This tag is for set theory topics typically studied at the advanced undergraduate or graduate level. These include cofinality, axioms of ZFC, axiom of choice, forcing, set-theoretic independence, large cardinals, models of set theory, ultrafilters, ultrapowers, constructible universe, inner model ...

learn more… | top users | synonyms

2
votes
3answers
544 views

Advantage of accepting non-measurable sets

What would be the advantage of accepting non-measurable sets? I personally feel that non-measurable sets only exist because of infamous Banach-Tarski paradox...
1
vote
1answer
29 views

The set of ordinals $< \alpha$ of a given cofinality $\kappa< \text{cf}(\alpha)$ is stationary

I don't understand the last line of the following proof : I understand that we climbed up to $g(\kappa)$ in $\kappa$ steps (i.e. cf$\big(g(\kappa)\big) \leq \kappa$) but can we be sure that we did ...
2
votes
1answer
30 views

Clarifying some doubts on the definition of “extensional classes”

On page 68 of Jech's "Set Theory" 4th Edition there is the following definition : A class $\mathcal{M}$ is extensional if the relation $\in$ on $\mathcal{M}$ is extensional, i.e., if for any ...
3
votes
3answers
75 views

Lists of sets as objects of ZF axiomatics

I have a naive question about foundations of mathematics. A common opinion of most mathematicians is that the essential part of mathematics can be reduced to ZF(C) axioms. I do not quite understand ...
1
vote
1answer
161 views

Reference request, Descriptive set theory

I was wondering what a good text would be to learn descriptive set theory out of? Hopefully something more in the spirit of Kunen's text on the introduction to independence proofs.
-2
votes
1answer
289 views

Another way of extending the Banach-Tarski paradox?

This question is kinda a follow-up on Extending Banach-Tarski paradox? On a sphere, we can do all kinds of translations. We will, as usual, look to the translations that are a string of two ...
2
votes
4answers
212 views

Russell's paradox and axiom of separation

I don't quite understand how the axiom of separation resolves Russell's paradox in an entirely satisfactory way (without relying on other axioms). I see that it removes the immediate contradiction ...
0
votes
4answers
236 views

What is the future of Set Theory if it is NOT the foundation of Mathematics?

Homotopy Type Theory has been receiving a lot of hype during the last couple of years and been hailed as the most effective foundation of all Mathematics compared with Set Theory. My question: If ...
2
votes
1answer
35 views

What do we call well-founded posets whose elements have a unique height?

What do we call those well-founded posets $P$ with the property that for every $x \in P$, all maximal chains in the lowerset generated by $x$ have the same length? Examples: The set of all finite ...
1
vote
1answer
81 views

Is this behavior of the continuum function consistent with ZFC.

I have an axiom, based on how finite cardinalities work. As we know, every ordinal can be written as the sum of a unique limit ordinal $L$ (where $0$ is a limit ordinal axiom for the purposes of this ...
5
votes
1answer
265 views

$\Sigma_{\alpha+1}^0(X)$ universal set based on the Baire space

In my attempts to write a cleaner proof (compared to what I was taught) to the fact that for uncountable Polish spaces the Borel hierarchy does not stop until $\omega_1$ I am trying to prove the ...
10
votes
1answer
206 views

Do second-order categoricity proofs require a background concept of set?

In his article "The Set-Theoretic Multiverse", Joel David Hamkins (as part of his reply to Donald Martin's argument that the set-theoretic universe is unique, found in "Multiple Universes of Sets and ...
2
votes
1answer
45 views

$|\alpha\times\alpha|=|\alpha|$ for infinite ordinal $\alpha$, definably

I am trying to prove Proposition 1.7 of http://math.bu.edu/people/aki/7.pdf: Proposition 1.7 (Halbeisen–Shelah). If $\aleph_0\le|X|$, then $|{\cal P}(X)|\not\le|{\rm Seq}(X)|$. In words, ...
5
votes
3answers
762 views

What's wrong with this proof of the inconsistency of the axiom of choice?

Let $\mathscr{T}$ be the (countable) collection of all theorems provable in ZFC. Define an equivalence relation on $\mathscr{T}$ by $\phi\sim\psi$ iff $(\phi \iff \psi)$. In other words, two theorems ...
1
vote
1answer
29 views

Justification for ordinal arithmetic at limit ordinals

Wikipedia tells me that: $$\alpha + \lambda := \bigcup_{\beta < \lambda} \left ( \alpha + \beta \right ) $$ for a limit ordinal $\lambda$. Multiplication and exponentiation, as Wikipedia says, ...
2
votes
0answers
45 views

Supplementing FOL with the Härtig quantifier

"The Härtig quantifier captures a certain fairly large fragment of second-order logic and contributes to understanding higher-order logic." (p. 1154 ...
26
votes
6answers
1k views

Are there any nontrivial examples of contradictions arising in non-foundational or applied math due to naive set theory?

I understand that naive set theory, whose axioms are extensionality and unrestricted comprehension, is inconsistent, due to paradoxes like Russell, Curry, Cantor, and Burali-Forti. But these all ...
1
vote
1answer
45 views

Indiscernibles and colorations.

Let $L$ be a language, and $(X,\leq)$ be a total order contained in an $L$-structure $\frak{A}$. Now if we denote by $[X]^n$ the set of $n$-sized sequences in $X$ and consider a set $\Gamma$ of ...
1
vote
0answers
31 views

Condition for an Ultrafilter to be Ramsey.

I read in the english Ultrafilter article on Wikipedia that one can prove that a non-principal ultrafilter $D$ on $\omega$ is a Ramsey ultrafilter if and only if for every coloration $c:[\omega]^2 ...
2
votes
1answer
68 views

Non analytic ideals on $\omega$

I would like to gather examples of NON analytic ideals on $\omega$. However, I have found nothing in the books and papers I have consulted. Could anyone tell me some reference/s?
0
votes
0answers
56 views

The Banach-Tarski paradox and Special Relativity [closed]

I'm wondering if SR would also prevent B-T from "working" even if the usually cited impediment were negated. It's always said that the The Banach-Tarski duplication doesn't work for real objects ...
1
vote
1answer
46 views

If $|A|<|B|$ does $B$ surject onto $\aleph(A)$?

After reading Proving existence of a surjection $2^{\aleph_0} \to \aleph_1$ without AC I became curious if there is a generalization to arbitrary cardinals. That is, if $\frak m<n$, does it follow ...
1
vote
1answer
42 views

How to show countability of $\omega^\omega$ or $\epsilon_0$ in ZF?

I know that with choice, the countable union of countable sets is countable, making $\omega^\omega$ and $\epsilon_0$ both countable. Can we show this without choice? E.g. in the case that $\omega_1$ ...
1
vote
1answer
32 views

P-names are comprehensible in the ground model

If my understanding of $\mathbb{P}$-names $\tau$ is correct, they must be comprehensible by someone living in the ground model $\mathcal{M}$. However, the value $\tau[G]$ of $\tau$ need not be ...
3
votes
1answer
114 views

Must $\mathfrak{sd} = \mathfrak{d}$?

This should be fun. Let $\mathfrak{sd}$ be the least cardinal $\kappa$ such that there exists $\langle s_i : i < \kappa \rangle$ satisfying the following. (1) Each $s_i: \omega^{\omega} \to ...
6
votes
1answer
148 views

Dominating strategically $\omega_1$ reals

For a given $\kappa > \omega$, define the game $d(\kappa)$ that runs for $\omega$ stages as follows: At stage $n$, player I chooses a sequence of elements of $\omega$, $g_n$ of length $\kappa$, and ...
4
votes
1answer
73 views

How to prove that $\sf CH$ implies $2^{\aleph_0}=\aleph_1$

Of course, most of you will, upon reading the title, exclaim "But isn't that the definition of the continuum hypothesis?" So I need to be a little more careful about the exact definitions. Let ...
3
votes
0answers
44 views

Does “$(\exists f:A\twoheadrightarrow B)\implies(\exists f:B\hookrightarrow A)$” implies the axiom of choice? [duplicate]

Let $P$ denotes the property that if there exists a surjection from set $A$ to set $B$, then there exists an injection from $B$ to $A$. It's apparent that $P$ can be proved in ZFC. My question is that ...
0
votes
0answers
29 views

Intersection with the empty set in Principia Mathematica

In Whitehead and Russell's Principia Mathematica, "arithmetical class-sum" is defined as I have tried my best to decipher the dated notation in the book. It seems that the sum is defined as the ...
4
votes
1answer
158 views

Ultrafilters on $\omega$ and lower/upper density

(Show that)If $\mathscr{U}$ is an ultrafilter on $\omega$, then $\mathscr{U}$ contains a subset $A$ of lower density zero. (But) there is an ultrafilter on $\omega$ such that every $A \in ...
2
votes
1answer
277 views

Is the Bourbaki treatment of Set Theory outdated?

On page 5 of the following write up, the author asks why the Bourbaki did not notice that their system of Zermelo set theory with AC was inadequate for existing mathematics. Throughout the rest of the ...
4
votes
1answer
74 views

$\phi(\mathbb{P}\ast \mathbb{\dot{Q}})$ has property $\mu$-linked and $\mu$-centered.

Let $\mathbb{P}$ be a poset and $\mathbb{\dot{Q}}$ be a $\mathbb{P}$-name of a poset. If $\phi(\mathbb{P})$ and $\Vdash_{\mathbb{P}} \phi(\mathbb{\dot{Q}})$, then $\phi(\mathbb{P}\ast ...
3
votes
1answer
91 views

Extending Banach-Tarski paradox?

