DOCSLIB.ORG

Historical Notes and Guide to the Bibliography

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Historical Notes and Guide to the Bibliography HISTORICAL NOTES AND GUIDE TO THE BIBLIOGRAPHY CHAPTER 1 Set theory was invented by Georg Cantor. The first attempt to consider infinite sets is at­ tributed to Bolzano (who also introduced the term Menge). It was however Cantor who realized the significance of one-to-one functions between sets and introduced the notion of cardinality of a set. Cantor originated the theory of cardinal and ordinal numbers as well as the investigations of the topology of the real line. Much of the development in the first four sections follows Cantor's work. The main reference to Cantor's work is his collected works, Cantor [1932]. Another source of references to the early research in set theory is HausdorlT's book [1914]' Cantor started his investigations in [1874], where he proved that the set of all real numbers is uncountable, while the set of all algebraic reals is countable. In [1878] he gave the first formulation of the celebrated continuum hypothe·sis. Section 1 The axioms for set theory (except Replacement and Regularity) are due to Zermelo [1908]. Prior to Zermelo, Frege attempted to axiomatize set theory, using the false comprehension schema; Zermelo formulated his axioms following the discovery of several paradoxes by Burali-Forti, Cantor, Russell, and Zermelo. The Replacement schema is due to Fraenkel [1922a] and Skolem (see [1970, pp. 137-152]). Exercises 1.12 and 1.13: Tarsk i [1925a]. Section 2 The theory of well-ordered sets was developed by Cantor, who also introduced transfinite induction. The idea of identifying an ordinal number with the set of smaller ordinals is due to Zermelo and von Neumann. Section 3 Cardinal numbers and alephs were introduced by Cantor. The proof of the Cantor-Bernstein theorem is Bernstein's; see Borel [1898, p. 103]. The first proof of t-:, . t-:, = t-:, appeared in Hessen­ berg [1906, p. 593]. Regularity of cardinals was investigated by Hausdorff, who also raised the question of existence of regular limit cardinals. D-finiteness was formulated by Dedekind. 579 580 HISTORICAL NOTES AND GUIDE TO THE BIBLIOGRAPHY Section 4 Theorems 10 and II are due to Cantor. The construction of real numbers by completion of the rationals is due to Dedekind [1872). Theorem 13: Baire (1899). Theorem 14: Cantor, Bendixson [1883). Exercises 4.3, 4.4, 4.5a: Cantor. Suslin's problem: Suslin (1920). Section 5 The axiom of choice was formulated by Zermelo, who used it to prove the well-ordering theorem in [1904)' The present form of the Kuratowski-Zorn lemma is as in Zorn [1935]; for a related principle, see Kuratowski [1922)' (Hausdorff in [1914, pp. 140-141] proved that every partially ordered set has a maximal linearly ordered subset.) The principle of dependent choices was formulated by Bernays in [1937-1954, III). Exercise 5.1: Felix Bernstein. Section 6 Konig's theorem appeared in J. Konig [1905]. Theorem 18 was found independently by Bukovsky [1965] and Hechler. The discovery that cardinal exponentiation is determined by the gimel function (Theorem 20) was made by Bukovsky; cf. [1965). The inductive computation oft'{~' is as in Jech [l973b]; that paper also investigates properties of the gimel function. Exercise 6.6: L. Patai. Hausdorff's formula (6.18): Hausdorff [1904). Exercise 6.8: Tarski [l925b). Exercises 6.15 and 6.19: Jech [l973b]' Inaccessible cardinals were introduced in the paper by Sierpinski and Tarski [1930]; see Tarski [1938] for more details. Section 7 The notion of filter is. according to Kuratowski's book [1966], due to H. Cartan. The ultrafilter theorem was first proved by Tarski in [1930]' Fodor's theorem appeared in Fodor [1956]. Reduced products were first investigated by -tos in [1955]; see Section 28. Lemma 7.6 is a special case of Theorem 85 of Solovay proved in Section 35. Exercise 7.12: Friedman [1974]. (For related problems, see Prikry and Solovay [1975]). Mahlo cardinals are named after P. Mahlo, who in 1911-1913 investigated what we call weakly Mahlo cardinals. Section 8 Theorem 23 is due to Silver. Silver's proof [1974] combines forcing with the ultrapower method; see Section 35. An elementary proof was subsequently found by Baumgartner and Prikry [1976. 1977] and Jensen. The combinatorial argument of Baumgartner and Prikry was extended by Galvin and Hajnal in [1975] to obtain Theorem 24. The proof of Lemma 8.7 is a modification of Galvin-Hajnal's method. Lemma 8.5: Erdos. Hajnal, and Milner [1968]. Models where the singular cardinals hypothesis fails have been constructed by Magidor, cf. [1977b] and [1977c]. Section 9 The axiom of regularity was introduced by von Neumann in [1925]. although a similar prin­ ciple had been considered previously by Skolem (see [1970. pp. 137-152]). The transitive collapse is HISTORICAL NOTES AND GUIDE TO THE BIBLIOGRAPHY 581 defined in Mostowski [1949]; see Theorem 28 in Section II. Induction on well-founded relations (Theorem 25') was formulated by Montague in [1955]. Appendix The axiomatic system BG was introduced by Bernays in [1937-1954, I] and used by Godel in his consistency proof [1940]. Shoenfield's result was published in [1954]. F or more references on the history of axioms of set theory consult Fraenkel et al. [1973]. CHAPTER 2 The main results, namely consistency of the axiom of choice and ofthe generalized continuum hypothesis, are due to Kurt Godel, as is the concept of constructible sets. The results were an­ nounced in [1938], and an outline of proof appeared in [1939]. Godel's monograph [1940] contains a detailed construction of L and the proof that L satisfies AC and GCH. Section 10 For concepts of model theory, the history of the subject and for model-theoretical terminology, I refer the reader to Chang and Keisler's book [1973]. The impossibility of a consistency proof of existence of inaccessible cardinals follows from Godel's theorem [1931]' An argument that more or less establishes the consistency of the axiom of regularity appeared in Skolem's work in 1923 (see [1970, pp. 137-152]). Exercise 10.6: Montague and Vaught [1959]. Section 11 The investigation of transitive models of set theory was of course motivated by GOdel's construction of the model L. The first systematic study of transitive models was done by Shepherd­ son in [1951-1953]. Bernays in [1937-1954, I], employed a finite number of operations on classes to give a finite axiomatization of BG (see Exercise 11.9). Theorem 31 is explicitly stated by Hajnal in [ 1956]. The collapsing theorem 28 appeared in Mostowski [1949]. The reflection principle was in­ troduced by Montague; see [1961] and Uvy [1960a]. Exercise 11.2: Galvin. Section 12 In [1939] Godel defined constructible sets using LH 1 = {all subsets of L. definable over L.}; in [1940] he used finitely many operations (and worked in the system BG). Exercise 12.5: The J. hierarchy was used by Jensen in [1972]. Section 13 Both Theorems 33 and 34 are due to GOdel. Section 14 The 1:. hierarchy was introduced by Uvy in [1965b]. Uvy proved in [1965b] Theorem 36 (the absoluteness lemma), using the principle of dependent choices and Shoenfield's absoluteness theorem (Theorem 98 in Section 41 )-see Exercise 41.5; the present proof is due to Barwise and Fisher [1970]' Another result of Levy [1965] is that the truth predicate ~.+ 1 is 1:.+ 1 (Exercise 14.20); for Tarski's theorem, see, e.g., Tarski [1939]. 582 HISTORICAL NOTES AND GUIDE TO THE BIBLIOGRAPHY Karp's paper [1967] investigates LI relations and gives a detailed computation verifying that constructibility is L I . Primitive recursive functions appear in Jensen and Karp [1971]. The charac­ terization of the sets L. as transitive models of a single sentence (J is a result of Boolos [1970]. Exercises 14.23 and 14.24: Jensen [1972]. Section 15 Relative constructibility was investigated by Hajnal [1956], Shoen field [1959] and most gen- erally by Levy [1957] and [1960b]. Lemma 15.1: Vopenka and Balcar [1967]. Lemma 15.2 and Exercise 15.10: Levy [1957] and [1960b]. Exercise 15.16: see Theorem 98. The concept of ordinal definability was suggested by Godel in his talk [1946]; the theory was developed independently by Myhill and Scott in [1971] and by Vopenka, Balcar, and Hajek in [1968]. The former authors use the definition from Exercise 15.18, the latter use (15.16). CHAPTER 3 The method of forcing was invented by Paul Cohen who used it to prove the independence of the continuum hypothesis and of the axiom of choice (see [1963-1964] and the book [1966]). The present formulation of Cohen's method using Boolean-valued models has been developed by Scott, Solovay, and Vopenka. Section 16 The two fundamental theorems of the method of forcing, the forcing theorem and the generic model theorem, are due to Cohen. (To be accurate, Cohen's original method was formulated for particular examples of a notion of forcing, and under the assumption that 9)1 is a countable transitive model of ZFC. The definition (16.3) of an 9)I-generic filter on a partially ordered set is due to Solovay.) The forcing conditions defined in (16.4) are the ones used by Cohen in his proof of independence of the continuum hypothesis; the" typical example," a collapsing mapping of w onto WI is also due to Cohen. Section 17 Most of the facts about Boolean algebras can be found in Sikorski's book [1964], which also contains an extensive bibliography. The representation theorem for Boolean algebras (Theorem 41) is due to Stone [1936]. The important lemma 17.6 on the chain condition was proved by Erdos and Tarski in [1943]. For a more detailed discussion of the role of the prime ideal theorem, see my book on the axiom of choice [1973c]; for the model-theoretical concepts involved, consult Chang and Keisler [1973].
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Professor Zdzisław Pawlak (1926-2006): Founder of the Polish School of Artificial Intelligence
    Chapter 1 Professor Zdzisław Pawlak (1926-2006): Founder of the Polish School of Artificial Intelligence Andrzej Skowron, Mihir Kr. Chakraborty, Jerzy Grzymała-Busse, Victor Marek, Sankar K. Pal, James F. Peters, Dominik Sle¸zak,´ Roman Słowinski,´ Shusaku Tsumoto, Alicja Wakulicz-Deja, and Guoyin Wang He was not just a great scientist – he was also a great human being. – Lotfi A. Zadeh, April 2006 Fig. 1.1: Zdzisław Pawlak. Corresponding author: Andrzej Skowron, Institute of Mathematics, Warsaw University Banacha 2, 02-097 Warsaw, Poland, e-mail: [email protected] 1 2 Andrzej Skowron et al 1.1 Introduction This chapter is dedicated to the memory of Professor Zdzisław Pawlak, founder of the Polish school of Artificial Intelligence and one of the pioneers in Computer Engineering and Computer Science with worldwide influence. To capture the spirit of Professor Pawlak’s creative genius, this chapter contains testimonies of many collaborators, colleagues and friends pointing to Professor’s scientific achievements and his personal qualities. In short, we present Professor Pawlak as a truly great scientist, teacher and human being. 1.2 Biography [51] Zdzisław Ignacy Pawlak was born on 10 November 1926 in Łod´ z,´ where he also fin- ished primary school in 1939. During the German occupation of Poland, like many Poles, he was a slave-laborer and was forced to work for Siemens company. After WW II, in 1946, he passed his high school exams as an extern and, in 1947, started his studies at the Electrical Engineering Faculty of the Łod´ z´ University of Technol- ogy. In 1949, he transferred to the Electrical Faculty (the Faculty of Telecommuni- cation between 1951–1966, the Faculty of Electronics and Information Technology at present) at the Technical University of Warsaw (now the Warsaw University of Technology).
    [Show full text]
  • In Memoriam: James Earl Baumgartner (1943-2011)
    In memoriam: James Earl Baumgartner (1943–2011) J.A. Larson Department of Mathematics University of Florida, Gainesville Gainesville, FL 32611–8105, USA October 9, 2018 Abstract James Earl Baumgartner (March 23, 1943 – December 28, 2011) came of age mathematically during the emergence of forcing as a fun- damental technique of set theory, and his seminal research changed the way set theory is done. He made fundamental contributions to the development of forcing, to our understanding of uncountable or- ders, to the partition calculus, and to large cardinals and their ideals. He promulgated the use of logic such as absoluteness and elementary submodels to solve problems in set theory, he applied his knowledge of set theory to a variety of areas in collaboration with other math- ematicians, and he encouraged a community of mathematicians with engaging survey talks, enthusiastic discussions of open problems, and friendly mathematical conversations. arXiv:1705.02219v1 [math.HO] 2 May 2017 1 Overview of Baumgartner’s Life James E. Baumgartner was born on March 23, 1943 in Wichita, Kansas. His high school days included tennis, football, and leading roles in school plays. In 1960 he entered the California Institute of Technology, but stayed only two years, moving to the University of California, Berkeley in 1962, in part because it was co-educational. There he met and married his wife Yolanda. He continued his interest in drama and mathematics as an undergraduate, earned his A.B. in mathematics in 1964, and continued study as a graduate 1 student. Baumgartner [9, page 2] dated his interest in set theory to the four week long 1967 UCLA Summer Institute on Axiomatic Set Theory.1 The mathematics for his dissertation was completed in spring 1969, and Baumgartner became a John Wesley Young Instructor at Dartmouth College in fall 1969.
    [Show full text]
  • Matemaattis-Luonnontieteellinen Tiedekunta Matematiikan Ja Tilastotieteen Laitos Tekijä  Författare  Author Juho Leppänen
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Helsingin yliopiston digitaalinen arkisto HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO HELSINGFORS UNIVERSITET UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI Tiedekunta/Osasto Fakultet/Sektion Faculty Laitos Institution Department Matemaattis-luonnontieteellinen tiedekunta Matematiikan ja tilastotieteen laitos Tekijä Författare Author Juho Leppänen Työn nimi Arbetets titel Title Solovay's Theorem Oppiaine Läroämne Subject Matematiikka Työn laji Arbetets art Level Aika Datum Month and year Sivumäärä Sidoantal Number of pages Pro gradu -tutkielma Joulukuu 2014 38 s. Tiivistelmä Referat Abstract Tutkielmassa esitellään Robert Solovayn artikkelin A model of set-theory in which every set of reals is Lebesgue measurable (Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, 92, 1970) reaalijoukkojen Lebesgue-mitallisuutta koskevia tuloksia. Lähtien liikkeelle ZFC:n numeroituvasta ja transitiivises- ta mallista jossa lisäksi oletetaan olevan saavuttamaton kardinaali Solovay konstruoi artikke- lissa ZF+DC:n mallin, missä jokainen reaalilukujen osajoukko on Lebesgue-mitallinen. Edellä DC viittaa riippuvan valinnan aksioomaan, joka implikoi numeroituvan valinnan aksiooman, ja on siten riittävä todistamaan kaikki tavanomaiset positiiviset tulokset Lebesguen mitasta. Tunnetusti ZFC todistaa ei-mitallisen joukon olemassaolon, mutta Solovayn tuloksen perusteella edes ZF + DC ei hylkää lausetta, jonka mukaan kaikki reaalijoukot olisivat Lebesgue-mitallisia. Solovayn mallin re- aalijoukoilla on edellä mainitun
    [Show full text]
  • THE CHARACTER of To, in FIRST COUNTABLE SPACES
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 62, Number 1, January 1977 THE CHARACTER OF to, IN FIRST COUNTABLE SPACES WILLIAM G. FLEISSNER Abstract. We define a cardinal function x(p>QX where P and Q are properties of topological spaces. We show that it is consistent and independ- ent that x("i, first countable) = uj. In this paper we define and investigate the cardinal function x(^, Ô), where P and Q are properties of topological spaces. We are particularly interested in whether x(«i, first countable) is greater than to,. We found this investigation interesting, because it was hard to guess what x("i, first countable) should be (see the paragraph after Example 6); important, because it answers a question arising from the normal Moore space conjecture; and instructive, because it provides an opportunity to use the combinatorial principle () in a topolog- ical context. If y is a closed subset of a space A, define the character of Y in X, x( Y,X ), to be the least cardinal of a set %. of open sets U in X, such that for any open set V, Y C V E X, there is U E % with Y E U E V. The motive for this definition is that if A' is the quotient space of X obtained by shrinking Y to a pointy, then %is a neighborhood base for y in X' and \(Y, X) is the character of y in A'. If P and Q are properties of topological spaces, then xC^, Q) is sup{x(y,A): Y has P, X has'ß}.
    [Show full text]
  • Andrzej Grzegorczyk (1922-2014)
    Stanisław Krajewski1 Andrzej Grzegorczyk (1922-2014) Andrzej Grzegorczyk died on 20th March 2014. Even though he was 91 years old, his passing was unexpected as he had been doing creative work almost until his last moment and his intellectual capacities seemed intact. His memoirs emphasized that he had been the previous century’s last world- renowned representative of Polish logic. While this is true, it seems much more important that he was a very unique person, academically and socially active, but also a free spirit who chose his own path. I. Life Andrzej Grzegorczyk was born in Warsaw on 22nd August 1922, the only son of Piotr Grzegorczyk – a Polish studies specialist stemming from an intelligentsia family from the Polish Galicia, then part of Austro-Hungary – and Zofia, a doctor born in the landowner family of Zdziarski from the vicinity of Płock. Her background was strongly leftist; her brother Mirosław Zdziarski, a known communist and a member of the Communist Party of Poland, was sentenced to death in Russia in 1937. Andrzej Grzegorczyk spent his entire life, with only short breaks, in Warsaw. As a child, he attended a private Catholic school of the educational society “Przyszłość” (whose other fledgling was Władysław Bartoszewski) and from 1938 – the Władysław Reytan state secondary school. After the outbreak of war, when his previous school organized clandestine secondary school lessons, he decided to return there and passed his school-leaving exams in 1940, on the day of France’s capitulation. To avoid being taken away to work in the German Reich, he 1University of Warsaw, Faculty of Philosophy and Sociology.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the Tarski Symposium *
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/pspum/025 PROCEEDINGS OF THE TARSKI SYMPOSIUM *# <-r ALFRED TARSKI To ALFRED TARSKI with admiration, gratitude, and friendship PROCEEDINGS OF SYMPOSIA IN PURE MATHEMATICS VOLUME XXV PROCEEDINGS of the TARSKI SYMPOSIUM An international symposium held to honor Alfred Tarski on the occasion of his seventieth birthday Edited by LEON HENKIN and JOHN ADDISON C. C. CHANG WILLIAM CRAIG DANA SCOTT ROBERT VAUGHT published for the ASSOCIATION FOR SYMBOLIC LOGIC by the AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND 1974 PROCEEDINGS OF THE TARSKI SYMPOSIUM HELD AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY JUNE 23-30, 1971 Co-sponsored by The University of California, Berkeley The Association for Symbolic Logic The International Union for History and Philosophy of Science- Division of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science with support from The National Science Foundation (Grant No. GP-28180) Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data nv Tarski Symposium, University of California, Berkeley, 1971. Proceedings. (Proceedings of symposia in pure mathematics, v. 25) An international symposium held to honor Alfred Tarski; co-sponsored by the University of California, Berkeley, the Association for Symbolic Logic [and] the International Union for History and Philosophy of Science-Division of Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science. Bibliography: p. 1. Mathematics-Addresses, essays, lectures. 2. Tarski, Alfred-Bibliography. 3. Logic, Symbolic and mathematical-Addresses, essays, lectures. I. Tarski, Alfred. II. Henkin, Leon, ed. III. California. University. IV. Association for Symbolic Logic. V. International Union of the History and Philosophy of Sci• ence. Division of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. VI. Series. QA7.T34 1971 51l'.3 74-8666 ISBN 0-8218-1425-7 Copyright © 1974 by the American Mathematical Society Second printing, with additions, 1979 Printed in the United States of America All rights reserved except those granted to the United States Government.
    [Show full text]
  • Dissertation
    DISSERTATION Titel der Dissertation The tree property Verfasser Ajdin Halilovi¢ angestrebter akademischer Grad Doktor der Naturwissenschaften (Dr.rer.nat) Wien, im November 2010 Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt: A 091 405 Dissertationsgebiet lt. Studienblatt: Mathematik Betreuer: O.Univ.Prof. Sy-David Friedman Roditeljima Acknowledgements I rst wish to thank prof. Sy D. Friedman for being a wonderful supervisor. It was a great pleasure for me to work with him, learn from him and write this thesis under his brilliant and kind supervision. I thank him for all his ideas which resulted in this dissertation. I am grateful to the Austrian Science Fund FWF for its generous support via project P19898-N18. People who indirectly inspired my work are (in alphabetical order): Prof. Mirna Dºamonja, Dr. Mahir Hadºi¢, Dr. Matthias Hammerl, Dr. Jasmin ahbegovi¢, Dr. Ognjen Vukadin, and many other good friends. My special thanks go to my dear colleagues Dr. Peter Holy, Dr. Lyubomyr Zdomskyy and Prof. Heike Mildenberger because of the useful discussions from which I have learned a lot. I am most indebted to my family for giving me all the unconditional love and support during my studies, and to my sincere friends which make the life easy and joyful. At the end, I wish to thank the One who created mind and gave us the possibility to explore ourselves and the universe. This gift is invaluable, therefore I thank Him the most. Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Preliminaries 3 2.1 Some basic set theory for nonlogicians . 3 2.1.1 Sets and numbers . 3 2.1.2 Structures and embeddings .
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction 3 by Akihiro Kanamori 1 Beginnings
    Contents 0. Introduction 3 by Akihiro Kanamori 1 Beginnings . 4 1.1 Cantor . 4 1.2 Zermelo . 6 1.3 First Developments . 7 1.4 Replacement and Foundation . 11 2 New Groundwork . 15 2.1 G¨odel . 15 2.2 Infinite Combinatorics . 18 2.3 Definability . 21 2.4 Model-Theoretic Techniques . 23 3 The Advent of Forcing . 28 3.1 Cohen . 28 3.2 Method of Forcing . 30 3.3 0#, L[U], and L[U] . 35 3.4 Constructibility . 38 4 Strong Hypotheses . 42 4.1 Large Large Cardinals . 42 4.2 Determinacy . 45 4.3 Silver's Theorem and Covering . 49 4.4 Forcing Consistency Results . 53 5 New Expansion . 57 5.1 Into the 1980s . 57 5.2 Consistency of Determinacy . 62 5.3 Later Developments . 65 6 Summaries of the Handbook Chapters . 69 1 2 CONTENTS 0. Introduction Akihiro Kanamori Set theory has entered its prime as an advanced and autonomous research field of mathematics with broad foundational significance, and this Handbook with its expanse and variety amply attests to the fecundity and sophistication of the subject. Indeed, in set theory's further reaches one sees tremendous progress both in its continuing development of its historical heritage, the investigation of the transfinite numbers and of definable sets of reals, as well as its analysis of strong propositions and consistency strength in terms of large cardinal hypotheses and inner models. This introduction provides a historical and organizational frame for both modern set theory and this Handbook, the chapter summaries at the end be- ing a final elaboration.
    [Show full text]
  • Logic in Poland Atfer 1945 (Until 1975)
    LOGIC IN POLAND ATFER 1945 (UNTIL 1975) Jan Woleński [email protected] Victor Marek [email protected] 1. Introduction This paper is conceived as a summary of logical investigations in Poland after 1945.1 The date ad quem is determined by the death of Andrzej Mostowski, doubtless the most important Polish logician in after World War II (WWII for brevity) period. Times after this date are still too fresh in order to be subjected to a historical analysis. Thus, to finish at the moment of Mostowski’s death does not only credit the memory of this great person, but well fits standards of historians related to understanding of what is the recent history; section 3 emphasizes Mostowski’s role after 1945. Note, however, that when we use the past tense, it also applies to the present period in most cases. We concentrate on mathematical logic and the foundations of mathematics. Thus, works in semantics (except, logical model theory) and methodology of science, that is, other branches of general logic (logic sensu largo) are entirely omitted. Note, however, that scholars such as: Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz (Poznań, later Warszawa), Tadeusz Czeżowski (Toruń),Tadeusz Kotarbiński (Warszawa and Łodź) and Maria Kokoszyńska-Lutman (Wrocław), rather being logicians-philosophers than logicians- mathematicians, played an important role in teaching (in particular, they wrote popular 1 See also R. Wójcicki, J. Zygmunt, „Polish Logic in the Postwar Period”, in 50 Years of Studia Logica, ed. by V. F. Hendricks and J. Malinowski, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dodrecht 2003, 11–33. Since this paper provides several data about names of active logicians after 1945 and the organization of departments of logic in the post-war Poland, we considerably restrict information about these issues.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Life and Work of Andrzej Mostowski (1913–1975)1
    Seventy Years of Foundational Studies: A Tribute to Andrzej Mostowski 1 A. Ehrenfeucht, V.W. Marek and M. Srebrny (Eds.) IOS Press, 2007 © 2007 The authors. All rights reserved. On the Life and Work of Andrzej Mostowski (1913–1975)1 Stanisław KRAJEWSKI a and Marian SREBRNY b a Institute of Philosophy, Warsaw University, Warsaw, Poland b Institute of Computer Science, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland Andrzej Stanisław Mostowski was born on November 1, 1913, in Lvov. His father, Stanisław Mostowski, was a medical doctor and worked as an assistant at the Physical Chemistry Department of the University of Lvov; he was conscripted in 1914 as a mil- itary doctor and soon after died of typhoid fever. The family had to be provided for by the mother, Zofia née Kramsztyk (1881–1963), who worked for many years in a bank. Andrzej (by his mother and close friends called Staszek, after the father) had one sister Krystyna (after the war she settled abroad – first in France, then in Montreal). In the summer of 1914 Mostowski’s mother went with her children to Zakopane to spend holidays there; in the face of the outbreak of war and the death of the father they remained there until about 1920, when they moved to Warsaw. From this time on, the whole life of Mostowski is connected with this city. Here, in the years 1923–1931, he attended the well-known Stefan Batory high school. In the higher grades of this school he showed himself to be an outstanding student with particular interests in the sciences.
    [Show full text]
  • Inner Models for Large Cardinals
    INNER MODELS FOR LARGE CARDINALS William J. Mitchell One new idea leads to another, that to a third, and so on through a course of time until someone, with whom no one of these is original, 3 combines all together, and produces what is justly called a new inven- tion.1 1 INTRODUCTION 6 This chapter will discuss the development of inner models for large cardinals during the last part of the last century, beginning at the end of Kanamori's chapter [Kanamori, 2010b], which is to say at about 1965. There are two major themes 9 in this development: The first of these is the expansion of G¨odel'sclass L of constructible sets to obtain L-like models of ZFC which are capable of containing any larger cardinals existing in the universe, and the second is the development of 12 core model theory, which provides the possibility of proving that the universe is well approximated by such a model. The main part of the chapter is accordingly divided into two themes. The first 15 is in Section 2, which describes the process of incorporating large cardinal prop- erties into the constructibility paradigm, and the discovery of strong uniqueness properties of the resulting models, allowing the class of large cardinals to be seen 18 as a well-ordered extension of the ordinals. The second theme is begun in Section 3, which describes the evolution of com- binatorial principles in L, leading through the development of fine structure to 21 the discovery of the Covering Lemma. The generalization of this development into a core model theory for larger cardinals is described in section 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Large Cardinals with Forcing
    LARGE CARDINALS WITH FORCING Akihiro Kanamori This chapter describes, following the historical development, the investigation of large cardinal hypotheses using the method of forcing. Large cardinal hypotheses, also regarded as strong axioms of infinity, have stimulated a vast mainstream of modern set theory, and William Mitchell's chapter in this volume deals with their investigation through inner models, Menachem Kojman's chapter with their involvement in the study of singular cardinals, and Paul Larson's chapter with the accentuated direction of determinacy hypotheses. With the subject seen as a larger, integrated whole, we in this chapter incorporate aspects of these others while pursuing the directions involving forcing. The author's other chapter in this volume, \Set Theory from Cantor to Cohen" (henceforth referred to as CC for convenience), had presented the historical de- velopment of set theory through to the creation of the method of forcing. Also, the author's book, The Higher Infinite [2003], provided the theory of large cardi- nals, including determinacy, up to a first plateau of combinatorial sophistication. In this chapter we first pick up the historical threads to large cardinals in that other chapter and pursue the developments involving forcing, thereby providing a complementary overlay to the book. There is no attempt at being comprehen- sive; rather we describe the earlier pivotal results and take up the more persistent themes, those that have mainly driven the subject. 1 TO THE MODERN THEORY 1.1 Beginnings In this first section, we recall the early large cardinal landmarks, as pointed out in the author's other chapter CC, and then continue through to the first substantive elaborations of the theory in the 1960s.
    [Show full text]