[FOM] Truth and set theory
T.Forster at dpmms.cam.ac.uk
Wed Dec 5 02:15:37 EST 2007
Richard Kaye has done some interesting work on matters closely related
to this. It turns out that the status of transitive containment (TCo:
``every set has a transitive superset'') in ZF- is very sensitive to
whether or not one adds the *negation* of infinity. I *think* (if i
remember correctly) that Kaye and his co-author showed that transitive
containment is a theorem of ZF- + not-infinity but is not a theorem of
ZF-. This may matter: after all, TCo is important in proving at least
some versions of the recursion theorem and one obviously needs recursion
in truth-definitions. One has to tread very carefully!
If the Wang paper you allude to is the TAMS paper (``Truth definitions
and consistency proofs'') that I have in mind then you should read it:
it's actually very well written and quite clear. Are you quite sure
that it is NBG- that he gives the truth-definition in? Not the version
with the impredicative class existence scheme..?
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, praatika at mappi.helsinki.fi wrote:
> Dear FOMers
> Let us denote ZF (NBG) withouth the axiom of infinity as ZF- (NBG-). Z is
> the original Zermelo set theory, without the axiom of replacement.
> Now apparently Wang (1952) showed that it is possible to give a (materially
> adequate) truth-definition for the infinitary Z in finitistic set theory
> NBG-. This is interesting enough.
> But is there some reason why one could not also give a truth definition for
> ZF, again in NBG- ? (Z and ZF have, after all, the same language)
> Is anyone here familiar with this stuff?
> Best, Panu
> Panu Raatikainen
> Ph.D., Academy Research Fellow,
> Docent in Theoretical Philosophy
> Department of Philosophy
> University of Helsinki
> E-mail: panu.raatikainen at helsinki.fi
> FOM mailing list
> FOM at cs.nyu.edu
URL: www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~tf; DPMMS ph:
+44-1223-337981. Mobile +44-7887-701-562.
More information about the FOM