Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:36:38.150Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Axiom of Infinity and Transformations j: V → V

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2014

Paul Corazza
Paul Corazza*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Maharishi University of Management, Fairfield, IA, 52557, USAE-mail:, paul [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We suggest a new approach for addressing the problem of establishing an axiomatic foundation for large cardinals. An axiom asserting the existence of a large cardinal can naturally be viewed as a strong Axiom of Infinity. However, it has not been clear on the basis of our knowledge of ω itself, or of generally agreed upon intuitions about the true nature of the mathematical universe, what the right strengthening of the Axiom of Infinity is—which large cardinals ought to be derivable? It was shown in the 1960s by Lawvere that the existence of an infinite set is equivalent to the existence of a certain kind of structure-preserving transformation from V to itself, not isomorphic to the identity. We use Lawvere's transformation, rather than ω, as a starting point for a reasonably natural sequence of strengthenings and refinements, leading to a proposed strong Axiom of Infinity. A first refinement was discussed in later work by Trnková–Blass, showing that if the preservation properties of Lawvere's tranformation are strengthened to the point of requiring it to be an exact functor, such a transformation is provably equivalent to the existence of a measurable cardinal. We propose to push the preservation properties as far as possible, short of inconsistency. The resulting transformation V → V is strong enough to account for virtually all large cardinals, but is at the same time a natural generalization of an assertion about transformations V → V known to be equivalent to the Axiom of Infinity.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of Symbolic Logic , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 37 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2010

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

[1] Bernays, P., Zur Frage der Unendlichkeitsschemata in der axiomatischen Mengenlehre, Essays on the foundations of mathematics (Bar-Hillel, Y., Poznanski, E. I. J., Rabin, M.O., and Robinson, A., editors), Magnes Press, Jerusalem, 1961, pp. 3–49.Google Scholar
[2] Blass, A., Exact functors and measurable cardinals, Pacific Journal of Mathematics, vol. 63 (1976), no. 2, pp. 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Corazza, P., Laver sequences for extendible and super-almost-huge cardinals, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 64 (1999), pp. 963–983.Google Scholar
[4] Corazza, P., The wholeness axiom and laver sequences, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 105 (2000), pp. 157–260.Google Scholar
[5] Corazza, P., Consistency of V = HOD with the wholeness axiom, Archive for Mathematical Logic, vol. 39 (2000), pp. 219–226.Google Scholar
[6] Corazza, P., The gap between I3 and the wholeness axiom, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 179 (2003), pp. 43–60.Google Scholar
[7] Corazza, P., The spectrum of elementary embeddings j: V → V, Annals of Pure And Applied Logic, vol. 139 (2006), pp. 327–399.Google Scholar
[8] Corazza, P., The wholeness axiom, Consciousness-based education: A foundation for teaching and learning in the academic disciplines (Corazza, P., editor), Consciousness-Based Education and Mathematics, vol. 5, MUM Press, 2009, revised and updated from 1994 original manuscript.Google Scholar
[9] Corazza, P., Indestructibility of wholeness, in preparation.Google Scholar
[10] Dehornoy, P., Seminaire Bourbaki, exposé 915, 03 2003, (English translation available at http://www.math.unicaen.fr/~dehornoy/surveys.html.).Google Scholar
[11] Eklof, P. C. and Mekler, A. H., Almost-free modules, set-theoretic methods, North Holland Mathematical Library, vol. 46, Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., Amsterdam, 1990.Google Scholar
[12] Feferman, S., Friedman, H., Maddy, P., and Steel, J., Does mathematics need new axioms?, this Bulletin, vol. 6 (2000), no. 4, pp. 401–433.Google Scholar
[13] Freyd, P., Aspects of topoi, Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society, vol. 7 (1972), pp. 1–76.Google Scholar
[14] Gitik, M. and Shelah, S., On certain indestructibility of strong cardinals and a question of Hajnal, Archives of Mathematical Logic, vol. 28 (1989), pp. 35–42.Google Scholar
[15] Hallett, M., Cantorian set theory and the limitation of size, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1988.Google Scholar
[16] Hamkins, J. D., Canonical seeds and Prikry trees, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 62 (1997), no. 2, pp. 373–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17] Hamkins, J. D., The wholeness axioms and V = HOD, Archive for Mathematical Logic, vol. 40 (2001), pp. 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18] Hausdorff, F., Grundzüge einer Theorie der geordneten Mengen, Mathematische Annalen, vol. 65 (1908), pp. 435–505.Google Scholar
[19] Jech, T., Set theory, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003.Google Scholar
[20] Kanamori, A., The higher infinite, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994.Google Scholar
[21] Kanamori, A.,, Gödel and set theory, this Bulletin, vol. 13 (2007), no. 2, pp. 153–188.Google Scholar
[22] Kunen, K., Elementary embeddings and infinitary combinatorics, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 36 (1971), pp. 407–413.Google Scholar
[23] Kunen, K., Saturated ideals, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, (1978), pp. 65–76.Google Scholar
[24] Laver, R., Making the supercompactness of k indestructible under k-directed closed forcing, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 29 (1978), no. 4, pp. 385–388.Google Scholar
[25] Lawvere, F. W., Adjointness in foundations, Dialectica, vol. 23 (1969), pp. 281–296.Google Scholar
[26] Lane, S. Mac, Categories for the working mathematician, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1971.Google Scholar
[27] Maddy, P., Believing the axioms, I, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 53 (1988), no. 2, pp. 481–511.Google Scholar
[28] Maddy, P., Believing the axioms, II, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 53 (1988), no. 3, pp. 736–764.Google Scholar
[29] Mahlo, P., Über lineare transfinite Mengen, Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Königlich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Mathematische–Physische Klasse, vol. 63 (1911), pp. 187–225.Google Scholar
[30] Martin, D. A., Infinite games, Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Helsinki, (1978) (Lehto, Olli, editor), vol. 1, Academia Scientiarum Fennica, Helsinki, 1980, pp. 269–273.Google Scholar
[31] Reinhardt, W. N., Remarks on reflection principles, large cardinals, and elementary embeddings, Axiomatic set theory (Jech, T. J., editor), American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 1974, (Part 2), pp. 189–205.Google Scholar
[32] Trnková, V., On descriptive classification of set-functors II, Commentationes Mathematicai Universitatis Carolinae, vol. 2 (1971), pp. 345–357.Google Scholar