[FOM] Woodin's pair of articles on CH
T.Forster at dpmms.cam.ac.uk
Tue Jan 19 02:20:17 EST 2010
this looks like *exacrtly* what i wanted to know.
On Jan 18 2010, Ali Enayat wrote:
>This note is in response to the recent discussion about Woodin's
>reference to the well-known fact that the standard model for second
>order number theory is "essentially the same" as the model
>(M,epsilon), where M is the set of hereditarily countable sets.
>As suggested out by Bill Tait, the above two structures are intimately
>related at the interpretability level, i.e., they are
>*bi-interpretable* . Note that this is stronger than saying that they
>are mutually interpretable, e.g. the two theories ZF and ZFC are
>mutually interpretable, but they are not bi-interpretable since, by an
>old result of Cohen, ZF has a model with an automorphism of order 2,
>but as noted by Harvey Friedman, ZFC cannot have such a model
Can you supply a definition of *bi-interpretable*? I can see why ZF with
foundation connot have any automorphisms, but i don't see what AC has to do
>[By the way, I highly recommend Friedman's paper INTERPRETATIONS,
>ACCORDING TO TARSKI for a quick but deep introductionto the subject].
Have you got a reference or a URL?
The rest of your post suggests i should swell Steve royalties by buying his
book. Well it's probably about time!
More information about the FOM