Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic

Models as Universes

Brice Halimi

Full-text: Access denied (no subscription detected)

We're sorry, but we are unable to provide you with the full text of this article because we are not able to identify you as a subscriber. If you have a personal subscription to this journal, then please login. If you are already logged in, then you may need to update your profile to register your subscription. Read more about accessing full-text

Abstract

Kreisel’s set-theoretic problem is the problem as to whether any logical consequence of ZFC is ensured to be true. Kreisel and Boolos both proposed an answer, taking truth to mean truth in the background set-theoretic universe. This article advocates another answer, which lies at the level of models of set theory, so that truth remains the usual semantic notion. The article is divided into three parts. It first analyzes Kreisel’s set-theoretic problem and proposes one way in which any model of set theory can be compared to a background universe and shown to contain internal models. It then defines logical consequence with respect to a model of ZFC, solves the model-scaled version of Kreisel’s set-theoretic problem, and presents various further results bearing on internal models. Finally, internal models are presented as accessible worlds, leading to an internal modal logic in which internal reflection corresponds to modal reflexivity, and resplendency corresponds to modal axiom 4.

Article information

Source
Notre Dame J. Formal Logic, Volume 58, Number 1 (2017), 47-78.

Dates
Received: 6 June 2011
Accepted: 9 March 2014
First available in Project Euclid: 14 December 2016

Permanent link to this document
https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ndjfl/1481684566

Digital Object Identifier
doi:10.1215/00294527-3716058

Mathematical Reviews number (MathSciNet)
MR3595341

Zentralblatt MATH identifier
06686417

Subjects
Primary: 03C62: Models of arithmetic and set theory [See also 03Hxx] 03A05: Philosophical and critical {For philosophy of mathematics, see also 00A30}
Secondary: 03C55: Set-theoretic model theory 03C70: Logic on admissible sets 03B45: Modal logic (including the logic of norms) {For knowledge and belief, see 03B42; for temporal logic, see 03B44; for provability logic, see also 03F45}

Keywords
logical validity truth informal rigour Kreisel Boolos logical consequence of ZFC models of set theory modal logic recursively saturated structures

Citation

Halimi, Brice. Models as Universes. Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 58 (2017), no. 1, 47--78. doi:10.1215/00294527-3716058. https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ndjfl/1481684566


Export citation

References

  • [1] Barwise, J., Admissible Sets and Structures, Springer, Berlin, 1975.
  • [2] Boolos, G., The Logic of Provability, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993.
  • [3] Boolos, G., Logic, Logic, and Logic, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1998.
  • [4] Drake, F. R., Set Theory: An Introduction to Large Cardinals, vol. 76 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1974.
  • [5] Enayat, A., “Models of set theory with definable ordinals,” Archive for Mathematical Logic, vol. 44 (2005), pp. 363–85.
  • [6] Gitman, V., and J. D. Hamkins, “A natural model of the multiverse axioms,” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 51 (2010), pp. 475–84.
  • [7] Hamkins, J. D., “The set-theoretical multiverse,” Review of Symbolic Logic, vol. 5 (2012), pp. 416–49.
  • [8] Hamkins, J. D., and B. Löwe, “The modal logic of forcing,” Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 360 (2008), pp. 1793–817.
  • [9] Jané, I., “Reflections on Skolem’s relativity of set-theoretical concepts,” Philosophia Mathematica (3), vol. 9 (2001), pp. 129–53.
  • [10] Keisler, H. J., “Fundamentals of Model Theory,” pp. 47–103 in Handbook of Mathematical Logic, Part A, edited by J. Barwise, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1977.
  • [11] Kreisel, G., “Informal rigour and completeness proofs,” pp. 78–94 in The Philosophy of Mathematics, edited by J. Hintikka, Oxford University Press, London, 1969.
  • [12] Kunen, K., Set Theory: An Introduction to Independence Proofs, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1980.
  • [13] Makkai, M., “Admissible sets and infinitary logic,” pp. 233–81 in Handbook of Mathematical Logic, Part A, edited by J. Barwise, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1977.
  • [14] Montague, R., and R. L. Vaught, “Natural models of set theories,” Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 47 (1959), pp. 219–42.
  • [15] Mostowski, A., “Some impredicative definitions in the axiomatic set-theory,” Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 37 (1951), pp. 111–24.
  • [16] Rayo, A., and G. Uzquiano, “Toward a theory of second-order consequence,” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 40 (1999), pp. 315–25.
  • [17] Ressayre, J.-P., “Modèles non standard et sous-systèmes remarquables de ZF,” pp. 47–147 in Modèles non standard en arithmétique et théorie des ensembles, edited by J.-P. Reyssaire and A. J. Wilkie, Publications mathématiques de l’Université Paris VII, Paris, 1983.
  • [18] Schlipf, J. S., “A guide to the identification of admissible sets above structures,” Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 12 (1977), pp. 151–92.
  • [19] Schlipf, J. S., “Toward model theory through recursive saturation,” Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 43 (1978), pp. 183–206.
  • [20] Suzuki, Y., and G. Wilmers, “Non-standard models for set theory,” pp. 278–314 in The Proceedings of the Bertrand Russell Memorial Logic Conference (Uldum, 1971), edited by J. L. Bell, J. C. Cole, G. Priest, and A. B. Slomson, Bertrand Russell Memorial Logic Conference, University of Leeds, Leeds, 1973.
  • [21] Tait, W. W., “Foundations of set theory,” pp. 273–90 in Truth in Mathematics, edited by H. G. Dales and G. Oliveri, Oxford University Press, New York, 1998.
  • [22] Wilmers, G., “Internally standard set theories,” Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 71 (1971), pp. 93–102.