Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T09:13:39.392Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Markov's principle, isols and Dedekind finite sets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Charles McCarty
Charles McCarty*
Affiliation:
Centre for Cognitive Science, Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland Department of Computer Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Markov's principle is more than a convenience in constructive arithmetic and analysis; it is absolutely essential to significant areas of constructive cardinal arithmetic. In turn, logical relations among intuitively appealing principles of constructive cardinal arithmetic parallel relations between MPS and other “problematic axioms” for constructive mathematics, such as the limited principle of omniscience. Finally, simple closure properties on the Dedekind finite sets provide ready examples of statements which are strictly weaker than Markov's principle and yet are independent of extensions of IZF.

MPS, Markov's principle with variables over sets, is equivalent to each of these elementary properties of ⊿, the class of Dedekind finite sets:

1. ∀A(A Є ⊿ ↔ CP(A)).

2. [*]A Є ⊿ ↔ ∀B (A + B is infinite ↔ B is infinite).

3. [**]A Є ⊿ ↔ ∀B((A + 1) x B is infinite ↔ B is infinite).

CP is Tarski's cancellation property. Consequently, MPS is tantamount, in constructive mathematics, to the standard classical characterizations of ⊿ in terms of cardinality.

[*] and [**] imply that ⊿ is closed under addition and multiplication. Closure under addition is, in turn, constructively equivalent to the closure of ⊿ under all combinatorial functions and to the fact that ⊿ is closed under each strict combinatorial function individually. Generally speaking, a function on P(ω) is combinatorial whenever it preserves finiteness, respects cardinality and has a “moduluslike” associate function. It is strict when it is strictly increasing relative to the subset ordering, [cf. §6 for precise definitions.] From this, we see that MPS is foundational for cardinal arithmetic on the constructive Dedekind finite sets.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 53 , Issue 4 , December 1988 , pp. 1042 - 1069
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1988

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

REFERENCE

[B&P] Benacerraf, P. and Putnam, H. (editors), Philosophy of mathematics. Selected readings, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983.Google Scholar
[Bee 1] Beeson, M., Continuity in constructive set theories, Logic Colloquium '78 (Boffa, M. et al., editors), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1979, pp. 1–52.Google Scholar
[Bee 2] Beeson, M., Problematic principles in constructive mathematics, Logic Colloquium '80 (van Dalen, D., editor), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982, pp. 11–55.Google Scholar
[Bee 3] Beeson, M., Foundations of constructive mathematics. Metamathematical studies, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Bel1] Bell, J. L., Boolean-valued models and independence proofs in set theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1977.Google Scholar
[Bro 1] Brouwer, L.E.J., Zur Begründung der intuitionistischen Mathematik, Mathematische Annalen, vol. 93 (1924), pp. 244–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Bro 2] Brouwer, L.E.J., Intuitionism and formalism, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 20 (1913/1914), pp. 81–96; reprinted in [B&P], pp. 79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[D] Dummett, M., Elements of intuitionism, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1977.Google Scholar
[D&M] Dekker, J. C. E. and Myhill, J., Recursive equivalence types, University of California Publications in Mathematics, vol. 3 (1960), pp. 67–213.Google Scholar
[E1] Ellentuck, E., The universal properties of Dedekind finite cardinals, Annals of Mathematics, ser. 2, vol. 82 (1965), pp. 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[E 2] Ellentuck, E., Universal isols, Mathematische Zeitschrift, vol. 98 (1967), pp. 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[F&H] Fourman, M. P. and Hyland, J. M. E., Sheaf models for analysis. Applications of sheaves (Fourman, M. P. et al., editors), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 753, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1979, pp. 280–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[G] Gödel, K., What is Cantor's continuum problem? American Mathematical Monthly, vol. 54 (1947), pp. 515–525; reprinted in [B&P], pp. 470–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Gra 1] Grayson, R. J., A sheaf approach to models of set theory, M. Sc. thesis, Oxford University, Oxford, 1975.Google Scholar
[Gra 2] Grayson, R. J., Heyting-valued models for intuitionistic set theory, Applications of sheaves (Fourman, M. P. et al., editors), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 753, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1979, pp. 402–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Gre] Greenleaf, N., Liberal constructive set theory, Constructive mathematics (Proceedings, Las Cruces, New Mexico, 1980; Richman, F., editor), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 873, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1981, pp. 213–240.Google Scholar
[H] Heyting, A., Die intuitionistische Grundlegung der Mathematik, Erkenntnis, vol. 2 (1931/1932), pp. 106–115; English translation in [B&P], pp. 52–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[K] Kelley, J. L., General topology, Van Nostrand, Princeton, New Jersey, 1955.Google Scholar
[McC 1] McCarty, C., Realizability and recursive mathematics, D. Phil, thesis, Oxford University, Oxford, 1984; also Technical Report CMU-CS-84-131, Department of Computer Science, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1984.Google Scholar
[McC 2] McCarty, C., Realizability and recursive set theory, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 32 (1986), pp. 153–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[McC 3] McCarty, C., Computation and construction, Oxford University Press, Oxford (to appear).Google Scholar
[McC&T] McCarty, C. and Tennant, N., Skolem's paradox and constructivism, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 16 (1987), pp. 165–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[McL] McLaughlin, T. G., Regressive sets and the theory of isols. Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 66, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1982.Google Scholar
[Rog] Rogers, H., Theory of recursive functions and effective computability, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967.Google Scholar
[Sc 1] Scott, D. S., The presheaf model for set theory, manuscript, Oxford University, Oxford, 1980.Google Scholar
[Sc 2] Scott, D. S., Data types as lattices, SIAM Journal on Computing, vol. 5 (1976), pp. 522–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Sm] Smoryński, C. A., Applications of Kripke models, in [Tr 1], pp. 324–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Tar] Tarski, A., Cancellation laws in the arithmetic of cardinals, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 36 (1949), pp. 79–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Tr 1] Troelstra, A. S. (editor), Metamathematical investigation of intuitionistic arithmetic and analysis, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 344, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar