The natural numbers in constructive set theory

2008 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Rathjen
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Constructive Set Theory

scholarly journals Homotopy type-theoretic interpretations of constructive set theories

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-32
Author(s):  
Cesare Gallozzi
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Set Theory ◽  
Homotopy Type ◽  
Type Theory ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Homotopy Type Theory ◽  
Constructive Set Theory

Abstract We introduce a family of (k, h)-interpretations for 2 ≤ k ≤ ∞ and 1 ≤ h ≤ ∞ of constructive set theory into type theory, in which sets and formulas are interpreted as types of homotopy level k and h, respectively. Depending on the values of the parameters k and h, we are able to interpret different theories, like Aczel’s CZF and Myhill’s CST. We also define a proposition-as-hproposition interpretation in the context of logic-enriched type theories. The rest of the paper is devoted to characterising and analysing the interpretations considered. The formulas valid in the prop-as-hprop interpretation are characterised in terms of the axiom of unique choice. We also analyse the interpretations of CST into homotopy type theory, providing a comparative analysis with Aczel’s interpretation. This is done by formulating in a logic-enriched type theory the key principles used in the proofs of the two interpretations. Finally, we characterise a class of sentences valid in the (k, ∞)-interpretations in terms of the ΠΣ axiom of choice.

Transcendence of cardinals

1965 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gaisi Takeuti
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Recursive Functions ◽  
Power Set ◽  
Recursive Predicate

In this paper, by a function of ordinals we understand a function which is defined for all ordinals and each of whose value is an ordinal. In [7] (also cf. [8] or [9]) we defined recursive functions and predicates of ordinals, following Kleene's definition on natural numbers. A predicate will be called arithmetical, if it is obtained from a recursive predicate by prefixing a sequence of alternating quantifiers. A function will be called arithmetical, if its representing predicate is arithmetical.The cardinals are identified with those ordinals a which have larger power than all smaller ordinals than a. For any given ordinal a, we denote by the cardinal of a and by 2a the cardinal which is of the same power as the power set of a. Let χ be the function such that χ(a) is the least cardinal which is greater than a.Now there are functions of ordinals such that they are easily defined in set theory, but it seems impossible to define them as arithmetical ones; χ is such a function. If we define χ in making use of only the language on ordinals, it seems necessary to use the notion of all the functions from ordinals, e.g., as in [6].

Constructive set theory with operations

2014 ◽  
pp. 47-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Cantini ◽  
Laura Crosilla
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Constructive Set Theory

VERking in constructive set theory

1981 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 58-60
Author(s):  
Robert L. Constable
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Constructive Set Theory

Certain predicates defined by induction schemata

1953 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hao Wang
Keyword(s):  
Number Theory ◽  
Set Theory ◽  
Formal System ◽  
General Notion ◽  
Constant Number ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
System L ◽  
Truth Definition ◽  
Consistency Proofs ◽  
Special Case

It is known that we can introduce in number theory (for example, the system Z of Hilbert-Bernays) by induction schemata certain predicates of natural numbers which cannot be expressed explicitly within the framework of number theory. The question arises how we can define these predicates in some richer system, without employing induction schemata. In this paper a general notion of definability by induction (relative to number theory), which seems to apply to all the known predicates of this kind, is introduced; and it is proved that in a system L1 which forms an extension of number theory all predicates which are definable by induction (hereafter to be abbreviated d.i.) according to the definition are explicitly expressible.In order to define such predicates and prove theorems answering to their induction schemata, we have to allow certain impredicative classes in L1. However, if we want merely to prove that for each constant number the special case of the induction schema for a predicate d.i. is provable, we do not have to assume the existence of impredicative classes. A certain weaker system L2, in which only predicative classes of natural numbers are allowed, is sufficient for the purpose. It is noted that a truth definition for number theory can be obtained in L2. Consistency proofs for number theory do not seem to be formalizable in L2, although they can, it is observed, be formalized in L1.In general, given any ordinary formal system (say Zermelo set theory), it is possible to define by induction schemata, in the same manner as in number theory, certain predicates which are not explicitly definable in the system. Here again, by extending the system in an analogous fashion, these predicates become expressible in the resulting system. The crucial predicate instrumental to obtaining a truth definition for a given system is taken as an example.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document