[FOM] The semantics of set theory
Kanovei
kanovei at wmwap1.math.uni-wuppertal.de
Sun Oct 6 12:38:58 EDT 2002
>>>>>>>
From: Ralf Schindler <rds at logic.univie.ac.at>
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Kanovei wrote:
> Generally, there is no way to define ZFC-truth other than to
> extend the language of ZFC.
> Three typical methods are known.
[...]
> Third, consider a second-order impredicative theory of classes.
One doesn't need an *im*predicative theory of classes here, one can
do with predicative classes. (A class is predicative iff it can be
defined by a fmla of set theory + parameters for sets.) --Ralf
>>>>>>>
To define that a set theoretic formula A (with parameters or
even without parameters) "is true" one has to claim the
existence of a class satisfying certain known properties
and containing A.
Such a class itself cannot be definable, e.g. predicative,
if we want to treat A as a free variable.
Therefore, in this case, predicative classes do not suffice.
If, on the contrary, we are going to consider A(x_1,...,x_n) ^?^[[3~
as a fixed, metamathematically given, formula, then prediva^[
predicative classes suffice, but the whole problerm results in
the tautology : "A is true" is replaced by A.
V.Kanovei
More information about the FOM
mailing list