Strong axioms of infinity in NFU

Journal of Symbolic Logic 66 (1):87-116 (2001)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper discusses a sequence of extensions ofNFU, Jensen's improvement of Quine's set theory “New Foundations” (NF) of [16].The original theoryNFof Quine continues to present difficulties. After 60 years of intermittent investigation, it is still not known to be consistent relative to any set theory in which we have confidence. Specker showed in [20] thatNFdisproves Choice (and so proves Infinity). Even if one assumes the consistency ofNF, one is hampered by the lack of powerful methods for proofs of consistency and independence such as are available for use withZFC; very clever work has been done with permutation methods, starting with [18] and [5], and exemplified more recently by [14], but permutation methods can only be applied to show the consistency or independence of unstratified sentences (see the definition ofNFUbelow for a definition of stratification). For example, there is no method available to determine whether the assertion “the continuum can be well-ordered” is consistent with or independent ofNF. There is one substantial independence result for an assertion with nontrivial stratified consequences, using metamathematical methods: this is Orey's proof of the independence of the Axiom of Counting fromNF(see below for a statement of this axiom).We mention these difficulties only to reassure the reader of their irrelevance to the present work. Jensen's modification of “New Foundations” (in [13]), which was to restrict extensionality to sets, allowing many non-sets (urelements) with no elements, has almost magical effects.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,532

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Errata in "Strong Axioms of Infinity in NFU".M. Holmes - 2001 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 66 (4):1974-1974.
Errata in "strong axioms of infinity in NFU".M. Randall Holmes - 2001 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 66 (4):1974.
Strong axioms of infinity in NFU.M. Randall Holmes - 2001 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 66 (1):87-116.
Strong axioms of infinity and elementary embeddings.Robert M. Solovay - 1978 - Annals of Mathematical Logic 13 (1):73.
A Relativization of Axioms of Strong Infinity to ^|^omega;1.Gaisi Takeuti - 1970 - Annals of the Japan Association for Philosophy of Science 3 (5):191-204.
Reflecting on Absolute Infinity.Philip Welch & Leon Horsten - 2016 - Journal of Philosophy 113 (2):89-111.
Strong Axioms of Infinity and Elementary Embeddings.Carlos Augusto Di Prisco - 1986 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 51 (4):1066-1068.
Cantor’s Absolute in Metaphysics and Mathematics.Kai Hauser - 2013 - International Philosophical Quarterly 53 (2):161-188.
The strength of extensionality I—weak weak set theories with infinity.Kentaro Sato - 2009 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 157 (2-3):234-268.
Global Reflection Principles.P. D. Welch - 2017 - In I. Niiniluoto, H. Leitgeb, P. Seppälä & E. Sober (eds.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science - Proceedings of the 15th International Congress, 2015. College Publications.
Implications between strong large cardinal axioms.Richard Laver - 1997 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 90 (1-3):79-90.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-02-21

Downloads
8 (#1,309,940)

6 months
3 (#967,806)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

Set Theory.Thomas Jech - 1999 - Studia Logica 63 (2):300-300.
Typical Ambiguity.Ernst P. Specker - 1962 - In Ernest Nagel (ed.), Logic, methodology, and philosophy of science. Stanford, Calif.,: Stanford University Press. pp. 116--23.
Review Essay: Reflections on Kurt GodelReflections on Kurt Godel.Palle Yourgrau & Hao Wang - 1989 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 50 (2):391.

View all 7 references / Add more references