Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T15:44:11.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Type-raising operations on cardinal and ordinal numbers in Quine's “New foundations”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

C. Ward Henson*
Affiliation:
Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27706

Extract

In this paper we develop certain methods of proof in Quine's set theory NF which have no counterparts elsewhere. These ideas were first used by Specker [5] in his disproof of the Axiom of Choice in NF. They depend on the properties of two related operations, T(n) on cardinal numbers and U(α) on ordinal numbers, which are defined by the equations

for each set x and well ordering R. (Here and below we use Rosser's notation [3].) The definitions insure that the formulas T(x) = y and U(x) = y are stratified when y is assigned a type one higher than x. The importance of T and U stems from the following facts: (i) each of T and U is a 1-1, order preserving operation from its domain onto a proper initial section of its domain; (ii) Tand U commute with most of the standard operations on cardinal and ordinal numbers.

These basic facts are discussed in §1. In §2 we prove in NF that the exponential function 2n is not 1-1. Indeed, there exist cardinal numbers m and n which satisfy

In §3 we prove the following technical result, which has many important applications. Suppose f is an increasing function from an initial segment S of the set NO of ordinal numbers into NO and that f commutes with U.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1973

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]Orey, Steven, Formal development of ordinal number theory, this Journal, vol. 20 (1955), pp. 95104.Google Scholar
[2]Orey, Steven, On the relative consistency of set theory, this Journal, vol. 21 (1956), pp. 280290.Google Scholar
[3]Rosser, J. Barkley, Logic for mathematicians, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1953.Google Scholar
[4]Rosser, J. Barkley, The relative strength of Zermelo's set theory and Quineis New Foundations, Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians (Amsterdam, 1954), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1956, pp. 289294.Google Scholar
[5]Specker, Ernst P., The axiom of choice in Quine's new foundations for mathematical logic, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 39 (1953), pp. 972975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar