This paper, a contribution to “micro set theory”, is the study promised by the first author in [M4], as improved and extended by work of the second. We use the rudimentarily recursive (set-theoretic) functions and the slightly larger collection of gentle functions to initiate the study of provident sets, which are transitive models of $\mathsf{PROVI}$, a subsystem of $\mathsf{KP}$ whose minimal model is Jensen’s $J_{\omega }$. $\mathsf{PROVI}$ supports familiar definitions, such as rank, transitive closure and ordinal addition—though not ordinal multiplication—and (shown in [M8]) Shoenfield’s unramified forcing. Providence is preserved under directed unions. An arbitrary set has a provident closure, and (shown in [M8]) the extension of a provident $M$ by a set-generic $\mathcal{G}$ is the provident closure of $M\cup \left\{\mathcal{G}\right\}$. The improvidence of many models of $\mathsf{Z}$ is shown. The final section uses similar but simpler recursions to show, in the weak system $\mathsf{MW}$, that the truth predicate for ${\dot{\Delta }}_0$ formulæ is ${\Delta }_1$.

Frege’s theory is inconsistent (Russell’s paradox). However, the predicative version of Frege’s system is consistent. This was proved by Richard Heck in 1996 using a model-theoretic argument. In this paper, we give a finitistic proof of this consistency result. As a consequence, Heck’s predicative theory is rather weak (as was suspected). We also prove the finitistic consistency of the extension of Heck’s theory to ${\Delta }_1^1$-comprehension and of Heck’s ramified predicative second-order system.

In this paper we study the interpretations of a weak arithmetic, like Buss’s theory ${\mathsf{S}}_2^1$, in a given theory $U$. We call these interpretations the arithmetics of $U$. We develop the basics of the structure of the arithmetics of $U$. We study the provability logic(s) of $U$ from the standpoint of the framework of the arithmetics of $U$. Finally, we provide a deeper study of the arithmetics of a finitely axiomatized sequential theory.

We show that the categoricity of second-order Peano axioms can be proved from the comprehension axioms. We also show that the categoricity of second-order Zermelo–Fraenkel axioms, given the order type of the ordinals, can be proved from the comprehension axioms. Thus these well-known categoricity results do not need the so-called “full” second-order logic, the Henkin second-order logic is enough. We also address the question of “consistency” of these axiom systems in the second-order sense, that is, the question of existence of models for these systems. In both cases we give a consistency proof, but naturally we have to assume more than the mere comprehension axioms.

The dream solution of the continuum hypothesis ($\mathrm{CH}$) would be a solution by which we settle the continuum hypothesis on the basis of a newly discovered fundamental principle of set theory, a missing axiom, widely regarded as true. Such a dream solution would indeed be a solution, since we would all accept the new axiom along with its consequences. In this article, however, I argue that such a dream solution to $\mathrm{CH}$ is unattainable.

We look at recent accounts of the indefinite extensibility of the concept set and compare them with a certain linguistic model of indefinite extensibility. We suggest that the linguistic model has much to recommend over alternative accounts of indefinite extensibility, and we defend it against three prima facie objections.

In so-called full second-order logic, the second-order variables range over all subsets and relations of the domain in question. In so-called Henkin second-order logic, every model is endowed with a set of subsets and relations which will serve as the range of the second-order variables. In our Boolean-valued second-order logic, the second-order variables range over all Boolean-valued subsets and relations on the domain. We show that under large cardinal assumptions Boolean-valued second-order logic is more robust than full second-order logic. Its validity is absolute under forcing, and its Hanf and Löwenheim numbers are smaller than those of full second-order logic.

This paper expands upon a way in which we might rationally doubt that there are multiple sizes of infinity. The argument draws its inspiration from recent work in the philosophy of truth and philosophy of set theory. More specifically, elements of contextualist theories of truth and multiverse accounts of set theory are brought together in an effort to make sense of Cantor’s troubling theorem. The resultant theory provides an alternative philosophical perspective on the transfinite, but has limited impact on everyday mathematical practice.

The interaction between large cardinals, determinacy of two-person perfect information games, and inner model theory has been a singularly powerful driving force in modern set theory during the last three decades. For the outsider the intellectual excitement is often tempered by the somewhat daunting technicalities, and the seeming length of study needed to understand the flow of ideas. The purpose of this article is to try and give a short, albeit rather rough, guide to the broad lines of development.

Neo-Fregean approaches to set theory, following Frege, have it that sets are the extensions of concepts, where concepts are the values of second-order variables. The idea is that, given a second-order entity $X$, there may be an object $\epsilon X$, which is the extension of X. Other writers have also claimed a similar relationship between second-order logic and set theory, where sets arise from pluralities.

This paper considers two interpretations of second-order logic—as being either extensional or intensional—and whether either is more appropriate for this approach to the foundations of set theory. Although there seems to be a case for the extensional interpretation resulting from modal considerations, I show how there is no obstacle to starting with an intensional second-order logic. I do so by showing how the $\epsilon$ operator can have the effect of “extensionalizing” intensional second-order entities.