DOCSLIB.ORG

An Indeterminate Universe of Sets

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Indeterminate Universe of Sets An Indeterminate Universe of Sets Chris Scambler December 28, 2016 Abstract In this paper, I develop a view on set-theoretic ontology I call Universe-Indeterminism, according to which there is a unique but indeterminate universe of sets. I argue that Solomon Feferman’s work on semi-constructive set theories can be adapted to this project, and develop a philosophical motivation for a semi-constructive set theory closely based on Feferman’s but tailored to the Universe-Indeterminist’s viewpoint. I also compare the emergent Universe-Indeterminist view to some more familiar views on set-theoretic ontology. 1 Introduction The axioms of standard set theories are partly motivated by their association with the iterative conception of sets, according to which all sets exist in a well-founded cumulative hierarchy which is itself not a set. This picture is often itself motivated by describing a kind of set con- struction process, the output of which is the aforementioned cumulative hierarchy. The hypo- thetical process would go like this. In the beginning, there is nothing whatever, except you (or some other set-producing demiurge). At the zeroth stage of the process, form all the sets you can; since you have nothing around, this set will have nothing in it and so be the empty set. At any further successor stage, form all possible sets of things you had when done last time. At a limit stage, simply collect together all your work at previous stages. Every sequence of successor stages has a limit, and every limit has a further successor. There is, therefore, no end to the set construction process; according to the iterative conception, to be a set just is to be formed by you (or the demiurge) at some stage of said process. This informal picture is suggestive, but imprecise; however, it is approximated formally in all standard set theories, in the the sense that in all such theories one can define V0 = ;; Vα = P(Vα); +1 S Vλ = α<λ Vα and then prove that every set is contained in Vα for some α. This formal definition captures the intuitive content of the informal picture painted above, and the fact that standard set theories 1 prove every set to be produced at some stage Vα represents a kind of formal endorsement of the informal picture. There is something of a reflective harmony between the informal conception described in the previous paragraph and standard axiomatic set theories; while the informal conception com- mands serious consideration in virtue of its formalizability in standard set theories, at the same time standard set theories can seem arbitrary and unmotivated without the conceptual founda- tion and intuitive model provided for them by the iterative conception. As Kant might have put it, without formally axiomatized set theories the iterative conception is empty; but without the iterative conception, formally axiomatized set theories are blind. In the later part of the twentieth century, it was discovered that there are a vast number of questions we can ask about cumulative hierarchy structures in the formal languages of standard set theories that those theories are demonstrably incapable of answering, if they are consistent. The Continuum Hypothesis (CH) and the Generalized Continuum Hypothesis (GCH) are par- ticularly simple examples: they concern the jump in cardinality that occurs from one stage of the cumulative hierarchy to the next. According to CH, |V!+1| is @1 and thus only one infinite cardinality greater than V!; according to GCH, this is true of every stage. As is well known, Gödel showed that there was a model of the axioms of ZFC – the constructible universe, L – in which GCH holds; later, Cohen showed that we could find models for the axioms of ZFC wherein jV!+1j is @α for pretty much any α you care to name, subject to some restrictions. The method of Easton forcing allows GCH to be violated in equally radical ways. The pervasive nature of the independence phenomenon raises hard philosophical problems concerning the relationship between standard set theories and their informal motivation in the iterative conception. The iterative conception tells us that at each successor stage of the set construction process, we form all possible sets of things that were available to us last time; on the face of it, there is only one way to do this, so one would think that problems like CH and GCH should have definite truth-values. But the results just discussed suggest that standard set theories at the very least cannot tell us how many sets are formed at each stage, and so cannot determine what those truth-values are; and if standard set theories, which make the informal conception precise, cannot tell us this, then what can? There are (broadly speaking)1 two kinds of response to this situation in the literature. Universe-Determinism: Standard set theories describe a unique universe of sets, the cumula- tive hierarchy. CH, GCH and all other set-theoretic propositions have unique truth-values, which are determined by the nature of that universe. Our present incapacity to solve such problems is a reflection of a substantive incompleteness in standard set theories. Multiverse-Pluralism: The independence phenomenon reveals that standard set theories in fact describe many non-isomorphic universes of sets. The initial thought that the cumu- lative hierarchy was unique up to isomorphism was erroneous; in fact there are many such structures, each a legitimate and independent object of set-theoretic study. Since the truth-values of GCH, CH and many other set-theoretic propositions vary from universe to universe, these propositions do not have unique truth-values. 1Some views such as the “hyperuniverse” view of (Arrigoni and Friedman, 2013) are difficult to place; however I think it fair to say that most currently held views fit roughly into one or other of these categories. 2 The main goal of this paper is to develop and defend a third position, which cuts across these two. I call it Universe-Indeterminism: Standard set theories describe a unique universe of sets, the cumu- lative hierarchy. However, the iterative conception and its formal approximations employ concepts that are inherently indeterminate. The indeterminacy arises in the idea that, at successor stages, we collect together all possible sets of things available to us at previ- ous stages; formally, it arises through acceptance of the powerset axiom and its use in the recursive definition of the cumulative hierarchy. As a result of this indeterminacy, the uni- verse of all sets does not determine truth-values for set-theoretic propositions including CH and GCH. Universe indeterminism might seem like an unlikely view. Many authors who give arguments to the effect that the universe of sets is unique up to isomorphism or even for the quasi-categoricity of set theory seem to take it that these results entail bivalence for corresponding classes of statements in the language of set theory; in the former case, all of them, in the latter case, for claims that can be bounded to particular ranks. These entailments are prima facie plausible, but not, I would suggest, so obvious as to not require argument – which they all too rarely receive.2 One of the motivating thoughts behind this paper is that the entailments might not hold. One might take the arguments for uniqueness or quasi-categoricity as evidence that our concept of set singles out a unique structure or some unique collection of structures, but nevertheless hold that the structure(s) thus engendered are inherently indeterminate and don’t settle all the questions one can ask about them in formal languages.3 This line might sound as daft as its negation sounded plausible, but I hope to show in this paper that in fact there is a viable line here that is worth considering. To do so, I will take as a starting point commitment to the existence of a unique universe of sets. Given this, I will develop an axiomatization for set-theoretic truth in such a universe in a partially non-classical logic that a Universe-Indeterminist could take to formally flesh out their claims that certain set-theoretic propositions are indeterminate, and that is philosophically motivated by their ontological position. I shall also show how the position differs in detail from all brands of Multiverse-Pluralism, and briefly discuss the relative merits of the view. 2 Feferman’s Semi-Constructive Set Theory The view that standard set theories deploy concepts that are inherently indeterminate has been championed by Solomon Feferman; in what follows, I will be heavily guided by his recent formal and philosophical work on semi-constructive set theories. Such theories, according to Feferman, provide a formal framework in which to assess the determinacy or otherwise of 2I have in mind (Martin, 2001) in the former, and (Kreisel, 1967) in the latter. There is an interesting recon- struction of an argument Kreisel might have given here in (Rumfitt, forthcoming) 3I will henceforth largely ignore issues of height indeterminacy; for simplicity’s sake, I will often talk as though I have reason to believe ‘the’ universe is of determinate ordinal height, but none of my arguments will turn on this. Everything I will say applies equally well to a Zermelo-style height potentialist, though the statements become slightly more complicated. 