Abdul, "Axioms of Set Theory and Equivalents of Axiom of Choice" (2014). Mathematics Undergraduate Theses. Paper 1. Axioms of Set Theory and Equivalents of Axiom of Choice Farighon Abdul Rahim Advisor: Samuel Coskey Boise State University May 2014 1 Introduction Sets are all around us. A bag of potato chips, for instance, is a set containing certain number of individual chip’s that are its elements. University is another example of a set with students as its elements. By elements, we mean members. But sets should not be confused as to what they really are. A daughter of a blacksmith is an element of a set that contains her mother, father, and her siblings. Then this set is an element of a set that contains all the other families that live in the nearby town. So a set itself can be an element of a bigger set. In mathematics, axiom is defined to be a rule or a statement that is accepted to be true regardless of having to prove it. In a sense, axioms are self evident. In set theory, we deal with sets. Each time we state an axiom, we will do so by considering sets. Example of the set containing the blacksmith family might make it seem as if sets are finite.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1. Informal Introdution to the Axioms of ZF.∗
    Chapter 1. Informal introdution to the axioms of ZF.∗ 1.1. Extension. Our conception of sets comes from set of objects that we know well such as N, Q and R, and subsets we can form from these determined by their properties. Here are two very simple examples: {r ∈ R | 0 ≤ r} = {r ∈ R | r has a square root in R} {x | x 6= x} = {n ∈ N | n even, greater than two and a prime}. (This last example gives two definitions of the empty set, ∅). The notion of set is an abstraction of the notion of a property. So if X, Y are sets we have that ∀x ( x ∈ X ⇐⇒ x ∈ Y ) =⇒ X = Y . One can immediately see that this implies that the empty set is unique. 1.2. Unions. Once we have some sets to play with we can consider sets of sets, for example: {xi | i ∈ I } for I some set of indices. We also have the set that consists of all objects that belong S S to some xi for i ∈ I. The indexing set I is not relevant for us, so {xi | i ∈ I } = xi can be S i∈I written X, where X = {xi | i ∈ I }. Typically we will use a, b, c, w, x, z, ... as names of sets, so we can write [ [ x = {z | z ∈ x} = {w | ∃z such that w ∈ z and z ∈ x}. Or simply: S x = {w | ∃z ∈ x w ∈ z }. (To explain this again we have [ [ [ y = {y | y ∈ x} = {z | ∃y ∈ x z ∈ y }. y∈x So we have already changed our way of thinking about sets and elements as different things to thinking about all sets as things of the same sort, where the elements of a set are simply other sets.) 1.3.
    [Show full text]
  • SET THEORY Andrea K. Dieterly a Thesis Submitted to the Graduate
    SET THEORY Andrea K. Dieterly A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS August 2011 Committee: Warren Wm. McGovern, Advisor Juan Bes Rieuwert Blok i Abstract Warren Wm. McGovern, Advisor This manuscript was to show the equivalency of the Axiom of Choice, Zorn's Lemma and Zermelo's Well-Ordering Principle. Starting with a brief history of the development of set history, this work introduced the Axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel, common applications of the axioms, and set theoretic descriptions of sets of numbers. The book, Introduction to Set Theory, by Karel Hrbacek and Thomas Jech was the primary resource with other sources providing additional background information. ii Acknowledgements I would like to thank Warren Wm. McGovern for his assistance and guidance while working and writing this thesis. I also want to thank Reiuwert Blok and Juan Bes for being on my committee. Thank you to Dan Shifflet and Nate Iverson for help with the typesetting program LATEX. A personal thank you to my husband, Don, for his love and support. iii Contents Contents . iii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Naive Set Theory . 2 1.2 The Axiom of Choice . 4 1.3 Russell's Paradox . 5 2 Axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel 7 2.1 First Order Logic . 7 2.2 The Axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel . 8 2.3 The Recursive Theorem . 13 3 Development of Numbers 16 3.1 Natural Numbers and Integers . 16 3.2 Rational Numbers . 20 3.3 Real Numbers .
