2
votes
1answer
13 views

Uniqueness in transfinite recursion.

Theorem of transfinite recursion: Given a well-ordered set $A$ let $\varphi(g,y)$ be a ZF formula such that for every $a \in A$ and every function $g$ with domain $I_a$ (where $I_a$ is the initial ...
-2
votes
0answers
60 views

How can I make a set theory arbitrarily weak and finitely axiomatizable?

So the background is I'm trying to construct an automated theorem proving system based on first order resolution to formalize problems in mathematics and number theory. I'm familiar with the notion ...
2
votes
1answer
34 views

A problem in transitivity of set

Let $D$ be a transitive set with the following property : $$\forall a\in D:\quad a\subseteq B\,\Longrightarrow a\in B$$ Prove that $D\subseteq B$. I think there will be needed axiom of ...
3
votes
1answer
42 views

Meaning of the Axiom of regularity (foundation)

Do I understand correctly that without the Axiom of regularity (aka Axiom of foundation): $$\forall x\left(x=\varnothing\ {\Large\lor}\ \exists y\left(y \in x\ {\Large\land}\ y \cap x = ...
2
votes
1answer
66 views

Equivalent formulations of the Axiom of Replacement

Let $a$, $b$, $S$ denote sets, and let $\varphi$ be a statement in two set variables. Here are two ways of expressing the Axiom of Replacement which I have seen used: 1) If $$\text{for all } a \in S, ...
2
votes
1answer
53 views

Difference between impredicative and predicative version of separation axiom

What is the difference between an impredicative and a predicative version of the separation axiom in ZFC: $$\forall x \exists y \forall z ( z\in y \leftrightarrow (z \in x \wedge \phi (z)) $$ What ...
5
votes
2answers
60 views

How can I define $\mathbb{N}$ if I postulate existence of a Dedekind-infinite set rather than existence of an inductive set?

Suppose in the axioms of $\sf ZF$ we replaced the Axiom of infinity There exists an inductive set. with the Axiom of Dedekind-infinite set There exists a set equipollent with its proper ...
1
vote
1answer
43 views

Well-Ordering Theorem without Axiom of Regularity

Personally, I am not fond of the Axiom of Regularity. Some alternative models in set theory use the negation of the Axiom of Regularity as an axiom (non well-founded theories). I am curious if the ...
1
vote
2answers
43 views

Problem understanding the Axiom of Foundation

I am just beginning to learn the ZF axioms of set theory, and I am having trouble understanding the Axiom of Foundation. What exactly does it mean that "every non-empty set x contains a member y such ...
6
votes
1answer
119 views

Is it possible to prove the axiom of infinity from the real number axioms?

What I mean by the title is whether, given that there is a class $\Bbb R$ and operations $+,\cdot,<$ that satisfy the ordered field axioms and the least upper bound axiom, you can prove the ...
12
votes
2answers
252 views

Non-constructive axiom of infinity

Looking at the ZFC axioms (in the Wikipedia version), the axiom of infinity stands out because it contains an extremely specific construction. This seems rather unelegant to me, therefore I've thought ...
5
votes
1answer
274 views

How can I prove that there is no set containing itself without using axiom of foundation?

I've already found some similar questions in here (and other sites), but in most of the case, the use of axiom of foundation is required to complete the proof. Is there any way to prove $\not\exists ...
4
votes
1answer
60 views

Equivalence of Axiom of Regularity

So Axiom of regularity states: every non-empty set A contains an element that is disjoint from A I'm wondering if this is equivalent as any set is not a member of itself? If so, how do we prove it? ...
1
vote
1answer
74 views

How to extract the sets “produced” by a axiomatic set theory, into some newly introduced collection?

Say I know well how to reason in a set theory, which for the sake of this question I'll call $\bf{ST}$, say one of those, it can by $\bf ZFC$. It's principally written down via first order logic and ...
3
votes
1answer
81 views

What is the weakest notion of “set” that we need, so that we can say the Yoneda lemma implies something about sets?

We set up a set theory axiomatically by fixing certain statements about "$\in$". There are many different set theories. The Yoneda lemma (the theorem about functors to Set) is a early but central ...
1
vote
1answer
87 views

Axiom of Infinity, existence of empty set circular?

I am reading Jech's "Set Theory". First, he states that the existence of the empty set follows from the axiom of infinity. The empty set is defined, using the separation schema as $$\emptyset = \{ u ...
4
votes
2answers
177 views

What is the relation between axiomatic set theory and logical quantifiers?

On the one hand, the logical predicates $\forall$ and $\exists$ are defined using the concept of a Domain of Discourse, which itself is defined as a set (at least according to wikipedia). On the ...
3
votes
1answer
60 views

When do surjections split in ZF? Two surjections imply bijection?

We have that the Axiom of Choice is equivalent to the principle that every surjection has a right inverse. However, without the Axiom of Choice we can determine for some $X$ that $X\succeq Y\implies ...
0
votes
2answers
88 views

How do the ZFC axioms produce the ideas of order?

The notion of order (and cardinality, for that matter) seems so basic to me that I can't imagine how it could be derived from anything. In an answer to a previous question I learned that all the ...
5
votes
3answers
157 views

Axiom schema of specification (formula arguments)

Some sources define the formula like this: $$ \forall w_1,\ldots,w_n \, \forall A \, \exists B \, \forall x \, ( x \in B \Leftrightarrow [ x \in A \wedge \varphi(x, w_1, \ldots, w_n , A) ] ) $$ Why ...
1
vote
1answer
59 views

Multiple context available for the AC?

I am surprised at the language used in connection with the axiom of choice. From the answer to a question a made (which turned out to be duplicate) about involvement of AC in Wiles’ proof of Fermat’s ...
3
votes
2answers
171 views

axioms of equality

Every text I've come across uses the Axiom of Extensionality to describe the fact that sets are equal iff they contain each other's elements. $$(\forall x)(\forall y)\bigl((\forall a)(a\in x \iff a\in ...
13
votes
1answer
427 views

Can we prove the existence of $A\cup B$ without the union axiom?

If $A$ and $B$ are sets, then $A\cup B$ is defined as follows: $$A\cup B:=\{x: x\in A \, \, \,\text{ or } \, \, \, x\in B\}.$$ In ZFC, $A\cup B$ exists because $\bigcup\{A,B\}$ exists by union axiom, ...
3
votes
1answer
102 views

Deriving the Axiom of Infinity

I'm currently reading about recursion, working on various exercises since I haven't formally studied the material before. The main book that I'm following is Kunen's Set Theory book There's an ...
3
votes
2answers
114 views

What is meant by one axiom being “weaker” than another?

If we have two axioms $A$ and $B$, what exactly is meant by axiom $A$ being weaker than axiom $B$? This question is a follow-up to A weaker Axiom of Infinity?
5
votes
1answer
173 views

A weaker Axiom of Infinity?

As I understand, the Axiom of Infinity in ZFC theory gives us an infinite set from which the natural numbers can be extracted. (See "Axiom of Infinity" at ...
0
votes
4answers
88 views

Replacing Axiom of Extensionality with a logical formalism

Is it possible to replace the Axiom of Extensionality with a formalism from logic, namely the following one: $\forall a \forall b (a=b\Leftrightarrow \forall P (P (a)\Leftrightarrow P (b)))$ ($ P $ is ...
3
votes
3answers
130 views

If we abandon the axiom of regularity, can the cumulative hierarchy just become a definition?

In ZFC, the axiom of regularity is used to prove that every set is an element of some stage of the cumulative hierarchy. The index of the least such stage is, by definition, the rank of that set. Now ...
2
votes
1answer
64 views

Can I express (only) the syntactical formulation of a set theory within another.

Motivated by this question on the SE philosophy board "Is there a one true set theory", I want to ask for a clarification: I've seen e.g. ZF being expressed in Grothendieck set theory. If I say ...
7
votes
0answers
158 views

What does category theory say about chains of set inclusions $\dots\in c\in b\in a$?

I'm currently trying to understand to what extend a set theory like ZFC can be mirrored within category theory, i.e. topos theory. What appears as an obstacle to me is the axiom of regularity, which ...
11
votes
2answers
526 views

Which axioms of ZFC or PA are known to not be derivable from the others?

Which, if any, axioms of ZFC are known to not be derivable from the other axioms? Which, if any, axioms of PA are known to not be derivable from the other axioms?
6
votes
1answer
134 views

An Exercise in Kunen (A Model for Foundation, Pairing,…)

This is exercise I.4.18 in Kunen's Set Theory. Derive $\forall y (y \notin y)$ from the Axioms of Comprehension and Foundation. Don't use the Pairing or Extensionality Axioms. Then find a 2 element ...
2
votes
1answer
251 views

What's the differences between naive and axiomatic set theory?

I'm at a loss studying math.Recently I decided to begin with set theory as it seems the most fundamental for math.I found the book Naive Set Theory by Halmos,and began to read it because it's so thin ...
4
votes
1answer
150 views

Understanding the Definition of the Axiom Schema of Specification

Consider the Axiom Schema of Separation: If $P$ is a property (with paramter $p$), then for any $X$ and $p$ there exists a set $Y = \{u \in X : P(u,p)\}$ that contains all those $u \in X$ that ...
2
votes
2answers
56 views

Question Regarding the Replacement Schema

For each formula $\phi(x,y,p)$, we have the following axiom: $\forall x \forall y \forall z (\phi(x,y,p) \wedge \phi(x,z,p) \rightarrow y = z) \rightarrow \forall X \exists Y \forall y (y \in Y ...
14
votes
2answers
152 views

How far is it true that statements dependent on Axiom of Choice are not constructive.

Axiom of Choice is often used in mathematics to construct various objects, such as basis of $\mathbb{R}$ as a vector space over $\mathbb{Q}$, unmeasurable subset of $\mathbb{R}$, or a non-principal ...
3
votes
1answer
83 views

Success of Hilbert's Axioms

We know Euclid's axioms were found to be having many loopholes as in there were still many assumptions which weren't being stated in his system of axioms . Are Hilbert's axioms today completely ...
3
votes
1answer
67 views

ZF: Regularity axiom or axiom schema?

I have seen the axiom system ZF for set theory described including a single axiom of regularity (aka "foundation"), namely $$\forall x\neq\emptyset \, \exists y\in x \ y\cap x = \emptyset$$ and also ...
5
votes
3answers
156 views

Gödel's incompleteness wrt weakend versions of ZFC

Suppose for the sake of argument that we look at ZFC with the axiom of infinity removed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems#First_incompleteness_theorem ...
5
votes
1answer
233 views

What set theory axioms do I need to believe in uncountable ordinals?

Math people: The title is the question. I am convinced that uncountable sets exist, thanks to Cantor's diagonal proof. It is not intuitively clear to me that uncountable ordinals or cardinals should ...
3
votes
2answers
142 views

Axiom of Regularity - Transitive set

I just managed to confuse myself completely while studying for Set Theory. We have the Axiom of regularity: $$\forall S (S\not= \emptyset \rightarrow (\exists x\in S)(S\cap x=\emptyset))$$ Now a set ...
6
votes
3answers
162 views

Question Regarding the Axiom of Extensionality

Jech's text on Set Theory states the following: If X and Y have the same elements, then X = Y : ∀u(u ∈ X ↔ u ∈ Y ) → X = Y. The converse, namely, if X = Y then u ∈ X ↔ u ∈ Y, is an axiom ...
9
votes
1answer
161 views

What is the smallest fragment of ZFC that has the same consistency strength as ZFC?

The question in the title is undoubtedly nonsensical, but I am not sure how to state this question properly. Perhaps some examples will help me explain it. Thanks to Godel and Cohen, we know that ...
1
vote
2answers
66 views

¿Can you help me with axiom of regularity? [duplicate]

I understand that if we define a set such that $A=\{A\}$ we have then a contradiction because of regularity axiom, thus, a set can not be a member of itself. My question is; how can it be so, if I ...
4
votes
2answers
99 views

ZF Extensionality axiom

To familiarize myself with axiomatic set theory, I am reading Kenneth Kunen's The Foundations of Mathematics that presents ZF set theory. I haven't gotten really far since I am stuck at the axiom of ...
3
votes
2answers
129 views

Axiom of infinity exceptions?

It is my understanding that the axiom of infinity, or axioms that depend on the axiom of infinity, are the only axioms that are not representable in finite First-Order Predicate Logic. Is this ...
3
votes
2answers
44 views

Schema of separation and set of all sets

The schema of separation states (this is probably simplified) states that if $P$ is a property and $X$ is a set, then there exists a set $Y = \{ x \in X : P(x)\}$. The notes I'm reading say that from ...
4
votes
3answers
443 views

A basic doubt on axiom of foundation of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory

I have read in a book that the "axiom of foundation prevents anomalies such as a set being an element of itself". Now, axiom of foundation says that there exist an element in every set which is ...
1
vote
0answers
70 views

Is a “model” only a proper model if everything in it's definition is also explicitly constructed?

Say you have some collection of axioms and you find a set $X$ fulfilling them. And the definition of the set $X$ involves another concept, e.g. the real number, but only in a way which refers to the ...
2
votes
1answer
110 views

axiom of foundation of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory

I have found two different statements on axiom of foundation of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory in two different books as: 1) every nonempty set contains an element that is not an element of any other ...