Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:27:49.354Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Forcing for the impredicative theory of classes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Rolando Chuaqui
Rolando Chuaqui*
Affiliation:
Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The purpose of this work is to formulate a general theory of forcing with classes and to solve some of the consistency and independence problems for the impredicative theory of classes, that is, the set theory that uses the full schema of class construction, including formulas with quantification over proper classes. This theory is in principle due to A. Morse [9]. The version I am using is based on axioms by A. Tarski and is essentially the same as that presented in [6, pp. 250–281] and [10, pp. 2–11]. For a detailed exposition the reader is referred there. This theory will be referred to as .

The reflection principle (see [8]), valid for other forms of set theory, is not provable in . Some form of the reflection principle is essential for the proofs in the original version of forcing introduced by Cohen [2] and the version introduced by Mostowski [10]. The same seems to be true for the Boolean valued models methods due to Scott and Solovay [12]. The only suitable form of forcing for found in the literature is the version that appears in Shoenfield [14]. I believe Vopěnka's methods [15] would also be applicable. The definition of forcing given in the present paper is basically derived from Shoenfield's definition. Shoenfield, however, worked in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory.

I do not know of any proof of the consistency of the continuum hypothesis with assuming only that is consistent. However, if one assumes the existence of an inaccessible cardinal, it is easy to extend Gödel's consistency proof [4] of the axiom of constructibility to .

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , March 1972 , pp. 1 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Bernays, P., What do some recent results in set theory suggest?, Problems in the philosophy of mathematics (Latakos, I., Editor), Studies in logic, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1967, pp. 109–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Cohen, P. J., Set theory and the continuum hypothesis, Benjamin, New York, 1966.Google Scholar
[3]Easton, W., Powers of regular cardinals, Thesis, Princeton University, Princeton, N.J., 1964.Google Scholar
[4]Gödel, K., The consistency of the axiom of choice and of the generalized continuum hypothesis with the axioms of set theory, Annals of Mathematics Studies, No. 3, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, N.J., 1940.Google Scholar
[5]Jensen, R., The generalized continuum hypothesis and measurable cardinals, Proceeding of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 13, American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I. (to appear).Google Scholar
[6]Kelly, J. L., General topology, Van Nostrand, Princeton, N J., 1955.Google Scholar
[7]Kreisel, G., Informal rigour and completeness proofs, Problems in the philosophy of mathematics (Lakatos, I., Editor), Studies in logic, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1967, pp. 138–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Lévy, A., Axiom schemata of strong infinity in axiomatic set theory, Pacific journal of mathematics, vol. 10 (1960), pp. 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Morse, A., A theory of sets, Academic Press, New York, 1965.Google Scholar
[10]Mostowski, A., Constructible sets with applications, Studies in logic, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1969.Google Scholar
[11]Mostowski, A., An undecidable arithmetical statement, Fundamenta mathematicae, vol. 36 (1949), pp. 143–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Scott, D. and Solovay, K., Boolean-valued models for set theory, Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 13, American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I. (to appear).Google Scholar
[13]Shepherdson, J. C., Inner models for set theory. I, this Journal, vol. 16 (1951), pp. 161–190.Google Scholar
[14]Shoenfield, J., Unramified forcing, Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 13, Part I, American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1971, pp. 357–382.Google Scholar
[15]Vopěnka, P., The limits of sheaves and applications on constructions of models, Bulletin de l'académie des sciences et des arts. Série des sciences mathématiques, astronomiques et physiques, vol. 13 (1965), pp. 189–192.Google Scholar