3 problems like CH; recent work by Michael Rathjen has raised the stakes by showing that CH _ :CH is not derivable in a certain semi-constructive set theory. These claims and results are striking, and worthy of close consideration; I also think, and will argue, that they are useful in the development of the Universe-Indeterminist position.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sets in Homotopy Type Theory
    Predicative topos Sets in Homotopy type theory Bas Spitters Aarhus Bas Spitters Aarhus Sets in Homotopy type theory Predicative topos About me I PhD thesis on constructive analysis I Connecting Bishop's pointwise mathematics w/topos theory (w/Coquand) I Formalization of effective real analysis in Coq O'Connor's PhD part EU ForMath project I Topos theory and quantum theory I Univalent foundations as a combination of the strands co-author of the book and the Coq library I guarded homotopy type theory: applications to CS Bas Spitters Aarhus Sets in Homotopy type theory Most of the presentation is based on the book and Sets in HoTT (with Rijke). CC-BY-SA Towards a new design of proof assistants: Proof assistant with a clear (denotational) semantics, guiding the addition of new features. E.g. guarded cubical type theory Predicative topos Homotopy type theory Towards a new practical foundation for mathematics. I Modern ((higher) categorical) mathematics I Formalization I Constructive mathematics Closer to mathematical practice, inherent treatment of equivalences. Bas Spitters Aarhus Sets in Homotopy type theory Predicative topos Homotopy type theory Towards a new practical foundation for mathematics. I Modern ((higher) categorical) mathematics I Formalization I Constructive mathematics Closer to mathematical practice, inherent treatment of equivalences. Towards a new design of proof assistants: Proof assistant with a clear (denotational) semantics, guiding the addition of new features. E.g. guarded cubical type theory Bas Spitters Aarhus Sets in Homotopy type theory Formalization of discrete mathematics: four color theorem, Feit Thompson, ... computational interpretation was crucial. Can this be extended to non-discrete types? Predicative topos Challenges pre-HoTT: Sets as Types no quotients (setoids), no unique choice (in Coq), ..
    [Show full text]
  • A Taste of Set Theory for Philosophers
    Journal of the Indian Council of Philosophical Research, Vol. XXVII, No. 2. A Special Issue on "Logic and Philosophy Today", 143-163, 2010. Reprinted in "Logic and Philosophy Today" (edited by A. Gupta ans J.v.Benthem), College Publications vol 29, 141-162, 2011. A taste of set theory for philosophers Jouko Va¨an¨ anen¨ ∗ Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Helsinki and Institute for Logic, Language and Computation University of Amsterdam November 17, 2010 Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Elementary set theory 2 3 Cardinal and ordinal numbers 3 3.1 Equipollence . 4 3.2 Countable sets . 6 3.3 Ordinals . 7 3.4 Cardinals . 8 4 Axiomatic set theory 9 5 Axiom of Choice 12 6 Independence results 13 7 Some recent work 14 7.1 Descriptive Set Theory . 14 7.2 Non well-founded set theory . 14 7.3 Constructive set theory . 15 8 Historical Remarks and Further Reading 15 ∗Research partially supported by grant 40734 of the Academy of Finland and by the EUROCORES LogICCC LINT programme. I Journal of the Indian Council of Philosophical Research, Vol. XXVII, No. 2. A Special Issue on "Logic and Philosophy Today", 143-163, 2010. Reprinted in "Logic and Philosophy Today" (edited by A. Gupta ans J.v.Benthem), College Publications vol 29, 141-162, 2011. 1 Introduction Originally set theory was a theory of infinity, an attempt to understand infinity in ex- act terms. Later it became a universal language for mathematics and an attempt to give a foundation for all of mathematics, and thereby to all sciences that are based on mathematics.
