Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T02:21:50.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Set theory with a filter quantifier

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Matt Kaufmann
Matt Kaufmann*
Affiliation:
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The incompleteness of ZF set theory leads one to look for natural extensions of ZF in which one can prove statements independent of ZF which appear to be “true”. One approach has been to add large cardinal axioms. Or, one can investigate second-order expansions like Kelley-Morse class theory, KM. In this paper we look at a set theory ZF(aa), with an added quantifier aa which ranges over ordinals. The “aa” stands for “almost all”, and although we will consider interpretations in terms of the closed unbounded filter on a regular cardinal κ, we will consider other interpretations also.

We start in §1 by giving the axioms for the theory ZF(aa) and presenting a completeness theorem which gives a model-theoretic definition of ZF(aa). In §2 we investigate set theory with a satisfaction predicate and interpret it in a fragment of ZF(aa). In §3 we generalize the methods of §2 to obtain a hierarchy of satisfaction predicates. We use these predicates to prove reflection theorems, as well as to prove the consistency of certain fragments of ZF(aa). Next, in §4 we discuss expandability of models of ZF to models of fragments of ZF(aa) and of Kelley-Morse. We conclude in §5 with a discussion of an extension ZF(aa) + DET of ZF(aa) in which the quantifier aa is self-dual.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , June 1983 , pp. 263 - 287
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1983

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]Barwise, J., Kaufmann, M., and Makkai, M., Stationary logic, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 13 (1978), pp. 171–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Barwise, J., Correction to Stationary logic, Annals of Mathematical Logic (to appear).Google Scholar
[3]Baumgartner, J., Ineffability properties of cardinals. I, Infinite and finite sets, vol. I (Hajnal, A., Rado, R., and Sós, V., Editors), North-Holland, Amsterdam-London, 1975, pp. 109–130.Google Scholar
[4]Chang, C.C. and Keisler, H.J., Model theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1973.Google Scholar
[5]Eklof, P. and Mekler, A., Stationary logic of finitely determinate structures, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 17 (1979), pp. 227–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Felgner, U., Comparisons of the axioms of local and universal choice, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 71 (1971), pp. 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Kaufmann, M., Some results in stationary logic, Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1978.Google Scholar
[8]Kaufmann, M., On expandability of models of arithmetic to models of weak second-order theories, Fundamenta Mathematicae (to appear).Google Scholar
[9]Macintyre, A., Ramsey quantifiers in arithmetic, Proceedings of a Logic Symposium (Karpacz 1979), (Pacholski, L., Wierzejewski, L. and Wilkie, A., Editors), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 834, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1980, pp. 186–210.Google Scholar
[10]Marek, W. and Mostowski, A., On extendability of models of ZF set theory to models of Kelley-Morse theory of classes, Logic Conference Kiel 1974, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 537, Springer Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1976, pp. 203–220.Google Scholar
[11]Morgenstern, C., On generalized quantifiers in arithmetic, this Journal, vol. 47 (1982), pp. 187–190.Google Scholar
[12]Murawski, R., On expandability of models of Peano arithmetic. III, Studia Logica, vol. 36 (1977), pp. 181–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Ratajczyk, Z., On axiomatization of ZFKM and ZFKM (to appear).Google Scholar
[14]Schlipf, J., A guide to the identification of admissible sets above structures, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 12 (1977), pp. 151–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15]Schmerl, J., On κ-like structures which embed stationary and closed unbounded sets, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 10(1976), pp. 289–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16]Schmerl, J. and Simpson, S., On the role of Ramsey quantifiers in first-order arithmetic, this Journal, vol. 47 (1982). pp. 423–435.Google Scholar
[17]Shelah, S., Generalized quantifiers and compact logic, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 204(1975), pp. 342–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18]Shoenfield, J., Unramified forcing, Axiomatic set theory, Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, Part I, vol. 13, (Scott, D., Editor), American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1971, pp. 357–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19]Kakuda, Y., Set theory based on the language with the additional quantifier “for almost all”. I, Mathematics Seminar Notes, Kobe University (1980–1981).Google Scholar
[20]Kakuda, Y., notes.Google Scholar
[21]Montague, R. and Vaught, R.L., Natural models of set theories, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 47 (1959), pp. 219–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar