Foundation versus induction in Kripke-Platek set theory

1998 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 1399-1403
Author(s):  
Domenico Zambella
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Transitive Closure ◽  
Free Variable ◽  
Minimal Set ◽  
Open Formula ◽  
Open Induction ◽  
Image Position

We denote by KP_ the fragment of set-theory containing the axioms of extensionality, pairing, union and foundation as well as the schemas of ∆0-comprehension and ∆0-collection, that is: Kripke-Platek set-theory (KP) with the axiom of foundation in place of the ∈-induction schema. The theory KP is obtained by adding to KP_ the schema of ∈-inductionUsing ∈-induction it is possible to prove the existence of the transi tive closure without appealing to the axiom of infinity (see, e.g., [1]). Vice versa, when a theory proves the existence of the transitive closure, some induction is immediately ensured (by foundation and comprehension). This is not true in general: e.g., the whole of Zermelo-Fraenkel set-theory without the axiom of infinity does not prove ∈-induction (in fact, it does not prove the existence of the transitive closure; see, e.g., [3]). Open-induction is the schema of ∈-induction restricted to open formulas. We prove the following theorem.KP_ proves open-induction.We reason in a fixed but arbitrary model of KP_ whom we refer to as the model. The language is extended with a name for every set in the model. We call this constants parameters. Let φ(x) be a satisfiable open-formula possibly depending on parameters and with no free variable but x. We show that φ(x) is satisfied by an ∈-minimal set, that is, a set a such that φ(a) and (∀x ∈ a) ¬φ(x). We assume that no ordinal satisfies φ(x), otherwise the existence of a ∈-minimal set follows from foundation and comprehension.

On a set theory of bernays

1967 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 319-321 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie H. Tharp
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Free Variable ◽  
Reflection Principle ◽  
Formal Definition ◽  
Von Neumann ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Image Position

We are concerned here with the set theory given in [1], which we call BL (Bernays-Levy). This theory can be given an elegant syntactical presentation which allows most of the usual axioms to be deduced from the reflection principle. However, it is more convenient here to take the usual Von Neumann-Bernays set theory [3] as a starting point, and to regard BL as arising from the addition of the schema where S is the formal definition of satisfaction (with respect to models which are sets) and ┌φ┐ is the Gödel number of φ which has a single free variable X.

scholarly journals Brief History of Future Set Theory

Conceptus ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 39 (95) ◽  
Author(s):  
Werner DePauli-Schimanovich
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Free Variable ◽  
Closed Formula ◽  
Bottom Up ◽  
Inference System ◽  
Generating Sets ◽  
History Of ◽  
Open Formula ◽  
Free Parameters ◽  
Working Method

SummaryMathematicians still use Na¨ıve Set Theory when generating sets without danger of producing any contradiction. Therefore their working method can be considered as an experimental consistent inference system with an experience of over 100 years. My conjecture is that this method works well because mathematicians use only those predicates to form sets, which yield closed hereditary consistent predicate extensions, i.e. classes which can also be sets. And for every open formula they use in the process of constructing a certain (special) set (bottom-up), we can always find an “almost-closed” formula (i.e. a parameter-free formula with only the free variable “x”) which yields the same certain (special) set as predicate extension as constructed in the bottom-up process before. Therefore the use of predicates with free parameters in the Comprehension Scheme does not cause any difficulties and can be “lifted” by meta-mathematical considerations.

On the axiom of extensionality – Part I

1956 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. O. Gandy
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Type Theory ◽  
Formal System ◽  
Free Variable ◽  
Simple Theory ◽  
Predicate Calculus ◽  
Simple System ◽  
System A ◽  
Image Position

In part I of this paper it is shown that if the simple theory of types (with an axiom of infinity) is consistent, then so is the system obtained by adjoining axioms of extensionality; in part II a similar metatheorem for Gödel-Bernays set theory will be proved. The first of these results is of particular interest because type theory without the axioms of extensionality is fundamentally rather a simple system, and it should, I believe, be possible to prove that it is consistent.Let us consider — in some unspecified formal system — a typical expression of the axiom of extensionality; for example:where A(h) is a formula, and A(f), A(g) are the results of substituting in it the predicate variagles f, g for the free variable h. Evidently, if the system considered contains the predicate calculus, and if h occurs in A(h) only in parts of the form h(t) where t is a term which lies within the range of the quantifier (x), then 1.1 will be provable. But this will not be so in general; indeed, by introducing into the system an intensional predicate of predicates we can make 1.1 false. For example, Myhill introduces a constant S, where ‘Sϕψχω’ means that (the expression) ϕ is the result of substituting ψ for χ in ω.

