DOCSLIB.ORG

Constructive Set Theory

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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! ...................... 52 6.3.2 The Least Number Principle . 53 6.3.3 The Iteration Lemma . 54 6.4 The Natural Numbers in ECST+ .................. 55 6.4.1 The DP-model (N; 0;S) ................... 55 6.4.2 Primitive Recursion . 56 6.4.3 Heyting Arithmetic . 57 6.5 Transitive Closures . 58 6.6 Some Possible Exercises . 59 7 The Continuum 61 7.1 The ordered field of rational numbers . 62 7.2 The pseudo-ordered field of real numbers . 65 7.3 The class R0 of left cuts is a set . 67 8 The Size of Sets 69 8.1 Notions of size . 69 8.2 Appendix: The Pigeonhole principle . 79 8.3 Exercises . 83 9 Foundations of Set Theory 85 9.1 Well-founded relations . 85 9.2 Some consequences of Set Induction . 88 9.3 Transfinite Recursion . 89 9.4 Ordinals . 91 9.5 Appendix: On Bounded Separation . 93 9.5.1 Truth Values . 93 9.5.2 The Infimum Axiom . 95 9.5.3 The Binary Intersection Axiom . 96 9.6 Appendix: Extension by Function Symbols . 97 9.7 Exercises . 99 4 August 19, 2010 CST Book Draft 10 Choice Principles 103 10.1 Diaconescu's result . 103 10.2 Constructive Choice Principles . 105 10.3 The Presentation Axiom . 109 10.4 More Principles that ought to be avoided in CZF . 110 10.5 Appendix: The Axiom of Multiple Choice . 112 11 The Regular Extension Axiom and its Variants 115 11.1 Axioms and variants . 115 12 Inductive Definitions 119 12.1 Inductive Definitions of Classes . 119 12.2 Inductive definitions of Sets . 122 12.3 Tree Proofs . 123 12.4 The Set Compactness Theorem . 126 12.5 Closure Operations on a po-class . 127 13 Coinduction 131 13.1 Coinduction of Classes . 131 13.2 Coinduction of Sets . 133 14 W-Semilattices 135 14.1 Set-generated W-Semilattices . 135 14.2 Set Presentable W-Semilattices . 136 14.3 W-congruences on a W-semilattice . 138 15 General Topology in Constructive Set Theory 141 15.1 Topological and concrete Spaces . 141 15.2 Formal Topologies . 142 15.3 Separation Properties . 145 15.4 The points of a set-generated formal topology . 147 15.5 A generalisation of a result of Giovanni Curi . 150 16 Russian Constructivism 157 17 Brouwer's World 159 17.1 Decidable Bar induction . 160 17.2 Local continuity . 161 17.3 More Continuity Principle . 163 18 Large sets in constructive set theory 165 18.1 Inaccessibility . 165 18.2 Mahloness in constructive set theory . 169 5 August 19, 2010 CST Book Draft 19 Intuitionistic Kripke-Platek Set Theory 173 19.1 Basic principles . 173 19.2 Σ Recursion in IKP . 176 19.3 Inductive Definitions in IKP . 179 20 Anti-Foundation 183 20.1 The anti-foundation axiom . 184 20.1.1 The theory CZFA . 185 20.2 The Labelled Anti-Foundation Axiom . 186 20.3 Systems . 188 20.4 A Solution Lemma version of AFA . 191 20.5 Greatest fixed points of operators . 192 20.6 Generalized systems of equations in an expanded universe . 195 20.7 Streams, coinduction, and corecursion . 197 21 The Interpretation of CZF in Martin-L¨ofType Theory 203 22 The Metamathematics of Constructive Set Theories 205 22.1 ECST .................................205 22.2 The strength of CZF . 205 22.3 Some metamathematical results about REA . 206 22.4 ZF models of REA . 214 22.5 Brouwerian Principles . 215 22.5.1 Choice principles . 216 22.6 Elementary analysis augmented by Brouwerian principles . 217 22.7 Combinatory Algebras . 220 22.7.1 Kleene's Examples of Combinatory Algebras . 223 22.8 Type Structures over Combinatory Algebras . 225 22.9 The set-theoretic universe over Kleene's second model . 228 22.10Predicativism and CZFA . 233 6 August 19, 2010 Chapter 1 Introduction The general topic of Constructive Set Theory originated in the seminal 1975 paper of John Myhill, where a specific axiom system CST was introduced. Constructive Set Theory provides a standard set theoretical framework for the development of constructive mathematics in the style of Errett Bishop1 and is one of several such frameworks for constructive mathematics that have been considered. It is distinctive in that it uses the standard first order language of classical axiomatic set theory 2 and makes no explicit use of specifically constructive ideas. Of course its logic is intuitionistic, but there is no special notion of construction or constructive object. There are just the sets, as in classical set theory. This means that mathematics in constructive set theory can look very much like ordinary classical mathematics. The advantage of this is that the ideas, conventions and practice of the set theoretical presentation of ordinary mathematics can be used also in the set theoretical development of constructive mathematics, provided that a suitable discipline is adhered to. In the first place only the methods of logical reasoning available in intuitionistic logic should be used. In addition only the set theoretical axioms allowed in constructive set theory can be used. With some practice it is not difficult for the constructive mathematician to adhere to this discipline. Of course the constructive mathematician is concerned to know that the axiom system she is being asked to use as a framework for presenting her mathemat- ics makes good constructive sense. What is the constructive notion of set that constructive set theory claims to be about? The first author believes that he has answered this question in a series of three papers on the Type Theoretic Inter- pretation of Constructive Set Theory. These papers are based on taking Martin- L¨of's Constructive Type Theory as the most acceptable foundational framework of ideas that make precise the constructive approach to mathematics. They show 1See Constructive Analysis, by Bishop and Bridges 2Myhill's original paper used some other primitives in CST besides the notion of set. But this was inessential and we prefer to keep to the standard language in the axiom systems that we use. 7 CST Book Draft Introduction how a particular type of the type theory can be used as the type of sets forming a universe of objects to interpret constructive set theory so that by using the Curry-Howard `propositions as types' idea the axioms of constructive set theory get interpreted as provable propositions. Why not present constructive mathematics directly in the type theory? This is an obvious option for the constructive mathematician. It has the drawback that there is no extensive tradition of presenting mathematics in a type theoretic setting. So, many techniques for representing mathematical ideas in a set the- oretical language have to be reconsidered for a type theoretical language. This can be avoided by keeping to the set theoretical language. Surprisingly there is still no extensive presentation of an approach to con- structive mathematics that is based on a completely explicitly described axiom system - neither in constructive set theory, constructive type theory or any other axiom system. One of the aims of these notes is to initiate an account of how constructive mathematics can be developed on the basis of a set theoretical axiom system. At first we will be concerned to prove each basic result relying on as weak an axiom system as possible. But later we will be content to explore the consequences of stronger axiom systems provided that they can still be justified on the basis of the type theoretic interpretation. Because of the open ended nature of constructive type theory we also think of constructive set theory as an open ended discipline in which it may always be possible to consider adding new axioms to any given axiom system. In particular there is current interest in the formulation of stronger and stronger notions of type universes and hierarchies of type universes in type theory. This activity is analogous to the pursuit of ever larger large cardinal principles by classical set theorists. In the context of constructive set theory we are led to consider set theoretical notions of universe. As an example there is the notion of inaccessible set of Rathjen (see [68]).
Recommended publications
  • The Logic of Brouwer and Heyting

    The Logic of Brouwer and Heyting

    THE LOGIC OF BROUWER AND HEYTING Joan Rand Moschovakis Intuitionistic logic consists of the principles of reasoning which were used in- formally by L. E. J. Brouwer, formalized by A. Heyting (also partially by V. Glivenko), interpreted by A. Kolmogorov, and studied by G. Gentzen and K. G¨odel during the first third of the twentieth century. Formally, intuitionistic first- order predicate logic is a proper subsystem of classical logic, obtained by replacing the law of excluded middle A ∨¬A by ¬A ⊃ (A ⊃ B); it has infinitely many dis- tinct consistent axiomatic extensions, each necessarily contained in classical logic (which is axiomatically complete). However, intuitionistic second-order logic is inconsistent with classical second-order logic. In terms of expressibility, the intu- itionistic logic and language are richer than the classical; as G¨odel and Gentzen showed, classical first-order arithmetic can be faithfully translated into the nega- tive fragment of intuitionistic arithmetic, establishing proof-theoretical equivalence and clarifying the distinction between the classical and constructive consequences of mathematical axioms. The logic of Brouwer and Heyting is effective. The conclusion of an intuitionistic derivation holds with the same degree of constructivity as the premises. Any proof of a disjunction of two statements can be effectively transformed into a proof of one of the disjuncts, while any proof of an existential statement contains an effec- tive prescription for finding a witness. The negation of a statement is interpreted as asserting that the statement is not merely false but absurd, i.e., leads to a contradiction. Brouwer objected to the general law of excluded middle as claim- ing a priori that every mathematical problem has a solution, and to the general law ¬¬A ⊃ A of double negation as asserting that every consistent mathematical statement holds.
  • Sets in Homotopy Type Theory

    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), ..
  • A Taste of Set Theory for Philosophers

    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.
  • Categorical Semantics of Constructive Set Theory

    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 .
  • Local Constructive Set Theory and Inductive Definitions

    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.
  • An Outline of Algebraic Set Theory

    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].
  • A Meaning Explanation for Hott∗

    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).
  • Formalizing Abstract Algebra in Constructive Set Theory

    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].
  • Constructive Set Theory July, 2008, Mathlogaps Workshop, Manchester

    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.
  • Homotopy Type-Theoretic Interpretations of Constructive Set Theories

    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.
  • Constructive Set Theory and Brouwerian Principles1

    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.
  • Constructive Set Theory and Brouwerian Principles1

    Constructive Set Theory and Brouwerian Principles1

    Constructive Set Theory and Brouwerian Principles1 Michael Rathjen (Department of Mathematics, The Ohio State University,2 Email: [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 monotone bar induction (BIM), 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, or more pre- 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. 347). Indeed, while he uses other primitives in his set theory CST besides the notion of set, it can be viewed as a subsystem of ZF.