Online research in philosophy

The Lowenheim-Skolem theorems say that if a first-order theory has infinite models, then it has models which are only countably infinite. Cantor's theorem says that some sets are uncountable. Together, these two theorems induce a puzzle known as Skolem's Paradox: the very axioms of (first-order) set theory which prove the existence of uncountable sets can themselves be satisfied by a merely countable model.

We present a downward Löwenheim-Skolem theorem which transfers downward formulas from L ∞,ω to L κ +, ω . The simplest instance is: Theorem 1. Let $\lambda > \kappa$ be infinite cardinals, and let L be a similarity type of cardinality κ at most. For every L-structure M of cardinality λ and every $X \subseteq M$ there exists a model $N \prec M$ containing the set X of power |X| · κ such that for every pair of finite sequences a, b ∈ N $\langle N, \mathbf{a}\rangle \equiv_{\| N \|^+,\omega} \langle N, \mathbf{b}\rangle \Leftrightarrow \langle M, \mathbf{a}\rangle \equiv_{\infty,\omega} \langle M, \mathbf{b}\rangle.$ The following theorem is an application: Theorem 2. Let $\lambda , and suppose χ is a Ramsey cardinal greater than λ. If T has the (χ, L κ +, ω -unsuperstability property, then T has the (χ, L λ +, ω )-unsuperstability property.

Skolem's Paradox involves a seeming conflict between two theorems from classical logic. The Löwenheim Skolem theorem says that if a first order theory has infinite models, then it has models whose domains are only countable. Cantor's theorem says that some sets are uncountable. Skolem's Paradox arises when we notice that the basic principles of Cantorian set theory—i.e., the very principles used to prove Cantor's theorem on the existence of uncountable sets—can themselves be formulated as a collection of first order sentences. How can the very principles which prove the existence of uncountable sets be satisfied by a model which is itself only countable? How can a countable model satisfy the first order sentence which says that there are uncountably many mathematical objects—e.g., uncountably many real numbers?

The topos theory gives tools for unified proofs of theorems for model theory for various semantics and logics. We introduce the notion of power and the notion of generalized quantifier in topos and we formulate sufficient condition for such quantifiers in order that they fulfil downward Skolem-Löwenheim theorem when added to the language. In the next paper, in print, we will show that this sufficient condition is fulfilled in a vast class of Grothendieck toposes for the general and the existential quantifiers.

The dream of a community of philosophers engaged in inquiry with shared standards of evidence and justification has long been with us. It has led some thinkers puzzled by our mathematical experience to look to mathematics for adjudication between competing views. I am skeptical of this approach and consider Skolem's philosophical uses of the Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem to exemplify it. I argue that these uses invariably beg the questions at issue. I say ?uses?, because I claim further that Skolem shifted his position on the philosophical significance of the theorem as a result of a shift in his background beliefs. The nature of this shift and possible explanations for it are investigated. Ironically, Skolem's own case provides a historical example of the philosophical flexibility of his theorem. Our suspicion ought always to be aroused when a proof proves more than its means allow it. Something of this sort might be called ?a puffed-up proof?. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Remarks on the foundations of mathematics (revised edition), vol. 2, 21.

The Löwenheim-Skolem theorem was published in Skolem's long paper of 1920, with the first section dedicated to the theorem. The second section of the paper contains a proof-theoretical analysis of derivations in lattice theory. The main result, otherwise believed to have been established in the late 1980s, was a polynomial-time decision algorithm for these derivations. Skolem did not develop any notation for the representation of derivations, which makes the proofs of his results hard to follow. Such a formal notation is given here by which these proofs become transparent. A third section of Skolem's paper gives an analysis for derivations in plane projective geometry. To clear a gap in Skolem's result, a new conservativity property is shown for projective geometry, to the effect that a proper use of the axiom that gives the uniqueness of connecting lines and intersection points requires a conclusion with proper cases (logically, a disjunction in a positive part) to be proved. The forgotten parts of Skolem's first paper on the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem are the perhaps earliest combinatorial analyses of formal mathematical proofs, and at least the earliest analyses with profound results.

This paper is a continuation of the investigation from [13]. The main theorem states that the general and the existential quantifiers are (, -reducible in some Grothendieck toposes. Using this result and Theorems 4.1, 4.2 [13] we get the downward Skolem-Löwenheim theorem for semantics in these toposes.