Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T18:23:24.499Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The consistency problem for positive comprehension principles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

M. Forti
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Matematica, Università di Cagliari, 09100 Cagliari, Italy
R. Hinnion
Affiliation:
Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1050 Bruxelles, Belgium

Extract

Since Gilmore showed that some theory with a positive comprehension scheme is consistent when the axiom of extensionality is dropped and inconsistent with it (see [1] and [2]), the problem of the consistency of various positive comprehension schemes has been investigated. We give here a short classification, which shows clearly the importance of the axiom of extensionality and of the abstraction operator in these consistency problems. The most difficult problem was to show the consistency of the comprehension scheme for positive formulas, with extensionality but without abstraction operator. In his unpublished thesis, Set theory in which the axiom of foundation fails [3], Malitz solved partially this problem but he needed to assume the existence of some unusual kind of large cardinal; as his original construction is very interesting and his thesis is unpublished, we give a short summary of it. M. Forti solved the problem completely by working in ZF with a free-construction principle (sometimes called an anti-foundation axiom), instead of ZF with the axiom of foundation, as Malitz did.

This permits one to obtain the consistency of this positive theory, relative to ZF. In his general investigations about “topological set theories” (to be published), E. Weydert has independently proved the same result. The authors are grateful to the Mathematisches Forshungsinstitut Oberwolfach for giving them the opportunity of discussing these subjects and meeting E. Weydert during the meeting “New Foundations”, March 1–7, 1987.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1] Gilmore, P. C., The consistency of partial set theory without extensionality, Axiomatic set theory, Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 13, part 2, American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 1974, pp. 147153.Google Scholar
[2] Hinnion, R., Le paradoxe de Russell dans des versions positives de la theorie naïve des ensembles, Comptes Rendus des Séances de l'Académie des Sciences, Série I: Mathematique, vol. 304 (1987), pp. 307310.Google Scholar
[3] Malitz, R. J., Set theory in which the axiom of foundation fails, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley, California, 1976 (unpublished; available from University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106).Google Scholar
[4] Hinnion, R., Extensional quotients of structures, Bulletin de la Société Mathématique de Belgique, Série B, vol. 33 (1981), pp. 173206.Google Scholar
[5] Forti, M. and Honsell, F., Set theory with free construction principles, Annali delta Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Classe di Scienze, ser. 4, vol. 10 (1983), pp. 493522.Google Scholar
[6] Forti, M., Axioms of choice and free construction principles. I, Bulletin de la Société Mathétnatique de Belgique, Série B, vol. 36 (1984), pp. 6979.Google Scholar
[7] Forti, M., Models of self-descriptive set theories, Partial differential equations and the calculus of variations. Essays in honor of Ennio De Giorgi (Colombini, F. et al., editors), Birkhäuser, Basel (to appear).Google Scholar
[8] Shoenfield, J. R., Mathematical logic, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1967.Google Scholar