    [Show full text]
  • Categorical Semantics of Constructive Set Theory
    Categorical semantics of constructive set theory Beim Fachbereich Mathematik der Technischen Universit¨atDarmstadt eingereichte Habilitationsschrift von Benno van den Berg, PhD aus Emmen, die Niederlande 2 Contents 1 Introduction to the thesis 7 1.1 Logic and metamathematics . 7 1.2 Historical intermezzo . 8 1.3 Constructivity . 9 1.4 Constructive set theory . 11 1.5 Algebraic set theory . 15 1.6 Contents . 17 1.7 Warning concerning terminology . 18 1.8 Acknowledgements . 19 2 A unified approach to algebraic set theory 21 2.1 Introduction . 21 2.2 Constructive set theories . 24 2.3 Categories with small maps . 25 2.3.1 Axioms . 25 2.3.2 Consequences . 29 2.3.3 Strengthenings . 31 2.3.4 Relation to other settings . 32 2.4 Models of set theory . 33 2.5 Examples . 35 2.6 Predicative sheaf theory . 36 2.7 Predicative realizability . 37 3 Exact completion 41 3.1 Introduction . 41 3 4 CONTENTS 3.2 Categories with small maps . 45 3.2.1 Classes of small maps . 46 3.2.2 Classes of display maps . 51 3.3 Axioms for classes of small maps . 55 3.3.1 Representability . 55 3.3.2 Separation . 55 3.3.3 Power types . 55 3.3.4 Function types . 57 3.3.5 Inductive types . 58 3.3.6 Infinity . 60 3.3.7 Fullness . 61 3.4 Exactness and its applications . 63 3.5 Exact completion . 66 3.6 Stability properties of axioms for small maps . 73 3.6.1 Representability . 74 3.6.2 Separation . 74 3.6.3 Power types .
    [Show full text]
  • Constructive Set Theory
    CST Book draft Peter Aczel and Michael Rathjen CST Book Draft 2 August 19, 2010 Contents 1 Introduction 7 2 Intuitionistic Logic 9 2.1 Constructivism . 9 2.2 The Brouwer-Heyting-Kolmogorov interpretation . 11 2.3 Counterexamples . 13 2.4 Natural Deductions . 14 2.5 A Hilbert-style system for intuitionistic logic . 17 2.6 Kripke semantics . 19 2.7 Exercises . 21 3 Some Axiom Systems 23 3.1 Classical Set Theory . 23 3.2 Intuitionistic Set Theory . 24 3.3 Basic Constructive Set Theory . 25 3.4 Elementary Constructive Set Theory . 26 3.5 Constructive Zermelo Fraenkel, CZF ................ 26 3.6 On notations for axiom systems. 27 3.7 Class Notation . 27 3.8 Russell's paradox . 28 4 Basic Set constructions in BCST 31 4.1 Ordered Pairs . 31 4.2 More class notation . 32 4.3 The Union-Replacement Scheme . 35 4.4 Exercises . 37 5 From Function Spaces to Powerset 41 5.1 Subset Collection and Exponentiation . 41 5.2 Appendix: Binary Refinement . 44 5.3 Exercises . 45 3 CST Book Draft 6 The Natural Numbers 47 6.1 Some approaches to the natural numbers . 47 6.1.1 Dedekind's characterization of the natural numbers . 47 6.1.2 The Zermelo and von Neumann natural numbers . 48 6.1.3 Lawv`ere'scharacterization of the natural numbers . 48 6.1.4 The Strong Infinity Axiom . 48 6.1.5 Some possible additional axioms concerning ! . 49 6.2 DP-structures and DP-models . 50 6.3 The von Neumann natural numbers in ECST . 51 6.3.1 The DP-model N! .....................
    [Show full text]
  • Local Constructive Set Theory and Inductive Definitions
    Local Constructive Set Theory and Inductive Definitions Peter Aczel 1 Introduction Local Constructive Set Theory (LCST) is intended to be a local version of con- structive set theory (CST). Constructive Set Theory is an open-ended set theoretical setting for constructive mathematics that is not committed to any particular brand of constructive mathematics and, by avoiding any built-in choice principles, is also acceptable in topos mathematics, the mathematics that can be carried out in an arbi- trary topos with a natural numbers object. We refer the reader to [2] for any details, not explained in this paper, concerning CST and the specific CST axiom systems CZF and CZF+ ≡ CZF + REA. CST provides a global set theoretical setting in the sense that there is a single universe of all the mathematical objects that are in the range of the variables. By contrast a local set theory avoids the use of any global universe but instead is formu- lated in a many-sorted language that has various forms of sort including, for each sort α a power-sort Pα, the sort of all sets of elements of sort α. For each sort α there is a binary infix relation ∈α that takes two arguments, the first of sort α and the second of sort Pα. For each formula φ and each variable x of sort α, there is a comprehension term {x : α | φ} of sort Pα for which the following scheme holds. Comprehension: (∀y : α)[ y ∈α {x : α | φ} ↔ φ[y/x] ]. Here we use the notation φ[a/x] for the result of substituting a term a for free oc- curences of the variable x in the formula φ, relabelling bound variables in the stan- dard way to avoid variable clashes.
    [Show full text]
  • An Outline of Algebraic Set Theory
    An Outline of Algebraic Set Theory Steve Awodey Dedicated to Saunders Mac Lane, 1909–2005 Abstract This survey article is intended to introduce the reader to the field of Algebraic Set Theory, in which models of set theory of a new and fascinating kind are determined algebraically. The method is quite robust, admitting adjustment in several respects to model different theories including classical, intuitionistic, bounded, and predicative ones. Under this scheme some familiar set theoretic properties are related to algebraic ones, like freeness, while others result from logical constraints, like definability. The overall theory is complete in two important respects: conventional elementary set theory axiomatizes the class of algebraic models, and the axioms provided for the abstract algebraic framework itself are also complete with respect to a range of natural models consisting of “ideals” of sets, suitably defined. Some previous results involving realizability, forcing, and sheaf models are subsumed, and the prospects for further such unification seem bright. 1 Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 The category of classes 10 2.1 Smallmaps ............................ 12 2.2 Powerclasses............................ 14 2.3 UniversesandInfinity . 15 2.4 Classcategories .......................... 16 2.5 Thetoposofsets ......................... 17 3 Algebraic models of set theory 18 3.1 ThesettheoryBIST ....................... 18 3.2 Algebraic soundness of BIST . 20 3.3 Algebraic completeness of BIST . 21 4 Classes as ideals of sets 23 4.1 Smallmapsandideals . .. .. 24 4.2 Powerclasses and universes . 26 4.3 Conservativity........................... 29 5 Ideal models 29 5.1 Freealgebras ........................... 29 5.2 Collection ............................. 30 5.3 Idealcompleteness . .. .. 32 6 Variations 33 References 36 2 1 Introduction Algebraic set theory (AST) is a new approach to the construction of models of set theory, invented by Andr´eJoyal and Ieke Moerdijk and first presented in [16].
    [Show full text]
  • A Meaning Explanation for Hott∗
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Philsci-Archive A Meaning Explanation for HoTT∗ Dimitris Tsementzis February 15, 2017 Abstract The Univalent Foundations (UF) offer a new picture of the foundations of mathematics largely independent from set theory. In this paper I will focus on the question of whether Homotopy Type Theory (HoTT) (as a formalization of UF) can be justified intuitively as a theory of shapes in the same way that ZFC (as a formalization of set-theoretic foundations) can be justified intuitively as a theory of collections. I first clarify what I mean by an “intuitive justification” by distinguishing between formal and pre- formal “meaning explanations” in the vein of Martin-Löf. I then explain why Martin-Löf’s original meaning explanation for type theory no longer applies to HoTT. Finally, I outline a pre-formal meaning explanation for HoTT based on spatial notions like “shape”, “path”, “point” etc. which in particular provides an intuitive justification of the axiom of univalence. I conclude by discussing the limitations and prospects of such a project. Introduction The Univalent Foundations (UF) is a new proposal for the foundations of math- ematics that lies outside the spectrum of Cantorian foundations.1 UF takes as its intended semantics the universe of ∞-groupoids (or homotopy types). It does so in terms of formal theories called Homotopy Type Theories (HoTT(s)). These are usually phrased in terms of some formal dependent type theory in the style of Martin-Löf. For example, the “standard” HoTT in [34] is given by intensional Martin-Löf Type Theory with some extra assumptions (the axiom of univalence and certain higher inductive types).
    [Show full text]
  • Formalizing Abstract Algebra in Constructive Set Theory
    Formalizing Abstract Algebra in Constructive Set Theory Xin Yu and Jason J. Hickey California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA Abstract. We present a machine-checked formalization of elementary abstract algebra in constructive set theory. Our formalization uses an approach where we start by specifying the group axioms as a collection of inference rules, defining a logic for groups. Then we can tell whether a given set with a binary operation is a group or not, and derive all properties of groups constructively from these inference rules as well as the axioms of the set theory. The formalization of all other concepts in abstract algebra is based on that of the group. We give an example of a formalization of a concrete group, the Klein 4-group. 1 Introduction In this paper, we study abstract algebra in a formal, automated system where proofs can be mechanically generated and verified. Currently most efforts of formalizing algebra using general purpose theorem provers are grounded in type theory. For example, Gunter working with HOL [1] has shown the integers mod n to be an implementation of abstract groups [2]. Jackson has implemented computational abstract algebra in NuPRL [3, 4]. In IMPS [5] there is a notion of little theories [6] which they use for proving theorems about groups and rings. In Coq [7], a (constructive) algebraic hierarchy of groups, rings, fields, etc. has been defined and a constructive proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra was formalized under it [8]. In Isabelle [9] HOL, Kamm¨uller and Paulson formalized group theory and proved the Sylow theorem [10].
    [Show full text]
  • Constructive Set Theory July, 2008, Mathlogaps Workshop, Manchester
    Constructive Set Theory July, 2008, Mathlogaps workshop, Manchester . Peter Aczel [email protected] Manchester University Constructive Set Theory – p.1/88 Plan of lectures Lecture 1 1: Background to CST 2: The axiom system CZF Lecture 2 3: The number systems in CZF 4: The constructive notion of set Lectures 3,4 ? 5: Inductive definitions 6: Locales and/or 7: Coinductive definitions Constructive Set Theory – p.2/88 1: Background to CST Constructive Set Theory – p.3/88 Some brands of constructive mathematics B1: Intuitionism (Brouwer, Heyting, ..., Veldman) B2: ‘Russian’ constructivism (Markov,...) B3: ‘American’ constructivism (Bishop, Bridges,...) B4: ‘European’ constructivism (Martin-Löf, Sambin,...) B1,B2 contradict classical mathematics; e.g. B1 : All functions R → R are continuous, B2 : All functions N → N are recursive (i.e. CT). B3 is compatible with each of classical maths, B1,B2 and forms their common core. B4 is a more philosophical foundational approach to B3. All B1-B4 accept RDC and so DC and CC. Constructive Set Theory – p.4/88 Some liberal brands of mathematics using intuitionistic logic B5: Topos mathematics (Lawvere, Johnstone,...) B6: Liberal Intuitionism (Mayberry,...) B5 does not use any choice principles. B6 accepts Restricted EM. B7: A minimalist, non-ideological approach: The aim is to do as much mainstream constructive mathematics as possible in a weak framework that is common to all brands, and explore the variety of possible extensions. Constructive Set Theory – p.5/88 Some settings for constructive mathematics type theoretical category theoretical set theoretical Constructive Set Theory – p.6/88 Some contrasts classical logic versus intuitionistic logic impredicative versus predicative some choice versus no choice intensional versus extensional consistent with EM versus inconsistent with EM Constructive Set Theory – p.7/88 Mathematical Taboos A mathematical taboo is a statement that we may not want to assume false, but we definately do not want to be able to prove.
    [Show full text]
  • Homotopy Type-Theoretic Interpretations of Constructive Set Theories
    Homotopy Type-Theoretic Interpretations of Constructive Set Theories Cesare Gallozzi Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Leeds School of Mathematics July 2018 The candidate confirms that the work submitted is his own and that appropriate credit has been given where reference has been made to the work of others. This copy has been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledge- ment. c 2018, The University of Leeds and Cesare Gallozzi The right of Cesare Gallozzi to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. To all my teachers. Acknowledgements I wish to thank all those who made this thesis possible. I thank all my teachers and in particular my supervisor Nicola Gambino for his tireless generosity and all the help and guidance he offered during the course of the PhD. I thank the University of Leeds and the School of Mathematics for their financial support. I thank all those who contributed to improve this thesis by answering my ques- tions or making comments on the material: my co-supervisor Michael Rathjen, and also Peter Hancock, John Truss, Stan Wainer, Martin Hofmann, Helmut Schwichtenberg, Michael Toppel, Anton Freund, Andrew Swan, Jakob Vidmar, Nicolai Kraus and Fredrik Nordvall Forsberg. I thank my parents and my grandmother for all their care and for encouraging my interests in science and mathematics since my early childhood.
    [Show full text]
  • Constructive Set Theory and Brouwerian Principles1
    Journal of Universal Computer Science, vol. 11, no. 12 (2005), 2008-2033 submitted: 27/10/05, accepted: 13/11/05, appeared: 28/12/05 © J.UCS Constructive Set Theory and Brouwerian Principles1 Michael Rathjen (Department of Mathematics, The Ohio State University, USA2 [email protected]) Abstract: The paper furnishes realizability models of constructive Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, CZF, which also validate Brouwerian principles such as the axiom of con- tinuous choice (CC), the fan theorem (FT), and bar induction (BI), and thereby determines the proof-theoretic strength of CZF augmented by these principles. The upshot is that CZF+CC+FT possesses the same strength as CZF,ormorepre- 0 cisely, that CZF+CC+FT is conservative over CZF for Π2 statements of arithmetic, whereas the addition of a restricted version of bar induction to CZF (called decidable bar induction, BID) leads to greater proof-theoretic strength in that CZF+BID proves the consistency of CZF. Key Words: Constructive set theory, Brouwerian principles, partial combinatory al- gebra, realizability Category: F.4.1 1 Introduction Constructive Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory has emerged as a standard reference theory that relates to constructive predicative mathematics as ZFC relates to classical Cantorian mathematics. The general topic of Constructive Set Theory originated in the seminal 1975 paper of John Myhill (cf. [16]), where a specific ax- iom system CST was introduced. Myhill developed constructive set theory with the aim of isolating the principles underlying Bishop’s conception of what sets and functions are. Moreover, he wanted “these principles to be such as to make the process of formalization completely trivial, as it is in the classical case” ([16], p.
    [Show full text]
  • Constructive Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory, Power Set, and the Calculus of Constructions
    This is a repository copy of Constructive zermelo-fraenkel set theory, power set, and the calculus of constructions. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/75182/ Book Section: Rathjen, M (2012) Constructive zermelo-fraenkel set theory, power set, and the calculus of constructions. In: Dybjer, P, Lindström, S, Palmgren, E and Sundholm, G, (eds.) Epistemology versus ontology: Essays on the philosophy and foundations of mathematics in honour of Per Martin-Löf. Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science, 27 . Springer , Dordrecht, Netherlands , 313 - 349. ISBN 9789400744356 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4435-6 Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Constructive Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory, Power Set, and the Calculus of Constructions Michael Rathjen∗ Department of Pure Mathematics, University of Leeds Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom [email protected] May 4, 2012 Abstract Full intuitionistic Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, IZF, is obtained from constructive Zermelo- Fraenkel set theory, CZF, by adding the full separation axiom scheme and the power set axiom.
    [Show full text]