We shed light on an old problem by showing that the logic LP cannot define a binary connective $\odot$ obeying detachment in the sense that every valuation satisfying $\varphi$ and $(\varphi\odot\psi)$ also satisfies $\psi$ , except trivially. We derive this as a corollary of a more general result concerning variable sharing.

The phrase ‘The iterative conception of sets’ conjures up a picture of a particular settheoretic universe – the cumulative hierarchy – and the constant conjunction of phrasewith-picture is so reliable that people tend to think that the cumulative hierarchy is all there is to the iterative conception of sets: if you conceive sets iteratively, then the result is the cumulative hierarchy. In this paper, I shall be arguing that this is a mistake: the iterative conception of set is a good (...) one, for all the usual reasons. However, the cumulative hierarchy is merely one way among many of working out this conception, and arguments in favour of an iterative conception have been mistaken for arguments in favour of this one special instance of it. (This may be the point to get out of the way the observation that although philosophers of mathematics write of the iterative conception of set, what they really mean – in the terminology of modern computer science at least – is the recursive conception of sets. Nevertheless, having got that quibble off my chest, I shall continue to write of the iterative conception like everyone else.). (shrink)

We consider the quantifier hierarchy of Takahashi [1972] and show how it gives rise to reflection theorems for some large cardinals in ZF, a new natural subtheory of Zermelo's set theory, a potentially useful new reduction of the consistency problem for Quine's NF, and a sharpening of another reduction of this problem due to Boffa.

Many mathematical objects arise from equivalence classes and invite implementation as those classes. Set-existence principles that would enable this are incompatible with ZFC's unrestricted aussonderung but there are set theories which admit more instances than does ZF. NF provides equivalence classes for stratified relations only. Church's construction provides equivalence classes for “low” sets, and thus, for example, a set of all ordinals. However, that set has an ordinal in turn which is not a member of the set constructed; so no (...) set of all ordinals is obtained thereby. This “recurrence problem” is discussed. (shrink)

Many mathematical objects arise from equivalence classes and invite implementation as those classes. Set-existence principles that would enable this are incompatible with ZFC's unrestricted _aussonderung_ but there are set theories which admit more instances than does ZF. NF provides equivalence classes for stratified relations only. Church's construction provides equivalence classes for "low" sets, and thus, for example, a set of all ordinals. However, that set has an ordinal in turn which is not a member of the set constructed; so no (...) set of _all_ ordinals is obtained thereby. This "recurrence problem" is discussed. (shrink)

It is shown that, according to NF, many of the assertions of ordinal arithmetic involving the T-function which is peculiar to NF turn out to be equivalent to the truth-in-certain-permutation-models of assertions which have perfectly sensible ZF-style meanings, such as: the existence of wellfounded sets of great size or rank, or the nonexistence of small counterexamples to the wellfoundedness of ∈. Everything here holds also for NFU if the permutations are taken to fix all urelemente.

It is shown in ZF (without choice) that if there is a finite-to-one map P(X) → X, then X is finite.

We identify complete fragments of the simple theory of types with infinity and Quine’s new foundations set theory. We show that TSTI decides every sentence ϕ in the language of type theory that is in one of the following forms: ϕ=∀x1r1⋯∀xkrk∃y1s1⋯∃ylslθ where the superscripts denote the types of the variables, s1>⋯>sl, and θ is quantifier-free, ϕ=∀x1r1⋯∀xkrk∃y1s⋯∃ylsθ where the superscripts denote the types of the variables and θ is quantifier-free. This shows that NF decides every stratified sentence ϕ in the language (...) of set theory that is in one of the following forms: ϕ=∀x1⋯∀xk∃y1⋯∃ylθ where θ is quantifier-free and ϕ admits a stratification that assigns distinct values to all of the variables y1,…,yl, ϕ=∀x1⋯∀xk∃y1⋯∃ylθ where θ is quantifier-free and ϕ admits a stratification that assigns the same value to all of the variables y1,…,yl. (shrink)

Let ZFB be ZF + "every set is the same size as a wellfounded set". Then the following are true. Every sentence true in every (Rieger-Bernays) permutation model of a model of ZF is a theorem of ZFB. (i.e.. ZFB is the theory of Rieger-Bernays permutation models of models of ZF) ZF and ZFAFA are both extensions of ZFB conservative for stratified formulæ. The class of models of ZFB is closed under creation of Rieger-Bernays permutation models.

We present an order-theoretic analysis of set-theoretic paradoxes. This analysis will show that a large variety of purely set-theoretic paradoxes (including the various Russell paradoxes as well as all the familiar implementations of the paradoxes of Mirimanoff and Burali-Forti) are all instances of a single limitative phenomenon.

In general little thought is given to the general question of how to implement mathematical objects in set theory. It is clear that—at various times in the past—people have gone to considerable lengths to devise implementations with nice properties. There is a litera- ture on the evolution of the Wiener-Kuratowski ordered pair, and a discussion by Quine of the merits of an ordered-pair implemen- tation that makes every set an ordered pair. The implementation of ordinals as Von Neumann ordinals is (...) so attractive that it is uni- versally used in all set theories which have enough replacement to prove Mostowski’s collapse lemma. I have frequently complained in the past about the widespread habit of referring to implementations of pairs (ordinals etc) as definitions of pairs (etc). My point here is a different one: generally little attention has been paid to the question of what makes an implementation a good implementation. In most cases of interest the merits of the candidates are uncontroversial. What I want to examine here is an example where there are com- peting implementations for ordered pairs, and—although it is clear to the cognoscenti and also (with a bit of arm-waving) plausible to the logician in the street that some of the impossible candidates are impossible, nobody has ever given a satisfactory explanation of why this is so. (shrink)

As such this book fills a void in the philosophical literature and presents a challenge to every would-be (anti-)reductionist.

Sharvy’s puzzle concerns a situation in which common knowledge of two parties is obtained by repeated observation each of the other, no fixed point being reached in finite time. Can a fixed point be reached?

Sharvy’s puzzle concerns a situation in which common knowledge of two parties is obtained by repeated observation each of the other, no fixed point being reached in finite time. Can a fixed point be reached?

A version of the Erdös-Rado theorem on partitions of the unordered n-tuples from uncountable sets is proved, without using the axiom of choice. The case with exponent 1 is just the Sierpinski-Hartogs' result that $\aleph (\alpha)\leq 2^{2^{2^{\alpha}}}$.