Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T20:19:23.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INDEPENDENCE PROOFS IN NON-CLASSICAL SET THEORIES

Part of: General logic Set theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2021

SOURAV TARAFDER  and
GIORGIO VENTURI
SOURAV TARAFDER
Affiliation:
BUSINESS MATHEMATICS AND STATISTICS DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ST. XAVIER’S COLLEGE 30 MOTHER TERESA SARANI KOLKATA 700016 INDIA INSTITUTE OF PHILOSOPHY AND HUMAN SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF CAMPINAS (UNICAMP) BARÃO GERALDO, R. CORA CORALINA 100-CIDADE UNIVERSITÁRIA CAMPINAS - SP, 13083-896 BRAZIL E-mail: souravt09@gmail.com
GIORGIO VENTURI
Affiliation:
INSTITUTE OF PHILOSOPHY AND HUMAN SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF CAMPINAS (UNICAMP) BARÃO GERALDO, R. CORA CORALINA 100-CIDADE UNIVERSITÁRIA CAMPINAS, SP 13083-896 BRAZIL E-mail: gio.venturi@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper we extend to non-classical set theories the standard strategy of proving independence using Boolean-valued models. This extension is provided by means of a new technique that, combining algebras (by taking their product), is able to provide product-algebra-valued models of set theories. In this paper we also provide applications of this new technique by showing that: (1) we can import the classical independence results to non-classical set theory (as an example we prove the independence of $\mathsf {CH}$); and (2) we can provide new independence results. We end by discussing the role of non-classical algebra-valued models for the debate between universists and multiversists and by arguing that non-classical models should be included as legitimate members of the multiverse.

Keywords

set theoryBoolean-valued modelsnon-classical logicsindependenceparaconsistencyZF

MSC classification

Primary: 03E40: Other aspects of forcing and Boolean-valued models
Secondary: 03E35: Consistency and independence results 03B53: Paraconsistent logics
Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , December 2023 , pp. 979 - 1010
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Association for Symbolic Logic

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Antos, C., Friedman, S., Honzik, R., & Ternullo, C. (2015). Multiverse conceptions in set theory. Synthese , 192(8), 2463–2488.Google Scholar
Barton, N. (2017). Independence and ignorance: How agnotology informs set-theoretic pluralism. Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research , 34, 399–413.Google Scholar
Bell, J. L. (2005). Set Theory, Boolean-Valued Models and Independence Proofs (third edition). Oxford Logic Guides, Vol. 47. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boolos, G. (1971). The iterative conception of set. Journal of Philosophy , 68(8), 215–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feferman, S., Friedman, H., Maddy, P., & Steel, J. (2000). Does mathematics need new axioms? The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic , 6(4), 401–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grayson, R. J. (1979). Heyting-valued models for intuitionistic set theory. In Fourman, M. P., Mulvey, C. J., and Scott, D. S., editors. Applications of Sheaves, Proceedings of the Research Symposium on Applications of Sheaf Theory to Logic, Algebra and Analysis Held at the University of Durham, Durham, July 9–21, 1977. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 753. Berlin: Springer, pp. 402–414.Google Scholar
Hamkins, J. D. (2012). The set-theoretic multiverse. Review of Symbolic Logic , 5(3), 416–449.Google Scholar
Incurvati, L. (2020). Conceptions of Set and the Foundations of Mathematics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jockwich, S., Tarafder, S., & Venturi, G. (2020). $\mathsf{ZF}$ and its interpretations. Submitted.Google Scholar
Jockwich, S. & Venturi, G. (2020a). Non-classical models of $\mathsf{ZF}$ . Studia Logica , https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-020-09915-0.Google Scholar
Jockwich, S. & Venturi, G. (2020b). On negation for non-classical set theories. Journal of Philosophical Logic , https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-020-09576-3.Google Scholar
Löwe, B., Paßmann, R., & Tarafder, S. (2018). Constructing illoyal algebra-valued models of set theory. Algebra Universalis, accepted.Google Scholar
Löwe, B. & Tarafder, S. (2015). Generalized algebra-valued models of set theory. Review of Symbolic Logic , 8(1), 192–205.Google Scholar
Maddy, P. (2016). Set-theoretic foundations. In Caicedo, A. E., Cummings, J., Koellner, P., and Larson, P. B., editors. Foundations of Mathematics . Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
Scambler, C. (2020). An indeterminate universe of sets. Synthese , 197, 545–573.Google Scholar
Tarafder, S. (2015). Ordinals in an algebra-valued model of a paraconsistent set theory. In Banerjee, M. and Krishna, S., editors. Logic and Its Applications. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference . Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 8923. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 195–206.Google Scholar
Tarafder, S. (2021). Non-classical foundations of set theory, Submitted.Google Scholar
Tarafder, S. & Chakraborty, M. K. (2015). A paraconsistent logic obtained from an algebra-valued model of set theory. In Beziau, J. Y., Chakraborty, M. K., and Dutta, S., editors. New Directions in Paraconsistent Logic. Proceedings of the 5 th WCP . Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics, Vol. 152. New Delhi: Springer, pp. 165–183.Google Scholar
Varzi, A. C. (2002). On logical relativity. Philosophical Issues , 12(1), 197–219.Google Scholar
Venturi, G. (2016). Forcing, multiverse and realism. In Boccuni, F. and Sereni, A., editors. Objectivity, Knowledge and Proof. FilMat Studies in the Philosophy of Mathematics . Cham: Springer, pp. 211–241.Google Scholar
Woodin, W. H. (2011). The realm of the infinite. In Woodin, W. H. and Heller, M., editors. Infinity. New Research Frontiers . Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, pp. 89–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar