Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:59:47.874Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sets and Point-Sets: Five Grades of Set-Theoretic Involvement in Geometry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

John P. Burgess
John P. Burgess*
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Cantor was the founder of not one but two theories: an earlier theory of point-sets and a later theory of sets. How are they related? How much more about points and sets of points can be proved with the assumption of sets of sets of points, sets of sets of sets of points, and so on, than without? The present paper is a semi-popular (nontechnical except for presupposing some familiarity with first-order logic) survey of partial answers obtained by logicians during the last decades.

Tarski (1959) has shown how classical geometry (of any number of dimensions, say for definiteness three) can be formalized in a first-order language, here to be called L0, as a first-order theory, here to be called G0. L0 has variables x,y,z, and so on for points, and predicates for a couple of geometric relations among points. G0 has a dozen axioms and one scheme.

Type
Part XIV. Set Theory
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1988 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1988 , 1988 , pp. 456 - 463
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 by the Philosophy of Science Association

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

Barwise, J.( ed.) (1977). Handbook of Mathematical Logic. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Burgess, J.P. (1984). “Synthetic Mechanics,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 13: 379–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, H.H. (1980). Science Without Numbers: A Defence of Nominalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
French, R.M. (1988). “The Banach-Tarski Theorem,” Mathematical Intelligencer 10.4: 21–29Google Scholar
Kunen, K. (1977). “Combinatorics,” in Barwise (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddy, P. (1988a). “Believing the Axioms I,” Journal of Symbolic Logic 53: 481–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddy, P. (1988b). “Believing the Axioms II,” Journal of Symbolic Logic 53: 736–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandelbrot, B.B. (1977). Fractals: Form, Chance, and Dimension. San Fransisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Martin, D.A. (1976). “Hilbert's First Problem: The Continuum Hypothesis,” in Browder, F., ed., Mathematical Developments Arising from Hilbert Problems. Providence: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
Martin, D.A. (1977). “Descriptive Set Theory,” in Barwise (1977).Google Scholar
Oxtoby, J.C. (1977), Measure and Category. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Rudin, M.E. (1977), “Martin's Axiom”, in Barwise (1977).Google Scholar
Shoenfield, J.R. (19770, “The Axioms of Set Theory”, in Barwise (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sierpinski, W. (1956), Hypothèse du Continu, 2nd. ed. New York: Chelsea.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. (1959), “What is Elementary Geometry?”, in Henkin, L., Suppes, P., Tarski, A., eds., The Axiomatic Method with Special Reference to Geometry and Physics. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar