DOCSLIB.ORG

An Introduction to WQO and BQO Theory

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Introduction to WQO and BQO Theory An Introduction to WQO and BQO Theory Thomas Forster, Nathan Bowler and Monika Seisenberger June 29, 2021 ii Contents 1 Background 11 1.1 WQOs and Finiteness . 11 1.2 Definitions and Notation . 18 1.2.1 Lists and streams . 19 1.2.2 Multisets . 20 1.3 Other Background . 25 2 Quasiorders 31 2.1 Lifts . 31 2.2 Lifts to other structures . 35 2.2.1 Lists and streams . 36 2.2.2 Multisets . 37 2.2.3 Finite and infinite trees . 39 2.3 Finite character . 41 2.4 How do these operations affect rank? . 43 3 WQOs 45 3.1 Ranks of WQOs . 52 3.2 The Minimal Bad Sequence Construction . 54 3.3 Kruskal's theorem . 57 3.3.1 The tree of finite bad sequences . 60 3.4 Topics for discussion . 66 3.5 Some more exercises . 66 4 Good quasiorders of finite exponent 67 4.0.1 Reconstituting . 71 4.0.2 Some exercises . 72 4.1 Rado's quasiorder . 73 4.2 Finite exponent stuff to be ironed out . 79 iii iv CONTENTS 4.3 Diestel's lemma or something like that . 85 4.4 A Refinement, october 9th 2020 . 87 5 BQOs 89 5.1 Blocks and Games . 92 5.1.1 Generating a family of blocks recursively . 95 5.1.2 Combinatorial Definition of BQO . 100 5.2 Generalising the RADO structure to higher exponents . 104 5.3 Laver's proof of Fra¨ıss´e'sconjecture . 108 5.3.1 Laver's theorem is best possible . 110 5.4 Barwise approximants to the 1-1 embedding . 111 5.4.1 The intersection of the approximants . 113 5.5 The cofinite quasiorders on the power set . 114 5.6 Well Relations . 116 5.7 Exercises on BQOs . 117 6 The Topological Approach 119 6.0.1 A letter from Adrian Mathias . 126 7 BQOs and fast-growing functions etc 129 7.0.1 Γ0 ............................. 129 7.1 Friedman's Finite Form . 131 7.1.1 Why Kruskal's theorem is so strong . 133 7.1.2 Extending and refining FFF . 134 7.2 Generalising lists to n-lists . 136 7.2.1 n-templates . 136 7.2.2 n-template Morphisms . 137 7.2.3 n-lists . 137 7.2.4 Recursive definition of a datatype of n-lists? . 139 7.2.5 n-stretching (of n-lists) . 139 7.2.6 Inductive definition of n-stretching . 139 7.3 James's proof that you can't kill BQOs by forcing . 140 7.4 Things to get straight one day . 144 7.4.1 The least fixed point for + is the rank-comparison relation . 153 8 Answers to Selected Exercises 171 CONTENTS 1 9 Useful leftovers to be incorporated in due course 181 9.1 Hall's marriage problem|the Infinite case Pinched from Damerell-Milner 1974 . 186 9.2 Miscellaneous topics . 199 9.2.1 The 1-1-embedding . 203 9.2.2 Gap-embeddings . 212 10 Miscellaneous stuff 215 2 CONTENTS Preface This book has grown out of lectures for a graduate (\Part III") course enti- tled `Logic and Combinatorics' given at the University of Cambridge. Since motivations for interest in WQO theory are various I should perhaps explain that that course arose from my desire to show to my students a beautiful result of J.B. Kruskal and Harvey Friedman's which goes some way to ex- plaining why there should be courses with this title in the first place. The result in question is \FFF": Friedman's Finite Form|of Kruskal's theorem on the wellquasiorderings of trees. Logicians have known ever since the days of G¨odel'sIncompleteness theorems that for any axiomatic system of arithmetic there are logically simple assertions of arithmetic not provable in that system, but until the advent of FFF no examples were known that were mathematically natural. FFF arguably still remains the most natu- ral and pleasing example of such a formula. (The closest competitor, the Paris-Harrington formula, was also in that course, but did not make it into this book because it doesn't involve WQOs or BQOs). I still remember the talk where I first heard it, given by my Doktorvater, Adrian Mathias, in the early 1980's. Others will have different reasons for interest. Theoretical computer sci- entists are interested in WQO and BQO theory because it underpins their craft of proving termination of algorithms. (Indeed my sole original con- tribution to BQO theory appeared in the Journal of Theoretical Computer Science.) Finally, people interested in descriptive set theory will have had their attention drawn to BQO theory by the important and influential work of Steve Simpson ([74]), which gave a very smooth treatment of BQOs that made clear the connections with infinite Ramsey theory. This book came to be written in a way that I suspect many textbooks are written. It is the book that I wish I had had to hand when I embarked on my attempt to understand BQO theory. I do not claim to be an expert on BQO theory, and this book is not the definitive pronouncement of a master, but something which with luck may be very nearly as useful, namely the 3 4 CONTENTS log-book of the labours of a journeyman|with the false starts and fruitless errors edited out. Being by nature a lazy reader, I have worked most of this out for myself, with the help of clues I could find in the literature. I have rediscovered a lot of results that i could have found in the literature had i read it properly. Serves me right. I have cited everything I have read, and a great deal that I haven't. I cannot even guarantee that the proofs I supply of cited results are the cited proofs|being, as i have said, a lazy reader. Some of them may even be original. Most of the proofs I supply are proofs I found myself, and although I have given credit to other authors where I know it to be due, I make no claims of priority for unattributed results. I owe a great debt to colleagues with whom i thrashed out some of the details: Harold Simmons (now sadly no longer with us) and my students [. ]. It is a pleasure to be able to thank my long-suffering expert correspondents Steve Simpson, Richard Laver (also, sadly, no longer with us) Monika Seisenberger (who has succumbed to my blandishments and agreed to be a coauthor) and Alberto Marcone, who patiently and courteously answered the questions|many of them no doubt quite daft|with which I plied them during my attempts to teach myself this material. One of my reasons for writing this book is to ensure, by setting down in writing (some of) what I have learned from them, that they will be in future slightly safer than they evidently were in the past from importunacies like mine. Finally I owe a special debt of gratitude to my Doktorvater Adrian Math- ias. In about 1983 he gave a lecture at a LOGFIT meeting in Leeds in which he presented Nash-Williams' proof of Kruskal's theorem and gave a proof of Friedman's finite form of Kruskal's theorem, then hot off the press. I recog- nised it immediately as something I wanted to know more about. Adrian's talk plunged me head-first into a programme of self-improvement of which this book is the result. I would like to be able to say that I wouldn't have done it but for him, but this material is so fascinating that I suspect that it would have grabbed me|somehow-or-other|in any event. But Adrian was the proximate cause. Must resolve to use `Q' rather than `X' for the generic variable for a quasiorder. Stuff to fit in Blocks are sets of finite sequences of naturals. Thus one can sensibly ask whether or not a block is decidable/semidecidable. No-one seems to have CONTENTS 5 done so. I've been thinking about unfoldings again. I am currently very struck by the thought that the derivative of a quasiorder R is a bit like the square of R \with certificates”. But that raises the point that one can obtain a three-place relation from R and S. Let us write R⊕S for fhx; y; zi : hx; yi 2 S ^ hy; zi 2 Rg Does every BQO that is a set of triples arise as R ⊕ S for two quasiorders R and S. And another thing! As Imre and Gareth have crsiply shown, <IN is not the square of any relation, and their proof shows that no wellordering is a square. What about the strict part of a WQO? Rod Downey has just said something to me that has focussed all my thoughts about Nash-Williams' proof of Kruskal wot Adrian showed me all those years ago. Rod had a proof which is in some sense the correct presentation of the specific instance of the general result that is NW's proof of Kruskal. I now understand the generalisation. Rod's proof is the following. Dust off for future use the observation that every homomorphic image of a good sequence is a good sequence, so a preimage of a bad sequence is also a bad sequence. Let wombat be a recursive datatype of finite character, so that a wombat is built up from the null wombat by finitely many invocations of constructors| of which there are only finitely many. NW presents trees and lists in this way.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Interplay Between Computability and Incomputability Draft 619.Tex
    The Interplay Between Computability and Incomputability Draft 619.tex Robert I. Soare∗ January 7, 2008 Contents 1 Calculus, Continuity, and Computability 3 1.1 When to Introduce Relative Computability? . 4 1.2 Between Computability and Relative Computability? . 5 1.3 The Development of Relative Computability . 5 1.4 Turing Introduces Relative Computability . 6 1.5 Post Develops Relative Computability . 6 1.6 Relative Computability in Real World Computing . 6 2 Origins of Computability and Incomputability 6 2.1 G¨odel’s Incompleteness Theorem . 8 2.2 Incomputability and Undecidability . 9 2.3 Alonzo Church . 9 2.4 Herbrand-G¨odel Recursive Functions . 10 2.5 Stalemate at Princeton Over Church’s Thesis . 11 2.6 G¨odel’s Thoughts on Church’s Thesis . 11 ∗Parts of this paper were delivered in an address to the conference, Computation and Logic in the Real World, at Siena, Italy, June 18–23, 2007. Keywords: Turing ma- chine, automatic machine, a-machine, Turing oracle machine, o-machine, Alonzo Church, Stephen C. Kleene,klee Alan Turing, Kurt G¨odel, Emil Post, computability, incomputabil- ity, undecidability, Church-Turing Thesis (CTT), Post-Church Second Thesis on relative computability, computable approximations, Limit Lemma, effectively continuous func- tions, computability in analysis, strong reducibilities. 1 3 Turing Breaks the Stalemate 12 3.1 Turing’s Machines and Turing’s Thesis . 12 3.2 G¨odel’s Opinion of Turing’s Work . 13 3.3 Kleene Said About Turing . 14 3.4 Church Said About Turing . 15 3.5 Naming the Church-Turing Thesis . 15 4 Turing Defines Relative Computability 17 4.1 Turing’s Oracle Machines .
    [Show full text]
  • The Envelope of a Pointclass Under a Local Determinacy Hypothesis
    THE ENVELOPE OF A POINTCLASS UNDER A LOCAL DETERMINACY HYPOTHESIS TREVOR M. WILSON Abstract. Given an inductive-like pointclass Γ and assuming the Ax- iom of Determinacy, Martin identified and analyzede the pointclass con- taining the norm relations of the next semiscale beyond Γ, if one exists. We show that much of Martin's analysis can be carriede out assuming only ZF + DCR + Det(∆Γ). This generalization requires arguments from Kechris{Woodin [10] ande e Martin [13]. The results of [10] and [13] can then be recovered as immediate corollaries of the general analysis. We also obtain a new proof of a theorem of Woodin on divergent models of AD+, as well as a new result regarding the derived model at an inde- structibly weakly compact limit of Woodin cardinals. Introduction Given an inductive-like pointclass Γ, Martin introduced a pointclass (which we call the envelope of Γ, following [22])e whose main feature is that it con- tains the prewellorderingse of the next scale (or semiscale) beyond Γ, if such a (semi)scale exists. This work was distributed as \Notes on the nexte Suslin cardinal," as cited in Jackson [3]. It is unpublished, so we use [3] as our reference instead for several of Martin's arguments. Martin's analysis used the assumption of the Axiom of Determinacy. We reformulate the notion of the envelope in such a way that many of its essen- tial properties can by derived without assuming AD. Instead we will work in the base theory ZF+DCR for the duration of the paper, stating determinacy hypotheses only when necessary.
    [Show full text]
  • The Realm of Ordinal Analysis
    The Realm of Ordinal Analysis Michael Rathjen Department of Pure Mathematics, University of Leeds Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom Denn die Pioniere der Mathematik hatten sich von gewissen Grundlagen brauchbare Vorstellungen gemacht, aus denen sich Schl¨usse,Rechnungsarten, Resultate ergaben, deren bem¨achtigten sich die Physiker, um neue Ergebnisse zu erhalten, und endlich kamen die Techniker, nahmen oft bloß die Resultate, setzten neue Rechnungen darauf und es entstanden Maschinen. Und pl¨otzlich, nachdem alles in sch¨onste Existenz gebracht war, kamen die Mathematiker - jene, die ganz innen herumgr¨ubeln, - darauf, daß etwas in den Grundlagen der ganzen Sache absolut nicht in Ordnung zu bringen sei; tats¨achlich, sie sahen zuunterst nach und fanden, daß das ganze Geb¨audein der Luft stehe. Aber die Maschinen liefen! Man muß daraufhin annehmen, daß unser Dasein bleicher Spuk ist; wir leben es, aber eigentlich nur auf Grund eines Irrtums, ohne den es nicht entstanden w¨are. ROBERT MUSIL: Der mathematische Mensch (1913) 1 Introduction A central theme running through all the main areas of Mathematical Logic is the classification of sets, functions or theories, by means of transfinite hierarchies whose ordinal levels measure their ‘rank’ or ‘complexity’ in some sense appropriate to the underlying context. In Proof Theory this is manifest in the assignment of ‘proof the- oretic ordinals’ to theories, gauging their ‘consistency strength’ and ‘computational power’. Ordinal-theoretic proof theory came into existence in 1936, springing forth from Gentzen’s head in the course of his consistency proof of arithmetic. To put it roughly, ordinal analyses attach ordinals in a given representation system to formal theories.
    [Show full text]
  • Determinacy and Large Cardinals
    Determinacy and Large Cardinals Itay Neeman∗ Abstract. The principle of determinacy has been crucial to the study of definable sets of real numbers. This paper surveys some of the uses of determinacy, concentrating specifically on the connection between determinacy and large cardinals, and takes this connection further, to the level of games of length ω1. Mathematics Subject Classification (2000). 03E55; 03E60; 03E45; 03E15. Keywords. Determinacy, iteration trees, large cardinals, long games, Woodin cardinals. 1. Determinacy Let ωω denote the set of infinite sequences of natural numbers. For A ⊂ ωω let Gω(A) denote the length ω game with payoff A. The format of Gω(A) is displayed in Diagram 1. Two players, denoted I and II, alternate playing natural numbers forming together a sequence x = hx(n) | n < ωi in ωω called a run of the game. The run is won by player I if x ∈ A, and otherwise the run is won by player II. I x(0) x(2) ...... II x(1) x(3) ...... Diagram 1. The game Gω(A). A game is determined if one of the players has a winning strategy. The set A is ω determined if Gω(A) is determined. For Γ ⊂ P(ω ), det(Γ) denotes the statement that all sets in Γ are determined. Using the axiom of choice, or more specifically using a wellordering of the reals, it is easy to construct a non-determined set A. det(P(ωω)) is therefore false. On the other hand it has become clear through research over the years that det(Γ) is true if all the sets in Γ are definable by some concrete means.
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Descriptive Set Theory
    Effective Descriptive Set Theory Andrew Marks December 14, 2019 1 1 These notes introduce the effective (lightface) Borel, Σ1 and Π1 sets. This study uses ideas and tools from descriptive set theory and computability theory. Our central motivation is in applications of the effective theory to theorems of classical (boldface) descriptive set theory, especially techniques which have no classical analogues. These notes have many errors and are very incomplete. Some important topics not covered include: • The Harrington-Shore-Slaman theorem [HSS] which implies many of the theorems of Section 3. • Steel forcing (see [BD, N, Mo, St78]) • Nonstandard model arguments • Barwise compactness, Jensen's model existence theorem • α-recursion theory • Recent beautiful work of the \French School": Debs, Saint-Raymond, Lecompte, Louveau, etc. These notes are from a class I taught in spring 2019. Thanks to Adam Day, Thomas Gilton, Kirill Gura, Alexander Kastner, Alexander Kechris, Derek Levinson, Antonio Montalb´an,Dean Menezes and Riley Thornton, for helpful conversations and comments on earlier versions of these notes. 1 Contents 1 1 1 1 Characterizing Σ1, ∆1, and Π1 sets 4 1 1.1 Σn formulas, closure properties, and universal sets . .4 1.2 Boldface vs lightface sets and relativization . .5 1 1.3 Normal forms for Σ1 formulas . .5 1.4 Ranking trees and Spector boundedness . .7 1 1.5 ∆1 = effectively Borel . .9 1.6 Computable ordinals, hyperarithmetic sets . 11 1 1.7 ∆1 = hyperarithmetic . 14 x 1 1.8 The hyperjump, !1 , and the analogy between c.e. and Π1 .... 15 2 Basic tools 18 2.1 Existence proofs via completeness results .
    [Show full text]
  • Souslin Quasi-Orders and Bi-Embeddability of Uncountable
    Souslin quasi-orders and bi-embeddability of uncountable structures Alessandro Andretta Luca Motto Ros Author address: Universita` di Torino, Dipartimento di Matematica, Via Carlo Alberto, 10, 10123 Torino, Italy E-mail address: [email protected] Universita` di Torino, Dipartimento di Matematica, Via Carlo Alberto, 10, 10123 Torino, Italy E-mail address: [email protected] arXiv:1609.09292v2 [math.LO] 18 Mar 2019 Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Preliminaries and notation 14 3. The generalized Cantor space 22 4. Generalized Borel sets 30 5. Generalized Borel functions 37 6. The generalized Baire space and Baire category 41 7. Standard Borel κ-spaces, κ-analyticquasi-orders,andspacesofcodes 47 8. Infinitary logics and models 55 9. κ-Souslin sets 65 10. The main construction 76 11. Completeness 85 12. Invariant universality 91 13. An alternative approach 106 14. Definable cardinality and reducibility 115 15. Some applications 126 16. Further completeness results 132 Indexes 147 Concepts 147 Symbols 148 Bibliography 151 iii Abstract We provide analogues of the results from [FMR11, CMMR13] (which correspond to the case κ = ω) for arbitrary κ-Souslin quasi-orders on any Polish space, for κ an infinite cardinal smaller than the cardinality of R. These generalizations yield a variety of results concerning the complexity of the embeddability relation between graphs or lattices of size κ, the isometric embeddability relation between complete metric spaces of density character κ, and the linear isometric embeddability relation between (real or complex) Banach spaces of density κ. Received by the editor March 19, 2019. 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 03E15, 03E60, 03E45, 03E10, 03E47.
    [Show full text]
  • Turing Oracle Machines, Online Computing, and Three Displacements in Computability Theory
    Turing Oracle Machines, Online Computing, and Three Displacements in Computability Theory Robert I. Soare∗ January 3, 2009 Contents 1 Introduction 4 1.1 Terminology: Incompleteness and Incomputability . 4 1.2 The Goal of Incomputability not Computability . 5 1.3 Computing Relative to an Oracle or Database . 5 1.4 Continuous Functions and Calculus . 6 2 Origins of Computability and Incomputability 7 2.1 G¨odel'sIncompleteness Theorem . 7 2.2 Alonzo Church . 8 2.3 Herbrand-G¨odelRecursive Functions . 9 2.4 Stalemate at Princeton Over Church's Thesis . 10 2.5 G¨odel'sThoughts on Church's Thesis . 11 3 Turing Breaks the Stalemate 11 3.1 Turing Machines and Turing's Thesis . 11 3.2 G¨odel'sOpinion of Turing's Work . 13 3.2.1 G¨odel[193?] Notes in Nachlass [1935] . 14 3.2.2 Princeton Bicentennial [1946] . 15 ∗Parts of this paper were delivered in an address to the conference, Computation and Logic in the Real World, at Siena, Italy, June 18{23, 2007. Keywords: Turing ma- chine, automatic machine, a-machine, Turing oracle machine, o-machine, Alonzo Church, Stephen C. Kleene, Alan Turing, Kurt G¨odel, Emil Post, computability, incomputability, undecidability, Church-Turing Thesis, Post-Turing Thesis on relative computability, com- putable approximations, Limit Lemma, effectively continuous functions, computability in analysis, strong reducibilities. Thanks are due to C.G. Jockusch, Jr., P. Cholak, and T. Slaman for corrections and suggestions. 1 3.2.3 The Flaw in Church's Thesis . 16 3.2.4 G¨odelon Church's Thesis . 17 3.2.5 G¨odel'sLetter to Kreisel [1968] .
    [Show full text]
  • An Ordinal Analysis of Admissible Set Theory Using Recursion on Ordinal Notations∗
    An ordinal analysis of admissible set theory using recursion on ordinal notations¤ Jeremy Avigad May 23, 2001 Abstract The notion of a function from N to N defined by recursion on ordinal notations is fundamental in proof theory. Here this notion is generalized to functions on the universe of sets, using notations for well-orderings longer than the class of ordinals. The generalization is used to bound the rate of growth of any function on the universe of sets that is Σ1-definable in Kripke-Platek admissible set theory with an axiom of infinity. Formalizing the argument provides an ordinal analysis. 1 Introduction In informal proof-theoretic parlance, the definition of a set of objects is said to be impredicative if it makes reference to a collection of sets that includes the set being defined. A classic example arises if one takes the real numbers to be lower Dedekind cuts of rationals, and then defines the least upper bound of a bounded set of reals to be the intersection of all the upper bounds. A theory is said to be (prima facie) impredicative if its intended interpretation depends on such a definition. The circularity implicit in an impredicative theory poses problems for its ordinal analysis, since the goal of ordinal analysis is to measure the theory’s strength in terms of well-founded ordinal notations — that is, “from the bot- tom up.” For that reason, the first ordinal analyses of impredicative theories, due to Takeuti, Buchholz, and Pohlers were a landmark (see the discussion in the introduction to [7]). Another important step was the move to studying fragments of set theory instead of second-order arithmetic, carried out by J¨ager [12, 13, 14], providing a more natural framework for the analysis of impredica- tivity.
    [Show full text]
  • Cardinals and Intro to Ordinals Notations
    Cardinals and Intro to Ordinals Notations Pete Manolios Northeastern Formal Methods, Lecture 5 September 2008 1 Last Time: Axiomatic Set Theory Axiom 0. Set Existence: ⟨∃x :: x=x⟩ Axiom 1. Extensionality: ⟨∀x,y::⟨∀z :: z∈x ≡ z∈y⟩ ⇒ x=y⟩ Axiom 3. Comprehension Scheme: For each formula φ without y free, the universal closure of the following is an axiom: ⟨∃y :: ⟨∀x :: x∈y ≡ x∈z ∧ φ⟩⟩ Axiom 4. Pairing: ⟨∀x,y :: ⟨∃z :: x∈z ∧ y ∈z⟩⟩ Axiom 5. Union: ⟨∀F :: ⟨∃A :: ⟨∀x,Y :: (Y∈F ∧ x∈Y) ⇒ x∈A⟩⟩⟩ Axiom 6. Replacement Scheme. For each formula φ without Y free, the universal closure of the following is an axiom: ⟨∀x∈A :: ⟨∃!z:: φ(x,z)⟩⟩ ⇒ ⟨∃Y:: ⟨∀x∈A :: ⟨∃z∈Y :: φ(x,z)⟩⟩⟩ Axiom 7. Infinity: ⟨∃x:: 0∈x ∧ ⟨∀y∈x :: y+ ∈ x⟩⟩ (y+ = y ⋃ {y}) Axiom 9. Choice. ⟨∀A :: ⟨∃R :: R well-orders A⟩⟩ 2 Hey, What About Axiom 2? Axiom 2: Foundation. Sets are well-founded under ∈ ⟨∀x :: ⟨∃y∈x⟩ ⇒ ⟨∃y∈x :: ¬⟨∃z∈x :: z∈y⟩⟩⟩ y is a minimal element above See handout for an alternate definition of foundation There are set theories where foundation is omitted So, we can have x∈x The problem is: when are two sets equal? What would you do? 3 Cardinals (& Axiom 8) |A| is the least ordinal α s.t. α≈A (≈ means bijection) α is a cardinal iff α = |α| A cardinal number is an ordinal number whose size is > any of its elements A is finite iff |A| < ω A is infinite iff it is not finite A is countable iff |A| ≤ ω A is uncountable iff it is not countable We can’t prove that uncountable sets exist Axiom 8.
    [Show full text]
  • To Infinity and Beyond
    To Infinity and Beyond Some Notes on Set Theory and Transfinite Numbers Prerna Nadathur August 15, 2008 Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 The Axioms 2 2.1 The Axioms . 2 2.2 Some Consequences . 4 2.2.1 Intersections, Unions and Complements . 4 2.2.2 Ordered Pairs and Cartesian Products . 9 2.2.3 Relations and Functions . 11 2.3 An Axiom for the Natural Numbers . 13 3 Order 14 4 Ordinals and Cardinals 16 4.1 Ordinals . 16 4.1.1 Ordinal Numbers . 16 4.1.2 Ordinal Arithmetic . 18 4.1.3 Countability . 19 4.2 Cardinals . 22 4.3 Cofinality . 26 5 The Axiom of Choice, Zorn's Lemma, and the Well-Ordering Theorem 27 1 Introduction Perhaps the first problem we encounter in set theory is that of the definition of a set. It is a remarkable (although not altogether curious) fact that most books on set theory either actively decline to define a set, or else neglect to mention the problem of definition altogether. Intuitively, we know that sets contain things{elements, or objects, and so in some sense, we 1 can define a set as a collection of objects. Yet this can lead us into trouble: we shall see that there are collections of objects that are not sets, that are \too big" to be sets, that create paradoxes if we regard them as sets. For example, although Cantor's original development of set theory was not axiomatic, it is clear that he relied implicitly on three assumptions: the axiom of extension (more later), the axiom of abstraction, and the axiom of choice.
    [Show full text]
  • Proof Theory of Martin-Löf Type Theory – an Overview
    Proof Theory of Martin-L¨of Type Theory { An Overview Anton Setzer∗ February 22, 2004 Abstract We give an overview over the historic development of proof theory and the main techniques used in ordinal theoretic proof theory. We argue, that in a revised Hilbert's programme, ordinal theoretic proof theory has to be supplemented by a second step, namely the development of strong equiconsis- tent constructive theories. Then we show, how, as part of such a programme, the proof theoretic analysis of Martin-L¨of type theory with W-type and one microscopic universe containing only two finite sets is carried out. Then we look at the analysis of Martin-L¨of type theory with W-type and a universe closed under the W-type, and consider the extension of type theory by one Mahlo universe and its proof-theoretic analysis. Finally we repeat the con- cept of inductive-recursive definitions, which extends the notion of inductive definitions substantially. We introduce a closed formalisation, which can be used in generic programming, and explain, what is known about its strength. Keywords: Martin-L¨of type theory, proof theory, Kripke-Platek set theory, W-type, well-founded trees, Kleene's O, Mahlo universe, inductive-recursive definitions, generic programming. 1 Introduction The goal of this article is to introduce the reader, who is not necessarily an expert in proof theory, into the current state of the art of proof theory of Martin-L¨of type theory and the techniques used there. We start by giving a brief overview over the contents of this article.
    [Show full text]
  • Ordinal Notation
    Dmytro Taranovsky Last Update: December 31, 2018 Ordinal Notation Abstract: We introduce a framework for ordinal notation systems, present a family of strong yet simple systems, and give many examples of ordinals in these systems. While much of the material is conjectural, we include systems with conjectured strength beyond second order arithmetic (and plausibly beyond ZFC), and prove well-foundedness for some weakened versions. Contents: 1 Introduction 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Prior Work 1.3 Goals of Ordinal Analysis 2 A Framework for Ordinal Notations — defines the general structure for the notations. 2.1 Definition of the General Notation 2.2 Basic Properties 2.3 Bachmann-Howard Ordinal 2.4 One Variable C 2.5 Reflection Configurations 3 Degrees of Recursive Inaccessibility — presents a notation system for ATR0 plus "for every ordinal a, there is recursively a-inaccessible ordinal". 3.1 Definition of the Notation 3.2 Comparison Relation 3.3 Examples 4 Degrees of Reflection — presents a notation system for KP + Πn reflection and somewhat stronger systems, with the canonical assignment for nonrecursive ordinals. 4.1 Definition of Degrees of Reflection 4.2 Examples and Additional Properties 4.3 Assignment of Degrees 4.4 A Step towards Second Order Arithmetic 5 Main Ordinal Notation System — presents the main notation system, which plausibly reaches second order arithmetic (Z2) or higher. 5.1 Definition and Basic Properties 5.2 Strength of the Main System 5.3 Old Analysis and Examples 6 Beyond Second Order Arithmetic — gives insights for going beyond second order arithmetic and ZFC 6.1 Old Analysis 6.2 New Analysis 7 Iteration of n-built from below — proposes a strengthening of the main system.
    [Show full text]