User:RJGray/Sandboxcantor5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History[edit]

History of approaches that led to NBG set theory

Von Neumann's 1925 axiom system[edit]

Von Neumann published an introductory article on his axiom system in 1925. In 1928, he provided a detailed treatment of his system.[1] Von Neumann based his axiom system on two domains of primitive objects: functions and arguments. These domains overlap—objects that are in both domains are called argument-functions. Functions correspond to classes in NBG, and argument-functions correspond to sets. Von Neumann's primitive operation is function application, denoted by [a, x] rather than a(x) where a is a function and x is an argument. This operation produces an argument. Von Neumann defined classes and sets using functions and argument-functions that take only two values, A and B. He defined x ∈ a if [a, x] ≠ A.[2]

Von Neumann's work in set theory was influenced by Georg Cantor's articles, Ernst Zermelo's 1908 axioms for set theory, and the 1922 critiques of Zermelo's set theory that were given independently by Abraham Fraenkel and Thoralf Skolem. Both Fraenkel and Skolem pointed out that Zermelo's axioms cannot prove the existence of the set {Z0, Z1, Z2, ...} where Z0 is the set of natural numbers and Zn+1 is the power set of Zn. They then introduced the axiom of replacement, which would guarantee the existence of such sets.[3] However, they were reluctant to adopt this axiom: Fraenkel stated "that Replacement was too strong an axiom for 'general set theory'", while "Skolem only wrote that 'we could introduce' Replacement".[4]

Von Neumann worked on the problems of Zermelo set theory and provided solutions for some of them:

  • A theory of ordinals
    • Problem: Cantor's theory of ordinal numbers cannot be developed in Zermelo set theory because it lacks the axiom of replacement.[a]
    • Solution: Von Neumann recovered Cantor's theory by defining the ordinals using sets that are well-ordered by the ∈-relation,[b] and by using the axiom of replacement to prove key theorems about the ordinals, such as every well-ordered set is order-isomorphic with an ordinal.[a] In contrast to Fraenkel and Skolem, von Neumann emphasized how important the replacement axiom is for set theory: "In fact, I believe that no theory of ordinals is possible at all without this axiom."[5]
  • A criterion identifying classes that are too large to be sets
    • Problem: Zermelo did not provide such a criterion. His set theory avoids the large classes that lead to the paradoxes, but it leaves out many sets, such as the one mentioned by Fraenkel and Skolem.[c]
    • Solution: Von Neumann introduced the criterion: A class is too large to be a set if and only if it can be mapped onto the class V of all sets. Von Neumann realized that the set-theoretic paradoxes could be avoided by not allowing such large classes to be members of any class. Combining this restriction with his criterion, he obtained his axiom of limitation of size: A class C is not a member of any class if and only if C can be mapped onto V.[6]
  • Finite axiomatization
    • Problem: Zermelo had used the imprecise concept of "definite propositional function" in his axiom of separation.
    • Solutions: Skolem introduced the axiom schema of separation that was later used in ZFC, and Fraenkel introduced an equivalent solution. However, Zermelo rejected both approaches "particularly because they implicitly involve the concept of natural number which, in Zermelo's view, should be based upon set theory."[d] Von Neumann avoided axiom schemas by formalizing the concept of "definite propositional function" with his functions, whose construction requires only finitely many axioms. This led to his set theory having finitely many axioms.[7] In 1961, Richard Montague proved that ZFC cannot be finitely axiomatized.[8]
  • The axiom of regularity
    • Problem: Zermelo set theory starts with the empty set and an infinite set, and iterates the axioms of pairing, union, power set, separation, and choice to generate new sets. However, it does not restrict sets to these. For example, it allows sets that are not well-founded, such as a set x satisfying x ∈ x.[9]
    • Solutions: Fraenkel introduced an axiom to exclude these sets. Von Neumann analyzed Fraenkel's axiom and stated that it was not "precisely formulated", but it would approximately say: "Besides the sets ... whose existence is absolutely required by the axioms, there are no further sets."[10] Von Neumann proposed the axiom of regularity as a way to exclude non-well-founded sets, but did not include it in his axiom system. In 1930, Zermelo became the first to publish an axiom system that included regularity.[e]

Von Neumann's 1929 axiom system[edit]

John von Neumann in the 1940s

In 1929, von Neumann published an article containing the axioms that would lead to NBG. This article was motivated by his concern about the consistency of the axiom of limitation of size. He stated that this axiom "does a lot, actually too much." Besides implying the axioms of separation and replacement, and the well-ordering theorem, it also implies that any class whose cardinality is less than that of V is a set. Von Neumann thought that this last implication went beyond Cantorian set theory and concluded: "We must therefore discuss whether its [the axiom's] consistency is not even more problematic than an axiomatization of set theory that does not go beyond the necessary Cantorian framework."[11]

Von Neumann started his consistency investigation by introducing his 1929 axiom system, which contains all the axioms of his 1925 axiom system except the axiom of limitation of size. He replaced this axiom with two of its consequences, the axiom of replacement and a choice axiom. Von Neumann's choice axiom states: "Every relation R has a subclass that is a function with the same domain as R."[12]

Let S be von Neumann's 1929 axiom system. Von Neumann introduced the axiom system S + Regularity (which consists of S and the axiom of regularity) to demonstrate that his 1925 system is consistent relative to S. He proved:

  1. If S is consistent, then S + Regularity is consistent.
  2. S + Regularity implies the axiom of limitation of size. Since this is the only axiom of his 1925 axiom system that S + Regularity does not have, S + Regularity implies all the axioms of his 1925 system.

These results imply: If S is consistent, then von Neumann's 1925 axiom system is consistent. Proof: If S is consistent, then S + Regularity is consistent (result 1). Using proof by contradiction, assume that the 1925 axiom system is inconsistent, or equivalently: the 1925 axiom system implies a contradiction. Since S + Regularity implies the axioms of the 1925 system (result 2), S + Regularity also implies a contradiction. However, this contradicts the consistency of S + Regularity. Therefore, if S is consistent, then von Neumann's 1925 axiom system is consistent.

Since S is his 1929 axiom system, von Neumann's 1925 axiom system is consistent relative to his 1929 axiom system, which is closer to Cantorian set theory. The major differences between Cantorian set theory and the 1929 axiom system are classes and von Neumann's choice axiom. The axiom system S + Regularity was modified by Bernays and Gödel to produce the equivalent NBG axiom system.

Bernays' axiom system[edit]

Paul Bernays, 1949
Paul Bernays, 1949
Paul Bernays, 1949
Paul Bernays, 1949
Paul Bernays, 1949

In 1929, Paul Bernays started modifying von Neumann's new axiom system by taking classes and sets as primitives. He published his work in a series of articles appearing from 1937 to 1954.[13] By using sets, Bernays was following the tradition established by Cantor, Richard Dedekind, and Zermelo. His classes followed the tradition of Boolean algebra since they permit the operation of complement as well as union and intersection.[f] Bernays handled sets and classes in a two-sorted logic and introduced two membership primitives: one for membership in sets and one for membership in classes. With these primitives, Bernays rewrote and simplified von Neumann's 1929 axioms.[14]

Gödel's axiom system (NBG)[edit]

Kurt Gödel, 1925

In 1931, Bernays sent a letter containing his set theory to Kurt Gödel.[15] Gödel simplified Bernays' theory by making every set a class, which allowed him to use just one sort and one membership primitive. He also weakened some of Bernays' axioms and replaced von Neumann's choice axiom with the equivalent axiom of global choice.[16][g] Gödel used his axioms in his 1940 monograph on the relative consistency of global choice and the generalized continuum hypothesis.[17]

Several reasons have been given for Gödel choosing NBG for his monograph:[h]

  • Gödel gave a mathematical reason—NBG's global choice produces a stronger consistency theorem: "This stronger form of the axiom [of choice], if consistent with the other axioms, implies, of course, that a weaker form is also consistent."[18]
  • Robert Solovay conjectured: "My guess is that he [Gödel] wished to avoid a discussion of the technicalities involved in developing the rudiments of model theory within axiomatic set theory."[i]
  • Kenneth Kunen gave a reason for Gödel avoiding this discussion: "There is also a much more combinatorial approach to L [the constructible universe], developed by ... [Gödel in his 1940 monograph] in an attempt to explain his work to non-logicians. ... This approach has the merit of removing all vestiges of logic from the treatment of L."[19]
  • Charles Parsons provided a philosophical reason for Gödel's choice: "This view [that 'property of set' is a primitive of set theory] may be reflected in Gödel's choice of a theory with class variables as the framework for ... [his monograph]."[j]

Gödel's achievement together with the details of his presentation led to the prominence that NBG would enjoy for the next two decades.[20] In 1963, Paul Cohen proved his independence proofs for ZF with the help of some tools that Gödel had developed for his relative consistency proofs for NBG.[21] Later, ZFC became more popular than NBG. This was caused by several factors, including the extra work required to handle forcing in NBG,[k] Cohen's 1966 presentation of forcing, which used ZF,[22] and the proof that NBG is a conservative extension of ZFC.[l]

  1. ^ von Neumann 1925, von Neumann 1928.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference VN1925def was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Ferreirós 2007, p. 369. In 1917, Dmitry Mirimanoff published a form of replacement based on cardinal equivalence (Mirimanoff 1917, p. 49).
  4. ^ Kanamori 2012, p. 62.
  5. ^ von Neumann 1925, p. 223 (footnote); English translation: van Heijenoort 2002b, p. 398 (footnote).
  6. ^ Hallett 1984, pp. 288–290. Von Neumann stated his axiom in an equivalent functional form (von Neumann 1925, p. 225; English translation: van Heijenoort 2002b, p. 400).
  7. ^ von Neumann 1925, pp. 224–226; English translation: van Heijenoort 2002b, pp. 399–401.
  8. ^ Montague 1961.
  9. ^ Mirimanoff defined well-founded sets in 1917 (Mirimanoff 1917, p. 41).
  10. ^ von Neumann 1925, pp. 230–232; English translation: van Heijenoort 2002b, pp. 404–405.
  11. ^ von Neumann 1929, p. 229; Ferreirós 2007, pp. 379–380.
  12. ^ Kanamori 2009, pp. 49, 53.
  13. ^ Kanamori 2009, pp. 48, 58.
  14. ^ Kanamori 2009, pp. 48–54. Bernays' articles are reprinted in Müller 1976, pp. 1–117.
  15. ^ Kanamori 2009, p. 48; Gödel 2003, pp. 104–115.
  16. ^ Kanamori 2009, p. 56.
  17. ^ Kanamori 2009, pp. 56–58; Gödel 1940.
  18. ^ Cite error: The named reference Godelp6 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  19. ^ Kunen 1980, p. 176.
  20. ^ Kanamori 2009, p. 57.
  21. ^ Cohen 1963.
  22. ^ Cohen 1966, pp. 107–147. Cohen also gave a detailed proof of Gödel's relative consistency theorems using ZF (Cohen 1966, pp. 85–99).


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RJGray/Sandboxcantor5&oldid=896590324"