Completed in 1983, this work culminates nearly half a century of the late Alfred Tarski's foundational studies in logic, mathematics, and the philosophy of science. Written in collaboration with Steven Givant, the book appeals to a very broad audience, and requires only a familiarity with first-order logic. It is of great interest to logicians and mathematicians interested in the foundations of mathematics, but also to philosophers interested in logic, semantics, algebraic logic, or the methodology of the deductive sciences, and to (...) computer scientists interested in developing very simple computer languages rich enough for mathematical and scientific applications. The authors show that set theory and number theory can be developed within the framework of a new, different, and simple equational formalism, closely related to the formalism of the theory of relation algebras. There are no variables, quantifiers, or sentential connectives. Predicates are constructed from two atomic binary predicates (which denote the relations of identity and set-theoretic membership) by repeated applications of four operators that are analogues of the well-known operations of relative product, conversion, Boolean addition, and complementation. All mathematical statements are expressed as equations between predicates. There are ten logical axiom schemata and just one rule of inference: the one of replacing equals by equals, familiar from high school algebra. Though such a simple formalism may appear limited in its powers of expression and proof, this book proves quite the opposite. The authors show that it provides a framework for the formalization of practically all known systems of set theory, and hence for the development of all classical mathematics. The book contains numerous applications of the main results to diverse areas of foundational research: propositional logic; semantics; first-order logics with finitely many variables; definability and axiomatizability questions in set theory, Peano arithmetic, and real number theory; representation and decision problems in the theory of relation algebras; and decision problems in equational logic. (shrink)

A model M = (M, E,...) of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory ZF is said to be θ-like, where E interprets ∈ and θ is an uncountable cardinal, if |M| = θ but $|\{b \in M: bEa\}| for each a ∈ M. An immediate corollary of the classical theorem of Keisler and Morley on elementary end extensions of models of set theory is that every consistent extension of ZF has an ℵ 1 -like model. Coupled with Chang's two cardinal theorem (...) this implies that if θ is a regular cardinal θ such that $2^{ then every consistent extension of ZF also has a θ + -like model. In particular, in the presence of the continuum hypothesis every consistent extension of ZF has an ℵ 2 -like model. Here we prove: THEOREM A. If θ has the tree property then the following are equivalent for any completion T of ZFC: (i) T has a θ-like model. (ii) $\Phi \subseteq T$ , where Φ is the recursive set of axioms {∃ κ(κ is n-Mahlo and "V κ is a Σ n -elementary submodel of the universe"): n ∈ ω}. (iii) T has a λ-like model for every uncountable cardinal λ. THEOREM B. The following are equiconsistent over ZFC: (i) "There exists an ω-Mahlo cardinal". (ii) "For every finite language L, all ℵ 2 -like models of ZFC(L) satisfy the scheme Φ(L). (shrink)

The paper discusses a relatively underexamined element of Wittgenstein’s philosophy of mathematics associated with his critique of set theory. I outline Wittgenstein’s objections to the theories of Dedekind and Cantor, including the confounding of extension and intension, the faulty definition of the infinite set as infinite extension and the critique of Cantor’s diagonal proof. One of Wittgenstein’s major objections to set theory was that the concept of the size of infinite sets, which Cantor expressed by means of symbols (...) אₒ and c, had no application, i.e. that there was no grammatical technique that could show how such expressions were to be used. Notions of set theory are, so to speak, exterior – they find themselves outdoors, outside of what we usually do. They form a discourse that takes us beyond the horizon of everydayness and commonality. They are like an engine idling of the language of mathematics. (shrink)

This book is designed for an introductory course in logic on the freshman-sophomore level. The approach to logic through set theory is justified by the fundamental importance of set theory in mathematics, and by the fact that most students entering college are acquainted with set theory. The author begins by explaining the basic notions and laws of set theory, and shows how the four standard types of propositions are translated into the notation of set theory. (...) Propositional logic is introduced and related to set theory by interpreting truth-tables in terms of sets and subsets. A simplified first order functional calculus is developed without quantifiers by using an unconventional notation resembling that of set theory as closely as possible. The nature and techniques of deductive proof are treated at length. Beyond these formal topics there are interesting discussions of the application of logical laws in ordinary language arguments, in probability theory, and in circuit theory. The material is organized in units suitable for fifty minute classes with excellent exercises at the end of each unit. Answers are provided to half the questions in the exercises to allow the student to test himself. The book ends with a brief note on scientific discovery and axiomatics.--T. D. Z. (shrink)

In previous works, an ontology of properties for quantum mechanics has been proposed, according to which quantum systems are bundles of properties with no principle of individuality. The aim of the present article is to show that, since quasi-set theory is particularly suited for dealing with aggregates of items that do not belong to the traditional category of individual, it supplies an adequate meta-language to speak of the proposed ontology of properties and its structure.

A structural (as opposed to Zadeh's quantitative) approach to fuzziness is given, based on the operator "very", which is added to the language of set theory together with some elementary axioms about it. Due to the axiom of foundation and to a lifting axiom, the operator is proved trivial on the cumulative hierarchy of ZF. So we have to drop either foundation or lifting. Since fuzziness concerns complemented predicates rather than sets, a class theory is needed for (...) the very operator. And of them the Kelley-Morse (KM) theory is more appropriate for reasons of class existence. Several definable realizations of the very-operator are presented in KM⁻. In the last section we consider the operator "very" without the lifting axiom on classes of urelements. To each structurally fuzzy set X a traditional quantitative fuzzy set X̄ is assigned -- its quantitative representation. This way we are able partly to recover ordinary fuzzy sets from the structurally fuzzy ones. (shrink)

A structural approach to fuzziness is given, based on the operator "very", which is added to the language of set theory together with some elementary axioms about it. Due to the axiom of foundation and to a lifting axiom, the operator is proved trivial on the cumulative hierarchy of ZF. So we have to drop either foundation or lifting. Since fuzziness concerns complemented predicates rather than sets, a class theory is needed for the very operator. And of (...) them the Kelley-Morse theory is more appropriate for reasons of class existence. Several definable realizations of the very-operator are presented in KM⁻. In the last section we consider the operator "very" without the lifting axiom on classes of urelements. To each structurally fuzzy set X a traditional quantitative fuzzy set X̄ is assigned -- its quantitative representation. This way we are able partly to recover ordinary fuzzy sets from the structurally fuzzy ones. (shrink)

This is an introductory paper to a series of results linking generic absoluteness results for second and third order number theory to the model theoretic notion of model companionship. Specifically we develop here a general framework linking Woodin’s generic absoluteness results for second order number theory and the theory of universally Baire sets to model companionship and show that (with the required care in details) a $$\Pi _2$$ -property formalized in an appropriate language for second order (...) number theory is forcible from some $$T\supseteq \mathsf {ZFC}+$$ large cardinals if and only if it is consistent with the universal fragment of T if and only if it is realized in the model companion of T. In particular we show that the first order theory of $$H_{\omega _1}$$ is the model companion of the first order theory of the universe of sets assuming the existence of class many Woodin cardinals, and working in a signature with predicates for $$\Delta _0$$ -properties and for all universally Baire sets of reals. We will extend these results also to the theory of $$H_{\aleph _2}$$ in a follow up of this paper. (shrink)

Some philosophers have argued that the open-endedness of the set concept has revisionary consequences for the semantics and logic of set theory. I consider (several variants of) an argument for this claim, premissed on the view that quantification in mathematics cannot outrun our conceptual abilities. The argument urges a non-standard semantics for set theory that allegedly sanctions a non-classical logic. I show that the views about quantification the argument relies on turn out to sanction a classical semantics and (...) logic after all. More generally, this article constitutes a case study in whether the need to account for conceptual progress can ever motivate a revision of semantics or logic. I end by expressing skepticism about the prospects of a so-called non-proof-based justification for this kind of revisionism about set theory. (shrink)

Some philosophers have argued that the open-endedness of the set concept has revisionary consequences for the semantics and logic of set theory. I consider (several variants of) an argument for this claim, premissed on the view that quantification in mathematics cannot outrun our conceptual abilities. The argument urges a non-standard semantics for set theory that allegedly sanctions a non-classical logic. I show that the views about quantification the argument relies on turn out to sanction a classical semantics and (...) logic after all. More generally, this article constitutes a case study in whether the need to account for conceptual progress can ever motivate a revision of semantics or logic. I end by expressing skepticism about the prospects of a so-called non-proof-based justification for this kind of revisionism about set theory. (shrink)

As is well known, some paradoxes arise through inadequate analysis of the meanings of terms in a language, an adequate analysis showing that the paradoxes arise through a lack of separation of an object theory and a metatheory. Under such an adequate analysis in which parts of the metatheory are modelled in the object theory, the paradoxes give way to remarkable theorems establishing limitations of the object theory.Such a modelling is often accomplished by a Gödel numbering. (...) Here we shall use a somewhat different technique in axiomatic set theory, from which we shall reap a few results having the effect of comparing the strength of various axiom schema of comprehension for sets and classes. Similar results were obtained by A. Mostowski [7] using Gödel numbering. (shrink)

. We demonstrate that a comprehensive nonstandard set theory can be developed in the standard $\displaystyle{\in}$ -language. As an illustration, a nonstandard ${\sf Law of Large Numbers}$ is obtained.

A survey of the isomorphic submodels of Vω, the set of hereditarily finite sets. In the usual language of set theory, Vω has 2ℵ0 isomorphic submodels. But other set-theoretic languages give different systems of submodels. For example, the language of adjunction allows only countably many isomorphic submodels of Vω.

In this paper I propose a new approach to the foundation of mathematics: non-monotonic set theory. I present two completely different methods to develop set theories based on adaptive logics. For both theories there is a finitistic non-triviality proof and both theories contain (a subtle version of) the comprehension axiom schema. The first theory contains only a maximal selection of instances of the comprehension schema that do not lead to inconsistencies. The second allows for all the instances, also (...) the inconsistent ones, but restricts the conclusions one can draw from them in order to avoid triviality. The theories have enough expressive power to form a justification/explication for most of the established results of classical mathematics. They are therefore not limited by Gödel’s incompleteness theorems. This remarkable result is possible because of the non-recursive character of the final proofs of theorems of non-monotonic theories. I shall argue that, precisely because of the computational complexity of these final proofs, we cannot claim that non-monotonic theories are ideal foundations for mathematics. Nevertheless, thanks to their strength, first order language and the recursive dynamic (defeasible) proofs of theorems of the theory, the non-monotonic theories form (what I call) interesting pragmatic foundations. (shrink)

This paper discusses some of the ways in which Martin-Löf type theory differs from set theory. The discussion concentrates on conceptual, rather than technical, differences. It revolves around four topics: sets versus types; syntax; functions; and identity. The difference between sets and types is spelt out as the difference between unified pluralities and kinds, or sorts. A detailed comparison is then offered of the syntax of the two languages. Emphasis is placed on the distinction between proposition and judgement, (...) drawn by type theory, but not by set theory. Unlike set theory, type theory treats the notion of function as primitive. It is shown that certain inconveniences pertaining to function application that afflicts the set- theoretical account of functions are thus avoided. Finally, the distinction, drawn in type theory, between judgemental and propositional identity is discussed. It is argued that the criterion of identity for a domain cannot be formulated in terms of propositional identity. It follows that the axiom of extensionality cannot be taken as a statement of the criterion of identity for sets. (shrink)

This book addresses the logical aspects of the foundations of scientific theories. Even though the relevance of formal methods in the study of scientific theories is now widely recognized and regaining prominence, the issues covered here are still not generally discussed in philosophy of science. The authors focus mainly on the role played by the underlying formal apparatuses employed in the construction of the models of scientific theories, relating the discussion with the so-called semantic approach to scientific theories. The book (...) describes the role played by this metamathematical framework in three main aspects: considerations of formal languages employed to axiomatize scientific theories, the role of the axiomatic method itself, and the way set-theoretical structures, which play the role of the models of theories, are developed. The authors also discuss the differences and philosophical relevance of the two basic ways of aximoatizing a scientific theory, namely Patrick Suppes’ set theoretical predicates and the "da Costa and Chuaqui" approach. This book engages with important discussions of the nature of scientific theories and will be a useful resource for researchers and upper-level students working in philosophy of science. (shrink)

In many ways set theory lies at the heart of modern mathematics, and it does powerful work both philosophical and mathematical – as a foundation for the subject. However, certain philosophical problems raise serious doubts about our acceptance of the axioms of set theory. In a detailed and original reassessment of these axioms, Sharon Berry uses a potentialist approach to develop a unified determinate conception of set-theoretic truth that vindicates many of our intuitive expectations regarding set theory. (...) Berry further defends her approach against a number of possible objections, and she shows how a notion of logical possibility that is useful in formulating Potentialist set theory connects in important ways with philosophy of language, metametaphysics and philosophy of science. Her book will appeal to readers with interests in the philosophy of set theory, modal logic, and the role of mathematics in the sciences. (shrink)

This paper discusses some of the ways in which Martin-Löf type theory differs from set theory. The discussion concentrates on conceptual, rather than technical, differences. It revolves around four topics: sets versus types; syntax; functions; and identity. The difference between sets and types is spelt out as the difference between unified pluralities and kinds, or sorts. A detailed comparison is then offered of the syntax of the two languages. Emphasis is put on the distinction between proposition and judgement, (...) drawn by type theory, but not by set theory. Unlike set theory, type theory treats the notion of function as primitive. It is shown that certain inconveniences pertaining to function application that afflicts the set-theoretical account of functions are thus avoided. Finally, the distinction, drawn in type theory, between judgemental and propositional identity is discussed. It is argued that the criterion of identity for a domain cannot be formulated in terms of propositional identity. It follows that the axiom of extensionality cannot be taken as a statement of the criterion of identity for sets. (shrink)

In this paper I argue that category theory ought to be seen as providing the language for mathematical discourse. Against foundational approaches, I argue that there is no need to reduce either the content or structure of mathematical concepts and theories to the constituents of either the universe of sets or the category of categories. I assign category theory the role of organizing what we say about the content and structure of both mathematical concepts and theories. Insofar, (...) then, as the structuralist sees mathematics as talking about structures and their morphology, I contend that category theory furnishes a framework for mathematical structuralism. (shrink)

Naive set theory, as found in Frege and Russell, is almost universally believed to have been shown to be false by the set-theoretic paradoxes. The standard response has been to rank sets into one or other hierarchy. However it is extremely difficult to characterise the nature of any such hierarchy without falling into antinomies as severe as the set-theoretic paradoxes themselves. Various attempts to surmount this problem are examined and criticised. It is argued that the rejection of naive set (...) theory inevitably leads one into a severe scepticism with regard to the feasibility of giving a systematic semantics for set theory. It is further argued that this is not just a problem for philosophers of mathematics. Semantic scepticism in set theory will almost inevitably spill over into total pessimism regarding the prospects for an explanatory theory of language and meaning in general. The conclusion is that those who wish to avoid such intellectual defeatism need to look seriously at the possibility that it is the logic used in the derivation of the paradoxes, and not the naive set theory itself, which is at fault. (shrink)

“Small” large cardinal notions in the language of ZFC are those large cardinal notions that are consistent with V = L. Besides their original formulation in classical set theory, we have a variety of analogue notions in systems of admissible set theory, admissible recursion theory, constructive set theory, constructive type theory, explicit mathematics and recursive ordinal notations (as used in proof theory). On the face of it, it is surprising that such distinctively set-theoretical (...) notions have analogues in such disaparate and relatively constructive contexts. There must be an underlying reason why that is possible (and, incidentally, why “large” large cardinal notions have not led to comparable analogues). My long term aim is to develop a common language in which such notions can be expressed and can be interpreted both in their original classical form and in their analogue form in each of these special constructive and semi-constructive cases. This is a program in progress. What is done here, to begin with, is to show how that can be done to a considerable extent in the settings of classical and admissible set theory (and thence, admissible recursion theory). The approach taken here is to expand the language of set theory to allow us to talk about (possibly partial) operations applicable both to sets and to operations and to formulate the large cardinal notions in question in terms of operational closure conditions; at the same time only minimal existence axioms are posited for sets. The resulting system, called Operational Set Theory, is a partial adaptation to the set-theoretical framework of the explicit mathematics framework Feferman (1975). The.. (shrink)

This book bridges the gaps between logic, mathematics and computer science by delving into the theory of well-quasi orders, also known as wqos. This highly active branch of combinatorics is deeply rooted in and between many fields of mathematics and logic, including proof theory, commutative algebra, braid groups, graph theory, analytic combinatorics, theory of relations, reverse mathematics and subrecursive hierarchies. As a unifying concept for slick finiteness or termination proofs, wqos have been rediscovered in diverse contexts, (...) and proven to be extremely useful in computer science. The book introduces readers to the many facets of, and recent developments in, wqos through chapters contributed by scholars from various fields. As such, it offers a valuable asset for logicians, mathematicians and computer scientists, as well as scholars and students. (shrink)

Set-theoretic and category-theoretic foundations represent different perspectives on mathematical subject matter. In particular, category-theoretic language focusses on properties that can be determined up to isomorphism within a category, whereas set theory admits of properties determined by the internal structure of the membership relation. Various objections have been raised against this aspect of set theory in the category-theoretic literature. In this article, we advocate a methodological pluralism concerning the two foundational languages, and provide a theory that fruitfully (...) interrelates a `structural' perspective to a set-theoretic one. We present a set-theoretic system that is able to talk about structures more naturally, and argue that it provides an important perspective on plausibly structural properties such as cardinality. We conclude the language of set theory can provide useful information about the notion of mathematical structure. (shrink)

