Talk:Set theory/Draft

Nice work! Boris Tsirelson 18:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I only joined CZ because I thought the world needed a decent introductory account of set theory :-) Mark Wainwright 04:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you sure the world needs nothing else? :-) Boris Tsirelson 07:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It may well do, but perhaps nothing that I am so easily able to supply. Mark Wainwright 10:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably this article is approvable. For now I am not ready to approve it, because some finer points are beyond my competence. I understand the given text about that, but I have no other sources to be sure. Namely: Boris Tsirelson 08:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "An ingenious axiom of Goedel's, Limitation of Size";
 * "Montague proved in 1961 that ZF cannot be finitely axiomatised";
 * "NF ... is finitely axiomatisable";
 * "NFU, whose consistency is implied by that of simple type theory".


 * That would be great. A web search suggests I was completely wrong about Limitation of Size and it was von Neumann. Also if http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/Class.html is correct I shouldn't have claimed it as subsuming Powerset. I've amended the article accordingly. Thanks for the glitches below, which I see someone has fixed now. I can't provide references but I'll e-mail you if I can work out how. Mark Wainwright 10:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Also I observe some minor errors: Boris Tsirelson 08:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "difference X-Y or X\Y contains of all those" — either "consists of all" or "contains all", I guess;
 * "X∪Y ={x|P and Q}, X∩Y={x|P or Q}" — swap them.

--

Being advised by Mark (the author) I have found a source for "NF ... is finitely axiomatisable" here: "Stratified comprehension is an axiom scheme, which can be replaced with finitely many of its instances (a result of Hailperin). Using the finite axiomatization removes the necessity of referring to types at all in the definition of this theory."
 * Hailperin, T. [1944] A set of axioms for logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic 9, pp. 1-19.

Boris Tsirelson 18:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I also see on the same page (by Holmes) the phrase "NFU: New Foundations with urelements. This system is consistent, ..." which I fail to understand (surely because I do not work in logic). Consistent relative to what?? How is it related to the phrase "NFU, whose consistency is implied by that of simple type theory"? Boris Tsirelson 18:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, ZF cannot be finitely axiomatised:
 * Montague. Semantic closure and non-finite axiomatizability. In Infinitistic Methods, pages 45–69. Pergamon, 1961.
 * K. Kunen. Set Theory: An Introduction to Independence Proofs. North-Holland, 1980.

Boris Tsirelson 18:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, consistency of NFU is implied by that of simple type theory:
 * R. Jensen. On the consistency of a slight(?) modification of Quine's New Foundations. Synthese, vol. 19 (1968/69), pp. 250/263.
 * M. Boffa, The consistency problem for NF. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 42, no. 2, 1977, pp. 215–220.

Boris Tsirelson 17:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)