NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/sci/logic/1918

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-04 | 5.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!husc10.harvard.edu!zeleny
From: [e-mail] (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Foundation, a.k.a. Regularity (was re: Impredicativity - was: Russell's Paradox.)
Summary: one annoyed student philosophy, one annoying computer "scientist"
Keywords: foundation (regularity) => cumulative hierarchy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:20:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Nov5.112036.17130
References: <[e-mail]>
 <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal
Lines: 113
Nntp-Posting-Host: husc10.harvard.edu

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] (Randall Holmes) writes:

RH:
>>The iterative hierarchy does _not_ exist as a completed totality, but
>>saying that it "does not exist" is like saying that the ordinals "do
>>not exist".
>>
>>The theorem I have in mind is "for any set x, for some ordinal a, x E
>>V(a)", where V(a) is defined by
>>
>>                V(0) = {}
>>                V(a+1) = P{V{a}}
>>                V(L) = U{a < L}[V(a)] (L a limit ordinal).
>>

Randall, I am very happy to see you finally come out in defense of the
Good, the True, and the Beautiful.

VP:
>That is, every set has an ordinal rank, a theorem that depends on FA.
>I think we're in complete agreement that this statement is ZF+FA's way
>of asserting the existence of the cumulative hierarchy.  That should
>put the situation in sufficiently simple terms that people can judge
>for themselves the relationship of this assertion to the more mundane
>and clearly ZF-expressible existences of ordinary mathematical
>objects.  The latter kind of existence (a) is made honestly with
>quantifiers and (b) does not depend on FA.  Decide for yourself how you
>feel about the former kind.

A terminological comment, repeated for the second time: ZF includes
Foundation in every standard formulation.

VP
>Point (a) is the weaker of the arguments, since we can simply translate
>our framework to von Neumann-Bernays set theory, where we really can
>state that the *class* of sets exists, as does the class of ordinals.
>In a way this sharpens the issue even better, by reducing a question
>about quantifiers to one about classes vs. sets.
>
>By way of at least justifying my position, if not persuading you of it,
>let me focus on (b).
>
>That the theorem does depend on FA means that from the perspective of
>those repudiating FA, there may well be no cumulative hierarchy, in the
>sense that there may well exist sets outside any such hierarchy.  Such
>people will have no quarrel with my "Anyone brought up on the iterative
>hierarchy was told a lie".  At the time I uttered this inflammatory
>heresy I was mounting a defense of AFA, in which context this can be
>seen to be a perfectly valid position, since as we have seen, refuting
>my heresy entails accepting FA.  Attacking Aczel is like attacking
>Brouwer, with the difference being that, in view of how English (and I
>imagine many other languages) assigns significance to double negatives
>and does not exclude the middle, there would appear to be more
>linguistic support for Brouwer than Aczel can reasonably hope for.  On
>the other hand there is at least support from some circles of computer
>science for dropping FA in order to allow membership cycles.

It is not clear to me that Foundation, obviously sufficient to
motivate the cumulative hierarchy, as evidenced in the theorem cited
by Randall, is also necessary for the task.

VP:
>It should be pointed out that neither of the two axiomatizations of ZF
>(that I took as definitive of ZF for my bet that ZF will be shown
>inconsistent by 2012) mention FA.  These were the axiomatizations of
>Takeuti and Zaring in their book "Introduction to Axiomatic Set
>Theory", and of Schoenfield in his article in Barwise's "Handbook of
>Mathematical Logic."  I selected these only because of their
>accessibility, not because they omitted FA.  In fact I do not know of
>an equally accessible axiomatization of ZF that includes FA (we
>amateurs are appallingly ignorant).  Randall, you're the one appealing
>to FA here, can you suggest a suitably accessible axiomatization that
>includes it?  It would come in handy for future reference.

Vaughan, I shall presume to fill in for Randall by pointing out that
Schoenfield formulates the Regularity Axiom on p. 326 of the Handbook,
whereas Takeuti & Zaring describe the same axiom on p. 18 of the first
edition of their book.  While I am happy to see someone else follow my
preferred practice of reading into a text whatever one wants to find
therein, I really wish you would check your sources before wasting the
time of your audience with this pointless prevarication.

VP:
>I should state again, for the benefit of people wanting to bet on the
>matter, that the consistency of ZF is unaffected by whether any or all
>of AFA, FA, AC, or CH is added.  But dropping any one of F
>(Replacement), the Power Set axiom, or the Axiom of Infinity, makes a
>*big* difference: I will bet only *against* inconsistency of any of
>those systems, and at very favorable odds to you if you figure these
>have even Job's chance of being inconsistent.  (Job was famous for
>doing his darndest to remain consistent in the face of three inconstant
>friends and a disturbingly inconsistent God, who had been successfully
>tempted by Satan to tempt Job into inconsistency.)

Whatever you say, Vaughan.

>--
>Vaughan Pratt                There's no truth in logic, son.

                    In regard to your pejorative
                    comments made elsewhere: logic
                    is a normative discipline, not
                    bound by the contingent and
                    fallible practices of human
                    speech.  Think about it.

cordially,
mikhail [e-mail]
" -- I shall speak bluntly, because life is short."