One theorem of Zil′ber's on strongly minimal sets

1985 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 1054-1061 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Buechler
Keyword(s):  
Main Part ◽  
Minimal Set ◽  
Minimal Sets ◽  
Image Position

AbstractSuppose D ⊂ M is a strongly minimal set definable in M with parameters from C. We say D is locally modular if for all X, Y ⊂ D, with X = acl(X ∪ C)∩D, Y = acl(Y ∪ C) ∩ D and X ∩ Y ≠ ∅,We prove the following theorems.Theorem 1. Suppose M is stable and D ⊂ M is strongly minimal. If D is not locally modular then inMeqthere is a definable pseudoplane.(For a discussion of Meq see [M, §A].) This is the main part of Theorem 1 of [Z2] and the trichotomy theorem of [Z3].Theorem 2. Suppose M is stable and D, D′ ⊂ M are strongly minimal and nonorthogonal. Then D is locally modular if and only if D′ is locally modular.

scholarly journals SNF: Synthesizing high performance NFV service chains

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georgios P Katsikas ◽  
Marcel Enguehard ◽  
Maciej Kuźniar ◽  
Gerald Q Maguire Jr. ◽  
Dejan Kostić
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
High Performance ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
Cross Layer ◽  
Minimal Set ◽  
Internet Service ◽  
Service Chain ◽  
Network Function ◽  
Network Functions ◽  
Baseline State

In this paper we introduce SNF, a framework that synthesizes (S) network function (NF) service chains by eliminating redundant I/O and repeated elements, while consolidating stateful cross layer packet operations across the chain. SNF uses graph composition and set theory to determine traffic classes handled by a service chain composed of multiple elements. It then synthesizes each traffic class using a minimal set of new elements that apply single-read-single-write and early-discard operations. Our SNF prototype takes a baseline state-of-the-art network functions virtualization (NFV) framework to the level of performance required for practical NFV service deployments. Software-based SNF realizes long (up to 10 NFs) and stateful service chains that achieve line-rate 40 Gbps throughput (up to 8.5x greater than the baseline NFV framework). Hardware-assisted SNF, using a commodity OpenFlow switch, shows that our approach scales at 40 Gbps for Internet Service Provider-level NFV deployments.

An extension of Ackermann's set theory

1972 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 703-704
Author(s):  
Donald Perlis
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Free Variables ◽  
Image Position

Ackermann's set theory [1], called here A, involves a schemawhere φ is an ∈-formula with free variables among y1, …, yn and w does not appear in φ. Variables are thought of as ranging over classes and V is intended as the class of all sets.S is a kind of comprehension principle, perhaps most simply motivated by the following idea: The familiar paradoxes seem to arise when the class CP of all P-sets is claimed to be a set, while there exists some P-object x not in CP such that x would have to be a set if CP were. Clearly this cannot happen if all P-objects are sets.Now, Levy [2] and Reinhardt [3] showed that A* (A with regularity) is in some sense equivalent to ZF. But the strong replacement axiom of Gödel-Bernays set theory intuitively ought to be a theorem of A* although in fact it is not (Levy's work shows this). Strong replacement can be formulated asThis lack of A* can be remedied by replacing S above bywhere ψ and φ are ∈-formulas and x is not in ψ and w is not in φ. ψv is ψ with quantifiers relativized to V, and y and z stand for y1, …, yn and z1, …, zm.

scholarly journals THE CONSISTENCY STRENGTH OF LONG PROJECTIVE DETERMINACY

2019 ◽  
Vol 85 (1) ◽  
pp. 338-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
JUAN P. AGUILERA ◽  
SANDRA MÜLLER
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Consistency Strength ◽  
Axiom Of Determinacy ◽  
Woodin Cardinals ◽  
Inner Model ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Woodin Cardinal

AbstractWe determine the consistency strength of determinacy for projective games of length ω2. Our main theorem is that $\Pi _{n + 1}^1 $-determinacy for games of length ω2 implies the existence of a model of set theory with ω + n Woodin cardinals. In a first step, we show that this hypothesis implies that there is a countable set of reals A such that Mn (A), the canonical inner model for n Woodin cardinals constructed over A, satisfies $$A = R$$ and the Axiom of Determinacy. Then we argue how to obtain a model with ω + n Woodin cardinal from this.We also show how the proof can be adapted to investigate the consistency strength of determinacy for games of length ω2 with payoff in $^R R\Pi _1^1 $ or with σ-projective payoff.

scholarly journals SQUARES, ASCENT PATHS, AND CHAIN CONDITIONS

2018 ◽  
Vol 83 (04) ◽  
pp. 1512-1538 ◽  
Author(s):  
CHRIS LAMBIE-HANSON ◽  
PHILIPP LÜCKE
Keyword(s):  
Partial Order ◽  
Set Theory ◽  
Consistency Strength ◽  
Chain Conditions ◽  
Regular Cardinals ◽  
Aronszajn Tree ◽  
Square Principles ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Aronszajn Trees ◽  
Consistency Strengths

AbstractWith the help of various square principles, we obtain results concerning the consistency strength of several statements about trees containing ascent paths, special trees, and strong chain conditions. Building on a result that shows that Todorčević’s principle $\square \left( {\kappa ,\lambda } \right)$ implies an indexed version of $\square \left( {\kappa ,\lambda } \right)$, we show that for all infinite, regular cardinals $\lambda < \kappa$, the principle $\square \left( \kappa \right)$ implies the existence of a κ-Aronszajn tree containing a λ-ascent path. We then provide a complete picture of the consistency strengths of statements relating the interactions of trees with ascent paths and special trees. As a part of this analysis, we construct a model of set theory in which ${\aleph _2}$-Aronszajn trees exist and all such trees contain ${\aleph _0}$-ascent paths. Finally, we use our techniques to show that the assumption that the κ-Knaster property is countably productive and the assumption that every κ-Knaster partial order is κ-stationarily layered both imply the failure of $\square \left( \kappa \right)$.

Existence of classes and value specification of variables

1950 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hao Wang
Keyword(s):  
Mathematical Logic ◽  
Set Theory ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Image Position

In mathematics, when we want to introduce classes which fulfill certain conditions, we usually prove beforehand that classes fulfilling such conditions do exist, and that such classes are uniquely determined by the conditions. The statements which state such unicity and existence of classes are in mathematical logic consequences of the principles of extensionality and class existence. In order to illustrate how these principles enable us to introduce classes into systems of mathematical logic, let us consider the manner in which Gödel introduces classes in his book on set theory.For instance, before introducing the definition of the non-ordered pair of two classesGödel puts down as its justification the following two axioms:By A4, for every two classesyandzthere exists at least one non-ordered pairwof them; and by A3,wis uniquely determined in A4.

scholarly journals AN EXTENSION OF A THEOREM OF ZERMELO

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 208-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOUKO VÄÄNÄNEN
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
First Order ◽  
Membership Relation ◽  
Image Position

AbstractWe show that if $(M,{ \in _1},{ \in _2})$ satisfies the first-order Zermelo–Fraenkel axioms of set theory when the membership relation is ${ \in _1}$ and also when the membership relation is ${ \in _2}$, and in both cases the formulas are allowed to contain both ${ \in _1}$ and ${ \in _2}$, then $\left( {M, \in _1 } \right) \cong \left( {M, \in _2 } \right)$, and the isomorphism is definable in $(M,{ \in _1},{ \in _2})$. This extends Zermelo’s 1930 theorem in [6].

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document