Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-sv6ng Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-15T15:58:11.494Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Self-reference with negative types

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

A. P. Hiller
Affiliation:
Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
J. Zimbarg
Affiliation:
Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

Extract

The universe of sets, V, is usually seen as an entity structured in successive levels, each level being made up of objects and collections of objects belonging to the previous levels. This process of obtaining sets and axioms for set theory can be seen in Scott [74] and Shoenfield [77].

The approach we want to take differs from the previous one very strongly: the seeds from which we want to generate our universe of classes are to be the one-variable predicates (given by one-free-variable formulas) of the formal language we shall be using. In other words, any one-variable predicate of the language is to be represented as a class in our universe. In this sense, we view our theory as being about a self-referential language, a language whose predicates refer to objects which are predicates of the language itself.

We want, in short, a system such that: (i) any predicate may be represented by an object to be studied by the theory itself; (ii) the axioms for the theory may be derived from the general principle that we are dealing with a language that aims at describing its own predicates; and (iii) the theory should be strong enough to derive ZFC and suggest answers to the existence of large cardinals and to the continuum hypothesis.

An objection to such a project arises immediately: in view of the Russell-Zermelo paradox, how is it possible to have all predicates of the language as elements of the universe? This objection will be easy to deal with: we shall provide our language with a type structure to avoid paradox.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1984

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

Feferman, Solomon [69], Set-theoretical foundations of category theory, Reports of the Midwest Category Seminar. III (MacLane, S., editor), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 106, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1969, pp. 201247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, Dana [74], Axiomatizing set theory, Axiomatic set theory (Los Angeles, California, 1967; Jech, T. J., editor), Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 13, part 2, American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 1974, pp. 207214.Google Scholar
Shoenfield, J. R. [77], Axioms of set theory, Handbook of mathematical logic (Barwise, J., editor), Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 90, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1977, pp. 321344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silver, Jack [75], On the singular cardinals problem, Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians (Vancouver, 1974; James, R. D., editor), vol. 1, Canadian Mathematical Congress, [Montréal], 1975, pp. 265268.Google Scholar
Solovay, Robert M. [71], Strongly compact cardinals and the GCH, Proceedings of the Tarski Symposium (Berkeley, California, 1971; Henkin, L.et al., editors), Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 25, American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 1974, pp. 365372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solovay, Robert M., Reinhardt, William N. and Kanamori, Akihiro [78], Strong axioms of infinity and elementary embeddings, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 13 (1978), pp. 73116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarski, Alfred and Vaught, Robert L. [57], Arithmetical extensions of relational systems, Compositio Mathematica, vol. 13 (1957), pp. 81102.Google Scholar