Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:51:14.464Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Second Order Logic or Set Theory?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2014

Jouko Väänänen
Jouko Väänänen*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, P.O. Box 68, FI-00014, University of Helsinki, FinlandandInstitute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 94242, 1090 GE Amsterdam, The Netherlands, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We try to answer the question which is the “right” foundation of mathematics, second order logic or set theory. Since the former is usually thought of as a formal language and the latter as a first order theory, we have to rephrase the question. We formulate what we call the second order view and a competing set theory view, and then discuss the merits of both views. On the surface these two views seem to be in manifest conflict with each other. However, our conclusion is that it is very difficult to see any real difference between the two. We analyze a phenomenonwe call internal categoricity which extends the familiar categoricity results of second order logic to Henkin models and show that set theory enjoys the same kind of internal categoricity. Thus the existence of non-standard models, which is usually taken as a property of first order set theory, and categoricity, which is usually taken as a property of second order axiomatizations, can coherently coexist when put into their proper context. We also take a fresh look at complete second order axiomatizations and give a hierarchy result for second order characterizable structures. Finally we consider the problem of existence in mathematics from both points of view and find that second order logic depends on what we call large domain assumptions, which come quite close to the meaning of the axioms of set theory.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of Symbolic Logic , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 91 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2012

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] Ajtai, Miklós, Isomorphism and higher order equivalence, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 16 (1979), no. 3, pp. 181–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Awodey, Steve and Reck, Erich H., Completeness and categoricity. I. Nineteenth-century axiomatics to twentieth-century metalogic, History and Philosophy of Logic, vol. 23 (2002), no. 1, pp. 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Garland, Stephen J., Second-order cardinal characterizability, Axiomatic set theory (Proceedings of the Symposium on Pure Mathematics, Vol. XIII, Part II), American Mathematical Society, Providence, R. I., 1974, pp. 127–146.Google Scholar
[4] Hilbert, David and Ackermann, Wilhelm, Grundzüge der theoretischen Logik, Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, vol. 27, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1972, Sixth edition. First edition published 1928.Google Scholar
[5] Hyttinen, Tapani, Kangas, Kaisa, and Väänänen, Jouko, On second order characterizability, to appear.Google Scholar
[6]Jech, Thomas, Set theory, Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003.Google Scholar
[7] Keskinen, Lauri, Characterizing all models in infinite cardinalities, Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2011.Google Scholar
[8] Lévy, Azriel, A hierarchy of formulas in set theory, Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 57 (1965), p. 76.Google Scholar
[9] Rogers, Hartley Jr., Theory of recursive functions and effective computability, second ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987.Google Scholar
[10] Solovay, Robert, FOM posting http://cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2006-May/010561.html.Google Scholar
[11] Väänänen, Jouko, Abstract logic and set theory. I. Definability, Logic Colloquium '78 (Mons, 1978), Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 97, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1979, pp. 391–421.Google Scholar
[12] Väänänen, Jouko, Second-order logic and foundations of mathematics, this Bulletin, vol. 7 (2001), no. 4, pp. 504–520.Google Scholar