This book maps out the lexico-conceptual articulation of Greene's narrative dramatization of ethical situations. This main aim issues from three working hypotheses: in the first place, a reduced set of terms such as peace, despair, pity or commitment have a striking lexical recurrence in Greene's texts. They are considered here as keywords that articulate his discourse at a conceptual level. In the second place, those keywords are invested with narrative potential. They have the capacity to generate narrative situations and developments. (...) In the third place, they articulate a particular narrative pattern. Such lexico-conceptual articulation is shaped mainly as ethical conflict dramatized in narrative form. Drawing on contemporary theories of community and ethics developed by Jean-Luc Nancy, Maurice Blanchot, J. Hillis Miller or Derek Attridge, this book sets out to explore a recurrent narrative pattern in Greene's work, emerging from his personal use of the language of ethics and community. (shrink)

Constructive and intuitionistic Zermelo-Fraenkel set theories are axiomatic theories of sets in the style of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZF) which are based on intuitionistic logic. They were introduced in the 1970's and they represent a formal context within which to codify mathematics based on intuitionistic logic. They are formulated on the basis of the standard first order language of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory and make no direct use of inherently constructive ideas. In working in constructive and intuitionistic ZF (...) we can thus to some extent rely on our familiarity with ZF and its heuristics. -/- Notwithstanding the similarities with classical set theory, the concepts of set defined by constructive and intuitionistic set theories differ considerably from that of the classical tradition; they also differ from each other. The techniques utilised to work within them, as well as to obtain metamathematical results about them, also diverge in some respects from the classical tradition because of their commitment to intuitionistic logic. In fact, as is common in intuitionistic settings, a plethora of semantic and proof-theoretic methods are available for the study of constructive and intuitionistic set theories. -/- The entry introduces the main features of Constructive and Intuitionistic ZF and offers links to the relevant bibliography. (shrink)

Appeal to standard set theory in minimalist syntax is shown to be in conflict with the goal of analyzing dependency formation, a.k.a. movement, as involving genuine constituent copies. The underlying tension is due to extensionality, which—other things being equal—favors a perspective on dependencies in terms of multidominance. The above argument is developed against the backdrop of a recent exposition of minimalist syntax :229–261, 2019), which can be seen as exemplary. The resulting critical assessment should be taken as removing obstacles (...) on the way toward proper minimalist foundations for syntactic theory. (shrink)

We try to answer the question which is the “right” foundation of mathematics, second order logic or set theory. Since the former is usually thought of as a formal language and the latter as a first order theory, we have to rephrase the question. We formulate what we call the second order view and a competing set theory view, and then discuss the merits of both views. On the surface these two views seem to be in (...) manifest conflict with each other. However, our conclusion is that it is very difficult to see any real difference between the two. We analyze a phenomenon we call internal categoricity which extends the familiar categoricity results of second order logic to Henkin models and show that set theory enjoys the same kind of internal categoricity. Thus the existence of non-standard models, which is usually taken as a property of first order set theory, and categoricity, which is usually taken as a property of second order axiomatizations, can coherently coexist when put into their proper context. We also take a fresh look at complete second order axiomatizations and give a hierarchy result for second order characterizable structures. Finally we consider the problem of existence in mathematics from both points of view and find that second order logic depends on what we call large domain assumptions, which come quite close to the meaning of the axioms of set theory. (shrink)

Boolean-valued models of set theory were independently introduced by Scott, Solovay and Vopěnka in 1965, offering a natural and rich alternative for describing forcing. The original method was adapted by Takeuti, Titani, Kozawa and Ozawa to lattice-valued models of set theory. After this, Löwe and Tarafder proposed a class of algebras based on a certain kind of implication which satisfy several axioms of ZF. From this class, they found a specific 3-valued model called PS3 which satisfies all the (...) axioms of ZF, and can be expanded with a paraconsistent negation *, thus obtaining a paraconsistent model of ZF. The logic (PS3 ,*) coincides (up to language) with da Costa and D'Ottaviano logic J3, a 3-valued paraconsistent logic that have been proposed independently in the literature by several authors and with different motivations such as CluNs, LFI1 and MPT. We propose in this paper a family of algebraic models of ZFC based on LPT0, another linguistic variant of J3 introduced by us in 2016. The semantics of LPT0, as well as of its first-order version QLPT0, is given by twist structures defined over Boolean agebras. From this, it is possible to adapt the standard Boolean-valued models of (classical) ZFC to twist-valued models of an expansion of ZFC by adding a paraconsistent negation. We argue that the implication operator of LPT0 is more suitable for a paraconsistent set theory than the implication of PS3, since it allows for genuinely inconsistent sets w such that [(w = w)] = 1/2 . This implication is not a 'reasonable implication' as defined by Löwe and Tarafder. This suggests that 'reasonable implication algebras' are just one way to define a paraconsistent set theory. Our twist-valued models are adapted to provide a class of twist-valued models for (PS3,*), thus generalizing Löwe and Tarafder result. It is shown that they are in fact models of ZFC (not only of ZF). (shrink)

According to Cantor (Mathematische Annalen 21:545–586, 1883 ; Cantor’s letter to Dedekind, 1899 ) a set is any multitude which can be thought of as one (“jedes Viele, welches sich als Eines denken läßt”) without contradiction—a consistent multitude. Other multitudes are inconsistent or paradoxical. Set theoretical paradoxes have common root—lack of understanding why some multitudes are not sets. Why some multitudes of objects of thought cannot themselves be objects of thought? Moreover, it is a logical truth that such multitudes do (...) exist. However we do not understand this logical truth so well as we understand, for example, the logical truth $${\forall x \, x = x}$$ . In this paper we formulate a logical truth which we call the productivity principle. Rusell (Proc Lond Math Soc 4(2):29–53, 1906 ) was the first one to formulate this principle, but in a restricted form and with a different purpose. The principle explicates a logical mechanism that lies behind paradoxical multitudes, and is understandable as well as any simple logical truth. However, it does not explain the concept of set. It only sets logical bounds of the concept within the framework of the classical two valued $${\in}$$ -language. The principle behaves as a logical regulator of any theory we formulate to explain and describe sets. It provides tools to identify paradoxical classes inside the theory. We show how the known paradoxical classes follow from the productivity principle and how the principle gives us a uniform way to generate new paradoxical classes. In the case of ZFC set theory the productivity principle shows that the limitation of size principles are of a restrictive nature and that they do not explain which classes are sets. The productivity principle, as a logical regulator, can have a definite heuristic role in the development of a consistent set theory. We sketch such a theory—the cumulative cardinal theory of sets. The theory is based on the idea of cardinality of collecting objects into sets. Its development is guided by means of the productivity principle in such a way that its consistency seems plausible. Moreover, the theory inherits good properties from cardinal conception and from cumulative conception of sets. Because of the cardinality principle it can easily justify the replacement axiom, and because of the cumulative property it can easily justify the power set axiom and the union axiom. It would be possible to prove that the cumulative cardinal theory of sets is equivalent to the Morse–Kelley set theory. In this way we provide a natural and plausibly consistent axiomatization for the Morse–Kelley set theory. (shrink)

Although the theory of definability had many important antecedents—such as the descriptive set theory initiated by the French semi-intuitionists in the early 1900s—the main ideas were first laid out in precise mathematical terms by Alfred Tarski beginning in 1929. We review here the basic notions of languages, explicit definability, and grammatical complexity, and emphasize common themes in the theories of definability for four important languages underlying, respectively, descriptive set theory, recursive function theory, classical pure logic, and (...) finite-universe logic. We review the history of previous studies of the similarities and differences in the theories of definability of the first three of these four languages. A seminal role leading toward unification of the theories has been played by the separation principles introduced by Nikolai Luzin in 1927. Emphasizing analogies and driving toward further unification embracing finite-universe logic we concentrate on a simple example—the first and second separation principles for existential-universal first-order sentences . Using this as a test case for the fundamental problem of how to “finitize” arguments in classical pure logic to the finite-universe case, we are led to the analogous negative solution by using the theory of certain special graphs: a graph is - special for any positive integers m , n , p , q iff it is bipartite with m red points and n blue points and for every p -tuple of red points there is a blue point to which they are all connected . As an aside we introduce for further study a natural “Ramseyesque” increasing sequence A of positive integers, where A is the least positive integer n for which an -special graph exists. (shrink)

The use of tensed language and the metaphor of set ‘formation’ found in informal descriptions of the iterative conception of set are seldom taken at all seriously. Both are eliminated in the nonmodal stage theories that formalise this account. To avoid the paradoxes, such accounts deny the Maximality thesis, the compelling thesis that any sets can form a set. This paper seeks to save the Maximality thesis by taking the tense more seriously than has been customary (although not literally). (...) A modal stage theory, MST, is developed in a bimodal language, governed by a tenselike logic. Such a language permits a very natural axiomatisation of the iterative conception, which upholds the Maximality thesis. It is argued that the modal approach is consonant with mathematical practice and a plausible metaphysics of sets and shown that MST interprets a natural extension of Zermelo set theory less the axiom of Infinity and, when extended with a further axiom concerning the extent of the hierarchy, interprets Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory. (shrink)

A practical viewpoint links reality, representation, and language to calculation by the concept of Turing (1936) machine being the mathematical model of our computers. After the Gödel incompleteness theorems (1931) or the insolvability of the so-called halting problem (Turing 1936; Church 1936) as to a classical machine of Turing, one of the simplest hypotheses is completeness to be suggested for two ones. That is consistent with the provability of completeness by means of two independent Peano arithmetics discussed in Section (...) I. Many modifications of Turing machines cum quantum ones are researched in Section II for the Halting problem and completeness, and the model of two independent Turing machines seems to generalize them. Then, that pair can be postulated as the formal definition of reality therefore being complete unlike any of them standalone, remaining incomplete without its complementary counterpart. Representation is formal defined as a one-to-one mapping between the two Turing machines, and the set of all those mappings can be considered as “language” therefore including metaphors as mappings different than representation. Section III investigates that formal relation of “reality”, “representation”, and “language” modeled by (at least two) Turing machines. The independence of (two) Turing machines is interpreted by means of game theory and especially of the Nash equilibrium in Section IV. Choice and information as the quantity of choices are involved. That approach seems to be equivalent to that based on set theory and the concept of actual infinity in mathematics and allowing of practical implementations. (shrink)

Category theory is often treated as an algebraic foundation for mathematics, and the widely known algebraization of ZF set theory in terms of this discipline is referenced as “categorical set theory” or “set theory for category theory”. The method of algebraization used in this theory has not been formulated in terms of universal algebra so far. In current paper, a _universal algebraic_ method, i.e. one formulated in terms of universal algebra, is presented and used (...) for algebraization of a ground mereological system described as “quantitative” (QMS) and of the standard set theories built upon it. The QMS is algebraized by using abelian generalized groups (AGGs) generalizing both abelian groups and Boolean algebras. To algebraize set theory, the AGG are enriched with operators to produce _extensional algebras_ (EA) of Tarskian “Boolean algebras with operators” type. EAs explicate the intuition of set theory’ universes (of discourse). The axiomatic set theory presented in this paper, named _extension theory_, previously went through an intuitive phase of development during its use by the author in computer science projects, where it served as the basis for development of a foundational data science framework and an extensional model of natural languages also outlined here. (shrink)

We propose a set theory, called NRFST, in which the Cantorian axiom of infinity is negated, and a new notion of infinity is introduced via non standard methods, i. e. via adequate notions of standard and internal, two unary predicates added to the language of ZF. After some initial results on NRFST, we investigate its relative consistency with respect to ZF and Kawai's WNST.

We prove that Standardization fails in every nontrivial universe definable in the nonstandard set theory BST, and that a natural characterization of the standard universe is both consistent with and independent of BST. As a consequence we obtain a formulation of nonstandard class theory in the ∈-language.

By obtaining several new results on Cook-style two-sorted bounded arithmetic, this paper measures the strengths of the axiom of extensionality and of other weak fundamental set-theoretic axioms in the absence of the axiom of infinity, following the author’s previous work [K. Sato, The strength of extensionality I — weak weak set theories with infinity, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 157 234–268] which measures them in the presence. These investigations provide a uniform framework in which three different kinds of reverse (...) mathematics–Friedman–Simpson’s “orthodox” reverse mathematics, Cook’s bounded reverse mathematics and large cardinal theory–can be reformulated within one language so that we can compare them more directly. (shrink)

The author's central thesis is that a knowledge of set theory can be put to good use by the linguist interested in the syntax of natural languages. The author first points out the role of set theory in formal science, and then gives a short summary of some of the more important ideas. He then develops certain relations in set theory which are of special importance in the study of languages. A fair number of examples—admittedly in rather (...) trivial form—which occur in the study of language are exhibited to show some of the applications in mind. The last few pages are devoted to a review of how his thesis has fared. Although it may seem obvious to some that set theory is the means par excellence for the formal study of any discipline, many linguists apparently do not yet see this; this book will go some way toward demonstrating this.—P. J. M. (shrink)

We present the axioms of Alternative Set Theory in the language of second-order arithmetic and study its ω- and β-models. These are expansions of the form , M ⊆ P, of nonstandard models M of Peano arithmetic such that ⊩ AST and ω ϵ M. Our main results are: A countable M ⊩ PA is β-expandable iff there is a regular well-ordering for M. Every countable β-model can be elementarily extended to an ω-model which is not a β-model. (...) The Ω-orderings of an ω-model are absolute well-orderings iff the standard system SS of M is a β-model of A−2. There are ω-expandable models M such that no ω-expansion of M contains absolute Ω-orderings. There are s-expandable models which are not β-expandable. For every countable β-expansion M of M, there is a generic extension M[G] which is also a β-expansion of M. If M is countable and β-expandable, then there are regular orderings <1, <2 such that neither <1 belongs to the ramified analytical hierarchy of the structure , nor <2 to that of . The result can be improved as follows: A countable M ⊩ PA is β-expandable iff there is a semi-regular well-ordering for M. (shrink)

The aim of this article is to give an introduction to functional interpretations of set theory given by the authorin Burr (2000a). The first part starts with some general remarks on Gödel's functional interpretation with a focus on aspects related to problems that arise in the context of set theory. The second part gives an insight in the techniques needed to perform a functional interpretation of systems of set theory. However, the first part of this article is (...) not intended to be a complete survey of functional interpretations and here we recommend, for example, Avigad and Feferman (1998),Troelstra (1990) and Troelstra (1973). (shrink)

The results established in this paper are in connection with the Relative Internal Set Theory (R.I.S.T.). The main result is the general principle of choice: Let α be a level and let Φ(x, y) be anαexternalαbounded formula of the language of R.I.S.T.. Suppose that to each elementx, dominated by α, corresponds an elementy x such that Φ(x, y x ) holds, then there exists a function of choice ψ such that, which is a very general principle of choice, (...) for everyx dominated by α, Φ(x, ψ(x)) holds. More than that, we establish that if all the elementsy x are uniformly dominated by a level β then we can prescribe that the function of choice is also dominated by β. (shrink)

1. STRUCTURE AND REFERENCES 1.1. The main part of the dictionary consists of alphabetically arranged articles concerned with basic logical theories and some other selected topics. Within each article a set of concepts is defined in their mutual relations. This way of defining concepts in the context of a theory provides better understand ing of ideas than that provided by isolated short defmitions. A disadvantage of this method is that it takes more time to look something up inside an (...) extensive article. To reduce this disadvantage the following measures have been adopted. Each article is divided into numbered sections, the numbers, in boldface type, being addresses to which we refer. Those sections of larger articles which are divided at the first level, i.e. numbered with single numerals, have titles. Main sections are further subdivided, the subsections being numbered by numerals added to the main section number, e.g. I, 1.1, 1.2,..., 1.1.1, 1.1.2, and so on. A comprehensive subject index is supplied together with a glossary. The aim of the latter is to provide, if possible, short defmitions which sometimes may prove sufficient. As to the use of the glossary, see the comment preceding it. (shrink)

What seem to be Kurt Gödel’s first notes on logic, an exercise notebook of 84 pages, contains formal proofs in higher-order arithmetic and set theory. The choice of these topics is clearly suggested by their inclusion in Hilbert and Ackermann’s logic book of 1928, the Grundzüge der theoretischen Logik. Such proofs are notoriously hard to construct within axiomatic logic. Gödel takes without further ado into use a linear system of natural deduction for the full language of higher-order logic, (...) with formal derivations closer to one hundred steps in length and up to four nested temporary assumptions with their scope indicated by vertical intermittent lines. (shrink)

We show how to interpret the language of first-order set theory in an elementary topos endowed with, as extra structure, a directed structural system of inclusions . As our main result, we obtain a complete axiomatization of the intuitionistic set theory validated by all such interpretations. Since every elementary topos is equivalent to one carrying a dssi, we thus obtain a first-order set theory whose associated categories of sets are exactly the elementary toposes. In addition, we (...) show that the full axiom of Separation is validated whenever the dssi is superdirected. This gives a uniform explanation for the known facts that cocomplete and realizability toposes provide models for Intuitionistic Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. (shrink)

Kuhn claimed that several algorithms can be defended to select the best theory based on epistemic values such as simplicity, accuracy, and fruitfulness. In a recent paper, Okasha :83–115, 2011) argued that no theory choice algorithm exists which satisfies a set of intuitively compelling conditions that Arrow had proposed for a consistent aggregation of individual preference orderings. In this paper, we put forward a solution to avoid this impossibility result. Based on previous work by Gaertner and Xu, we (...) suggest to view the theory choice problem in a cardinal context and to use a general scoring function defined over a set of qualitative verdicts for every epistemic value. This aggregation method yields a complete and transitive ranking and the rule satisfies all Arrovian conditions appropriately reformulated within a cardinal setting. We also propose methods that capture the aggregation across different scientists. (shrink)