    [Show full text]
  • How Set Theory Impinges on Logic
    1 Jesús Mosterín HOW SET THEORY IMPINGES ON LOGIC The set-theoretical universe Reality often cannot be grasped and understood in its unfathomable richness and mind-blowing complexity. Think only of the trivial case of the shape of the Earth. Every time the wind blows, a bird flies, a tree drops a leave, every time it rains, a car moves or we get a haircut, the form of the Earth changes. No available or conceivable geometry can describe the ever changing form of the surface of our planet. Sometimes the best we can do is to apply the method of theoretical science: to pick up a mathematical structure from the set-theoretical universe, a structure that has some formal similarities with some features of the real world situation we are interested in, and to use that structure as a model of that parcel of the world. In the case of the Earth, the structure can be an Euclidean sphere, or a sphere flattened at the poles, or an ellipsoid, but of course these structures do not represent the car and the hair, and so are realistic only up to a point. The largest part of scientific activity results in data, in contributions to history (in a broad sense). Only exceptionally does scientific activity result in abstract schemata, in formulas, in theories. In history there is truth and falsity, but we are not sure whether it makes sense to apply these same categories to an abstract theory. We pick up a mathematical structure and construct a theory. We still have to determine its scope of application or validity, the range of its realizations.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. the Zermelo Fraenkel Axioms of Set Theory
    1. The Zermelo Fraenkel Axioms of Set Theory The naive definition of a set as a collection of objects is unsatisfactory: The objects within a set may themselves be sets, whose elements are also sets, etc. This leads to an infinite regression. Should this be allowed? If the answer is “yes”, then such a set certainly would not meet our intuitive expectations of a set. In particular, a set for which A A holds contradicts our intuition about a set. This could be formulated as a first∈ axiom towards a formal approach towards sets. It will be a later, and not very essential axiom. Not essential because A A will not lead to a logical contradiction. This is different from Russel’s paradox:∈ Let us assume that there is something like a universe of all sets. Given the property A/ A it should define a set R of all sets for which this property holds. Thus R = A∈ A/ A . Is R such a set A? Of course, we must be able to ask this { | ∈ } question. Notice, if R is one of the A0s it must satisfy the condition R/ R. But by the very definition of R, namely R = A A/ A we get R R iff R/∈ R. Of course, this is a logical contradiction. But{ how| can∈ } we resolve it?∈ The answer∈ will be given by an axiom that restricts the definition of sets by properties. The scope of a property P (A), like P (A) A/ A, must itself be a set, say B. Thus, instead of R = A A/ A we define≡ for any∈ set B the set R(B) = A A B, A / A .
    [Show full text]
  • A SET-THEORETIC APPROACH to OBTAINING INFINITY by MATTHEW MICHAEL JONES B.A., University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, 2013
    A SET-THEORETIC APPROACH TO OBTAINING INFINITY by MATTHEW MICHAEL JONES B.A., University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, 2013 A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Colorado Colorado Springs in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Department of Mathematics 2016 ii This thesis for the Master of Science degree by Matthew Michael Jones has been approved for the Department of Mathematics by Greg Oman Gene Abrams Greg Morrow Date: 12/14/2016 iii Jones, Matthew Michael (M.S., Mathematics) A Set-Theoretic Approach To Obtaining Infinity Thesis directed by Assistant Professor of Mathematics, Dr. Greg Oman ABSTRACT Many set-theoretic axioms have been formulated over the years which imply (along with the other axioms for set theory) the existence of what one would intuitively regard as an infinite set. In this thesis, we identify a property common to many such axioms, and then we obtain a more general class of “infinity axioms.” iv TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. PRELIMINARIES 6 III. RESULTS 16 REFERENCES 25 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The concept of “infinity” is ubiquitous in mathematics. Indeed, the collection of real numbers, the collection of prime numbers, and the collection of real-valued, continuous functions are all examples of infinite collections of objects. This is a notion we intuitively understand: a collection of objects is infinite if, in some sense, its elements “go on forever.” In modern mathematics, this is hardly precise enough to be a formal definition. But how can one define infinity? There are many answers in the literature.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1711.01603V1 [Math.HO] 5 Nov 2017 Bolzano's Infinite Quantities
    Bolzano’s Infinite Quantities Katerinaˇ Trlifajova´ November 7, 2017 Abstract In his Foundations of a General Theory of Manifolds, Georg Cantor praised Bernard Bolzano as a clear defender of actual infinity who had the courage to work with infinite numbers. At the same time, he sharply crit- icized the way Bolzano dealt with them. Cantor’s concept was based on the existence of a one-to-one correspondence, while Bolzano insisted on Euclid’s Axiom of the whole being greater than a part. Cantor’s set the- ory has eventually prevailed, and became a formal basis of contemporary mathematics, while Bolzano’s approach is generally considered a step in the wrong direction. In the present paper, we demonstrate that a fragment of Bolzano’s theory of infinite quantities retaining the part-whole principle can be extended to a consistent mathematical structure. It can be interpreted in several possible ways. We obtain either a linearly ordered ring of finite and infinitely great quantities, or a a partially ordered ring containing infinitely small, finite and infinitely great quantities. These structures can be used as a basis of the infinitesimal calculus similarly as in Non-standard Analysis, whether in its full version employing ultrafilters due to Abraham Robinson, or in the recent “cheap version” avoiding ultrafilters due to Terrence Tao. arXiv:1711.01603v1 [math.HO] 5 Nov 2017 1 Introduction 1.1 Existence of an actual infinity There are two major questions that anyone dealing with actual infinity has to ad- dress: 1. Is there any actual infinity? 2. If so, are there multiple infinities? How can we compare them? 1 An answer to the first question has been sought by many eminent thinkers, philosophers and mathematicians, starting from Aristotle, who formulated the question, to Cantor (Sebest´ıkˇ 1992).
    [Show full text]
  • LONG BOREL GAMES 3 Large Cardinal Axioms, Or Strengthenings of the Axiom of Infinity, and Use Them to Prove the Determinacy of Games on the Natural Numbers
    LONG BOREL GAMES J. P. AGUILERA Abstract. We study games of length ω2 with moves in N and Borel payoff. These are, e.g., games in which two players alternate turns playing digits to produce a real number in [0, 1] infinitely many times, after which the winner is decided in terms of the sequence belonging to a Borel set in the product space [0, 1]N. The main theorem is that Borel games of length ω2 are determined if, and only if, for every countable ordinal α, there is a fine-structural, countably iterable model of Zermelo set theory with α-many iterated powersets above a limit of Woodin cardinals. Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Preliminaries 5 3. Determinacy and L(R) 7 4. Proof of Lemma 3.1 18 5. Derived model theorems 25 References 28 1. Introduction Given a Borel subset A of the Hilbert space ℓ2, define a two-player perfect- information, zero-sum game in which Player I and Player II alternate turns playing 0 digits xi ∈{0, 1,..., 9} infinitely often, giving rise to a real number ∞ x0 x0 = i . X 10i+1 i=0 arXiv:1906.11757v1 [math.LO] 27 Jun 2019 Afterwards, they continue alternating turns to produce real numbers x1, x2, and so on. To ensure that the sequence belongs to ℓ2, we normalize, e.g., by setting xi yi = . i +1 Player I wins the game if, and only if, ~y ∈ A; otherwise Player II wins. These are games of transfinite length ω2. (Recall that ω denotes the order-type of the natural numbers.) It is a natural question whether these games are determined, i.e., whether one of the players has a winning strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • Axioms and Models for an Extended Set Theory
    AXIOMS AND MODELS FOR AN EXTENDED SET THEORY ANDREAS BLASS AND D L CHILDS Abstract. We present the axioms of extended set theory (XST) and the ideas underlying the axioms. We also present an interpre- tation of XST in ZFC plus “there exist arbitrarily large inaccessible cardinals,” thereby proving the consistency of XST relative to this mild large-cardinal extension of ZFC. 1. Introduction This paper presents an extended set theory (XST) and proves its consistency relative to the classical Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice (ZFC) and an axiom asserting the existence of arbitrarily large inaccessible cardinals (also known as Grothendieck’s axiom of universes). The original motivation for this development of XST was to provide an improved, flexible mathematical foundation for certain constructions, like tuples and functions, that play important roles in computing. Subsequent developments revealed that XST also provides a smooth way of handling the set-class distinction that turns up especially in category theory. We shall comment on these matters in more detail after the axioms of XST have been introduced. The extended set theory XST differs from Zermelo-Fraenkel set the- ory ZFC in three major ways (and several minor ways). The biggest difference between XST and ZFC is that the fundamental membership relation of XST is a ternary relation, written x ∈s y and read “x is an element of y with scope s.” Most of the axioms of XST are analogs of traditional ZFC axioms, modified to account for membership scopes, and allowing atoms (also called urelements). This aspect of XST can be interpreted in ZFC quite straightforwardly.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mathematical Infinite As a Matter of Method
    Annals of the Japan Association for Philosophy of Science Vol.20 (2012) 1～13 1 The Mathematical Infinite as a Matter of Method Akihiro Kanamori∗ Abstract I address the historical emergence of the mathematical infinite, and how we are to take the infinite in and out of mathematics. The thesis is that the mathe- matical infinite in mathematics is a matter of method. The infinite, of course, is a large topic. At the outset, one can historically dis- cern two overlapping clusters of concepts: (1) wholeness, completeness, universality, absoluteness. (2) endlessness, boundlessness, indivisibility, continuousness. The first, the metaphysical infinite, I shall set aside. It is the second, the mathematical infinite, that I will address. Furthermore, I will address the mathematical infinite by con- sidering its historical emergence in set theory and how we are to take the infinite in and out of mathematics. Insofar as physics and, more broadly, science deals with the mathematical infinite through mathematical language and techniques, my remarks should be subsuming and consequent. The main underlying point is that how the mathematical infinite is approached, assimilated, and applied in mathematics is not a matter of “ontological commitment”, of coming to terms with whatever that might mean, but rather of epistemological articulation, of coming to terms through knowledge. The mathematical infinite in mathematics is a matter of method. How we deal with the specific individual is- sues involving the infinite turns on the narrative we present about how it fits into methodological mathematical frameworks established and being established. The first section discusses the mathematical infinite in historical context, and the second, set theory and the emergence of the mathematical infinite.
    [Show full text]