Skip to main content Accessibility help

IKP and friends

  • Robert S. Lubarsky (a1)


There has been increasing interest in intuitionistic methods over the years. Still, there has been relatively little work on intuitionistic set theory, and most of that has been on intuitionistic ZF. This investigation is about intuitionistic admissibility and theories of similar strength.

There are several more particular goals for this paper. One is just to get some more Kripke models of various set theories out there. Those papers that have dealt with IZF usually were more proof-theoretic in nature, and did not provide models. Furthermore, the inspirations for many of the constructions here are classical forcing arguments. Although the correspondence between the forcing and the Kripke constructions is not made tight, the relationship between these two methods is of interest (see [6] for instance) and some examples, even if only suggestive, should help us better understand the relationship between forcing and Kripke constructions. Along different lines, the subject of least and greatest fixed points of inductive definitions, while of interest to computer scientists, has yet to be studied constructively, and probably holds some surprises. Admissibility is of course the proper set-theoretic context for this study. Finally, while most of the classical material referred to here has long been standard, some of it has not been well codified and may even be unknown, so along the way we'll even fill in a gap in the classical literature.

The next section develops the basics of IKP, including some remarks on fixed points of inductive definitions.



Hide All
[1]Barwise, Jon, Admissible sets and structures, Springer-Verlag, 1975.
[2]Beeson, Michael J., Foundations of constructive mathematics, Springer-Verlag, 1985.
[3]Friedman, Harvey and Scedrov, Andrej, The lack of definable witnesses and provably recursive functions in intuitionistic set theories, Advances in Mathematics, (1985), pp. 113.
[4]Jech, Thomas, Set theory, Academic Press, 1978.
[5]Jech, Thomas, Multiple forcing, Cambridge University Press, 1986.
[6]Lipton, Jim, Realizability, set theory, and term extraction, The Curry-Howard isomorphism (de Groote, Ph., editor), Cahiers du Centre de logique (Université catholique de Louvain), vol. 8, Academia, 1995, pp. 257364.
[7]Lubarsky, Robert, Sacks forcing sometimes needs help to produce a minimal upper bound, this Journal, (1989), pp. 490498.
[8]Lubarsky, Robert, Intuitionistic L, Logical methods in computer science: The Nerode Conference (Crossley, et al., editor), Birkhauser, 1993, pp. 555571.
[9]Powell, William, Extending Gödel's negative interpretation to ZF, this Journal, (1975), pp. 221229.


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed