Equalization of finite flowers

1988 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-123
Author(s):  
Stefano Berardi
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Forthcoming Paper ◽  
Direct Limits

A dilator D is a functor from ON to itself commuting with direct limits and pull-backs. A dilator D is a flower iff D(x) is continuous. A flower F is regular iff F(x) is strictly increasing and F(f)(F(z)) = F(f(z)) (for f ϵ ON(x,y), z ϵ X).Equalization is the following axiom: if F, G ϵ Flr (class of regular flowers), then there is an H ϵ Flr such that F ° H = G ° H. From this we can deduce that if ℱ is a set ⊆ Flr, then there is an H ϵ Flr which is the smallest equalizer of ℱ (it can be said that H equalizes ℱ iff for every F, G ϵ ℱ we have F ° H = G ° H). Equalization is not provable in set theory because equalization for denumerable flowers is equivalent to -determinacy (see a forthcoming paper by Girard and Kechris).Therefore it is interesting to effectively find, by elementary means, equalizers even in the simplest cases. The aim of this paper is to prove Girard and Kechris's conjecture: “ is the (smallest) equalizer for Flr < ω” (where Flr < ω denotes the set of finite regular flowers). We will verify that is an equalizer of Flr < ω; we will sketch the proof that it is the smallest one at the end of the paper. We will denote by H.

scholarly journals A logic for approximate reasoning

1994 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 830-837 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mingsheng Ying
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Set Theory ◽  
Theorem Proving ◽  
Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set ◽  
Propositional Calculus ◽  
Forthcoming Paper ◽  
Approximate Reasoning ◽  
Approximate Methods ◽  
Truth Values ◽  
Antecedent Clause

Classical logic is not adequate to face the essential vagueness of human reasoning, which is approximate rather than precise in nature. The logical treatment of the concepts of vagueness and approximation is of increasing importance in artificial intelligence and related research. Consequently, many logicians have proposed different systems of many-valued logic as a formalization of approximate reasoning (see, for example, Goguen [G], Gerla and Tortora [GT], Novak [No], Pavelka [P], and Takeuti and Titani [TT]). As far as we know, all the proposals are obtained by extending the range of truth values of propositions. In these logical systems reasoning is still exact and to make a conclusion the antecedent clause of its rule must match its premise exactly. In addition. Wang [W] pointed out: “If we compare calculation with proving,... Procedures of calculation... can be made so by fairly well-developed methods of approximation; whereas... we do not have a clear conception of approximate methods in theorem proving.... The concept of approximate proofs, though undeniably of another kind than approximations in numerical calculations, is not incapable of more exact formulation in terms of, say, sketches of and gradual improvements toward a correct proof” (see pp, 224–225). As far as the author is aware, however, no attempts have been made to give a conception of approximate methods in theorem proving.The purpose of this paper is. unlike all the previous proposals, to develop a propositional calculus, a predicate calculus in which the truth values of propositions are still true or false exactly and in which the reasoning may be approximate and allow the antecedent clause of a rule to match its premise only approximately. In a forthcoming paper we shall establish set theory, based on the logic introduced here, in which there are ∣L∣ binary predicates ∈λ, λ ∈ L such that R(∈, ∈λ) = λ where ∈ stands for ∈1 and 1 is the greatest element in L, and x ∈λy is interpreted as that x belongs to y in the degree of λ, and relate it to intuitionistic fuzzy set theory of Takeuti and Titani [TT] and intuitionistic modal set theory of Lano [L]. In another forthcoming paper we shall introduce the resolution principle under approximate match and illustrate its applications in production systems of artificial intelligence.

A boundedness lemma for iterations

2001 ◽  
Vol 66 (3) ◽  
pp. 1058-1072
Author(s):  
Greg Hjorth
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Model Theory ◽  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Descriptive Set Theory ◽  
Inner Model Theory ◽  
Inner Model ◽  
Direct Limits ◽  
The One ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Descriptive Set

The purpose of this paper is to present a kind of boundedness lemma for direct limits of coarse structural mice, and to indicate some applications to descriptive set theory. For instance, this allows us to show that under large cardinal or determinacy assumptions there is no prewellorder ≤ of length such that for some formula ψ and parameter zif and only ifIt is a peculiar experience to write up a result in this area. Following the work of Martin, Steel, Woodin, and other inner model theory experts, there is an enormous overhang of theorems and ideas, and it only takes one wandering pebble to restart the avalanche. For this reason I have chosen to center the exposition around the one pebble at 1.7 which I believe to be new. The applications discussed in section 2 involve routine modifications of known methods.A detailed introduction to many of the techniques related to using the Martin-Steel inner model theory and Woodin's free extender algebra is given in the course of [1]. Certainly a familiarity with the Martin-Steel papers, [5] and [6], is a prerequisite, as is some knowledge of the free extender algebra. Probably anyone interested in this paper will already know the necessary descriptive set theory, most of which can be found in [4]. Discussion of earlier results in this direction can be found in [3] or [2].

The Bernays-Schönfinkel-Ramsey class for set theory: semidecidability

2010 ◽  
Vol 75 (2) ◽  
pp. 459-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugenio Omodeo ◽  
Alberto Policriti
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Analogous Result ◽  
Forthcoming Paper ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Semantic Approach ◽  
Decidability Result ◽  
First Order ◽  
Generic Set ◽  
Well Foundedness

AbstractAs is well-known, the Bernays-Schönfinkel-Ramsey class of all prenex ∃*∀*-sentences which are valid in classical first-order logic is decidable. This paper paves the way to an analogous result which the authors deem to hold when the only available predicate symbols are ∈ and =, no constants or function symbols are present, and one moves inside a (rather generic) Set Theory whose axioms yield the well-foundedness of membership and the existence of infinite sets. Here semi-decidability of the satisfiability problem for the BSR class is proved by following a purely semantic approach, the remaining part of the decidability result being postponed to a forthcoming paper.

A Course on Set Theory

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ernest Schimmerling
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory

Set Theory

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel W. Cunningham
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document