Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:05:49.550Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Global quantification in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

John Mayberry*
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TW, England

Extract

My aim here is to investigate the role of global quantifiers—quantifiers ranging over the entire universe of sets—in the formalization of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. The use of such quantifiers in the formulas substituted into axiom schemata introduces, at least prima facie, a strong element of impredicativity into the thapry. The axiom schema of replacement provides an example of this. For each instance of that schema enlarges the very domain over which its own global quantifiers vary. The fundamental question at issue is this: How does the employment of these global quantifiers, and the choice of logical principles governing their use, affect the strengths of the axiom schemata in which they occur?

I shall attack this question by comparing three quite different formalizations of the intuitive principles which constitute the Zermelo-Fraenkel system. The first of these, local Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (LZF), is formalized without using global quantifiers. The second, global Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (GZF), is the extension of the local theory obtained by introducing global quantifiers subject to intuitionistic logical laws, and taking the axiom schema of strong collection (Schema XII, §2) as an additional assumption of the theory. The third system is the conventional formalization of Zermelo-Fraenkel as a classical, first order theory. The local theory, LZF, is already very strong, indeed strong enough to formalize any naturally occurring mathematical argument. I have argued (in [3]) that it is the natural formalization of naive set theory. My intention, therefore, is to use it as a standard against which to measure the strength of each of the other two systems.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1985

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]Gödel, Kurt, Über eine bisher noch nicht benütze Erweiterung desfiniten Standpunktes, Dialectica, vol. 12 (1958), pp. 280287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Lévy, Azriel, A hierarchy of formulas in set theory. I, Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society, no. 57 (1965).Google Scholar
[3]Mayberry, John, On the consistency problem for set theory: an essay in the Cantorian foundations for classical mathematics. I, II, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, vol. 28 (1977), pp. 1–34, 127170.Google Scholar
[4]Takeuti, Gaisi, Proof theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1975.Google Scholar
[5]Troelstra, A. S., Metamathematical investigations of intuitionistic arithmetic and analysis, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 344, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Tharp, Leslie H., A quasi-intuitionistic set theory, this Journal, vol. 36 (1971), pp. 456460.Google Scholar