I've learned the Banach-Tarski paradox as following: The points on the sphere (but not the fixed points) are drawn as a square grid, form each point there are three new directions plus the direction ...
5
votes
0answers
110 views

ZF and weakly inaccessible cardinals

This question should probably have been asked 3 years ago (perhaps it has and was removed for some reason?) In 2011, Alexander Kiselev claimed to have proved in ZF that there are no weakly ...
13
votes
10answers
1k views

Neatest proof that set of finite subsets is countable?

I am looking for a beautiful way of showing the following basic result in elementary set theory: If $A$ is a countable set then the set of finite subsets of $A$ is countable. I proved it as ...
-2
votes
2answers
60 views

Set Theory : Unusual proof of Well Founded Closure in T Forster Logic, Induction and Sets [closed]

I am reading the Lemma 82 proof in T Forster Logic, Induction and Sets, but I can't understand the working in the red circled text below.
1
vote
1answer
31 views

Question about $\text{non}(\mathsf{nonstat}_\gamma)$

A lemma in Kunen's (2011) set theory states that if $\gamma$ is a limit ordinal with $\kappa=\text{cf}(\gamma)>\omega$, then $\text{add}(\mathsf{nonstat}_\gamma)$ $=$ ...
0
votes
2answers
55 views

The number of subsets of cardinality less than $\kappa$ of a cardinal $\kappa$ is $\kappa$

Let $L=\bigcup_{\alpha \in Ord} L_\alpha$ be Godel's constructible universe and thus $L \models GCH$. Let $\kappa$ be an infinite cardinal and $S:=\{A \subseteq \kappa : \#A < \kappa \}$. Is it ...
9
votes
2answers
145 views

Can $T$, $T+A$, and $T+\neg A$ all have different consistency strengths?

Let $T$ be a consistent theory, and let $A$ be a statement in the same language. Consider the three theories $T$ $T+A$ $T+\neg A$ Is it possible for them to be pairwise distinct in consistency ...
4
votes
1answer
39 views

Is there a simple formula for the cardinality of $\{A\subseteq\kappa\mid |A|\leq\lambda\}$ when $\lambda\leq\kappa$?

If $\lambda\leq\kappa$ are infinite cardinals, how many subsets of $\kappa$ of size $\lambda$ are there? And of size $\leq\lambda$? Is there some sort of explicite formula for this? The internet isn't ...
7
votes
4answers
684 views

number of infinite sets with different cardinalities

I would like to know whether the number of infinity sets of different cardinalities is uncountable or countable. Is the proof simple? Thanks.
2
votes
1answer
69 views

Is there a 'largest' second-order categorical axiomatization of set theory, extended from ZFC2

While it's possible to obtain categorical second-order axiomatizations of set theory by extending ZFC2 with additional axioms (see [1]), these axioms seem somewhat arbitrary (e.g. adding an axiom that ...
4
votes
2answers
172 views

Can set theory be inverted?

Has anybody investigated or constructed a set theory, call it $T$, which develops in a manner that is the reverse of how the majority of the standard set theories develop? Instead of starting with the ...
4
votes
2answers
51 views

Ordered tuples of proper classes

From time to time I encounter notation like this: A triple $\langle \mathbf{No}, \mathrm{<}, b \rangle$ is a surreal number system if and only if ... The confusing part is that a proper class ...
3
votes
0answers
122 views

Is it known if “Homotopy type theory” (HTT) can consistently model objects beyond V?

I read the free book on HTT but could not find an answer to this question. If that were the case HTT would be stronger than ZFC+LC (for any choice of the Large Cardinal axiom). That would be ...
3
votes
2answers
257 views

Why is it important, that mathematics can be formalized in set theory?

Why is it important, that mathematics can be formalized in set theory? As one can read in the thread Are there areas of mathematics that cannot be formalized in set theory? Today known mathematical ...
2
votes
0answers
36 views

Is every mathematical object representable by sets? [duplicate]

I know that most mathematical objects can be represented by a complex structure of sets. For example one can use von Neumann ordinals for representing natural numbers: $$\begin{align} 0 & = \{\} ...
1
vote
2answers
455 views

On the definition of weakly compact cardinals

I am reading in Jech's Set Theory the chapter about large cardinals. After discussing measurable cardinals he moves on to weakly-compact cardinals, which have been discussed far earlier in the book. I ...
5
votes
1answer
782 views

Explain Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory in layman terms

What does Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory mean? According to Wikipedia, Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory is a set theory that is proposed to overcome issues in naive set theory. I really appreciate if ...
4
votes
2answers
79 views

Equivalence between different forms of the Axiom of Infinity

In Zermelo-Frankel set theory, the Axiom of Infinity is often stated as "There exists a set $X$ such that $\emptyset \in X$ and such that if $y\in X$ then $S^{+}_1(y)\in X$", where we take the ...