Intuitionistic sets and ordinals
Journal of Symbolic Logic 61 (3):705-744 (1996)
| Abstract | Transitive extensional well founded relations provide an intuitionistic notion of ordinals which admits transfinite induction. However these ordinals are not directed and their successor operation is poorly behaved, leading to problems of functoriality. We show how to make the successor monotone by introducing plumpness, which strengthens transitivity. This clarifies the traditional development of successors and unions, making it intuitionistic; even the (classical) proof of trichotomy is made simpler. The definition is, however, recursive, and, as their name suggests, the plump ordinals grow very rapidly. Directedness must be defined hereditarily. It is orthogonal to the other four conditions, and the lower powerdomain construction is shown to be the universal way of imposing it. We treat ordinals as order-types, and develop a corresponding set theory similar to Osius' transitive set objects. This presents Mostowski's theorem as a reflection of categories, and set-theoretic union is a corollary of the adjoint functor theorem. Mostowski's theorem and the rank for some of the notions of ordinal are formulated and proved without the axiom of replacement, but this seems to be unavoidable for the plump rank. The comparison between sets and toposes is developed as far as the identification of replacement with completeness, and there are some suggestions for further work in this area. Each notion of set or ordinal defines a free algebra for one of the theories discussed by Joyal and Moerdijk, namely joins of a family of arities together with an operation s satisfying conditions such as x ≤ sx, monotonicity or s(x ∨ y) ≤ sx ∨ sy. Finally we discuss the fixed point theorem for a monotone endofunction s of a poset with least element and directed joins. This may be proved under each of a variety of additional hypotheses. We explain why it is unlikely that any notion of ordinal obeying the induction scheme for arbitrary predicates will prove the pure result | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,701 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesThomas Jech & Saharon Shelah (1990). Full Reflection of Stationary Sets Below ℵω. Journal of Symbolic Logic 55 (2):822 - 830.
Daniel W. Cunningham (2010). A Covering Lemma for HOD of K (ℝ). Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 51 (4):427-442.
Matt Kaufmann (1983). Blunt and Topless End Extensions of Models of Set Theory. Journal of Symbolic Logic 48 (4):1053-1073.
Pierluigi Minari, Mitio Takano & Hiroakira Ono (1990). Intermediate Predicate Logics Determined by Ordinals. Journal of Symbolic Logic 55 (3):1099-1124.
Michael Rathjen (2006). Theories and Ordinals in Proof Theory. Synthese 148 (3):719 - 743.
A. R. D. Mathias (2001). Slim Models of Zermelo Set Theory. Journal of Symbolic Logic 66 (2):487-496.
Jeffry L. Hirst (1999). Ordinal Inequalities, Transfinite Induction, and Reverse Mathematics. Journal of Symbolic Logic 64 (2):769-774.
Jeremy Avigad (2002). An Ordinal Analysis of Admissible Set Theory Using Recursion on Ordinal Notations. Journal of Mathematical Logic 2 (01):91-112.
John E. Hutchinson (1976). Order Types of Ordinals in Models of Set Theory. Journal of Symbolic Logic 41 (2):489-502.
Peter Koepke (2005). Turing Computations on Ordinals. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 11 (3):377-397.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads1 ( #274,921 of 549,117 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
