Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:49:53.713Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RELATIVE PREDICATIVITY AND DEPENDENT RECURSION IN SECOND-ORDER SET THEORY AND HIGHER-ORDER THEORIES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2014

SATO KENTARO
SATO KENTARO*
Affiliation:
INSTITUT FÜR INFORMATIK UND ANGEWANDTE MATHEMATIK, UNIVERSITÄT BERN, CH3012 BERN, SWITZERLAND, E-mail: sato@iam.unibe.ch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article reports that some robustness of the notions of predicativity and of autonomous progression is broken down if as the given infinite total entity we choose some mathematical entities other than the traditional ω. Namely, the equivalence between normal transfinite recursion scheme and new dependent transfinite recursion scheme, which does hold in the context of subsystems of second order number theory, does not hold in the context of subsystems of second order set theory where the universe V of sets is treated as the given totality (nor in the contexts of those of n+3-th order number or set theories, where the class of all n+2-th order objects is treated as the given totality).

Keywords

Relative predicativitydependent transfinite recursionautonomous progression of autonomous progressionsecond order set theoryhigher order number theory
Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 79 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 712 - 732
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Symbolic Logic 2014 

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

Aczel, P., The strength of Martin-Löf’s type theory with one universe, Technical report, Department of Philosophy, University of Helsinki, 1977.Google Scholar
Avigad, J., On the relationship between ATR 0and$\widehat{ID}_{ < \omega } $ , this Journal, vol. 61 (1996), no. 3, pp. 768–779.Google Scholar
Feferman, S., Predicativity, The Oxford handbook of the philosophy of mathematics and logic (Shapiro, S., editor), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005, pp. 590–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flumini, D., Weak well orders, Ph.D. thesis, Universität Bern, 2013.Google Scholar
Flumini, D. and Sato, K., From hierarchies to well foundedness, accepted for publication in Archive for Mathematical Logic, available at: www.iam.unibe.ch/ltgpub/2014/fs14.pdf 2014.Google Scholar
Friedman, H., Higher set theory and mathematical practice. Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 2 (1971), no. 3, pp. 325–357.Google Scholar
Fujimoto, K., Classes and truths in set theory. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 163 (2012), no. 11, pp. 1484–1523.Google Scholar
Hinman, P., Recursion-theoretic hierarchies, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1970.Google Scholar
Jäger, G. and Krähenbühl, J., ${\rm{\Sigma }}_1^1 $choice in a theory of sets and classes, Ways of proof theory (Schindler, R., editor), Ontos Verlag, Heusenstamm, 2010, pp. 283–314.Google Scholar
Krähenbühl, J., On the relationship between choice schemes and iterated class comprehension in set theory, Ph.D. thesis, Universität Bern, 2011.Google Scholar
Kunen, K., Set theory: An introduction to consistency proofs, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1983.Google Scholar
Sato, K., The strength of extensionality I: Weak weak set theories with infinity. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 157 (2009), no. 2–3, pp. 234–268.Google Scholar
Sato, K., The strength of extensionality II: Weak weak set theories without infinity. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 162 (2011), no. 8, pp. 579–646.Google Scholar
Sato, K., The strength of extensionality III: Weak weak set theories with the higher infinite, in preparation, 20∞.Google Scholar
Simpson, S., Subsystems of second order arithmetic, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999.Google Scholar
Strahm, T., Autonomous fixed point progressions and fixed point transfinite recursion, Logic colloquium 98 (Buss, S., Hajek, P., and Pudlak, P., editors), Association of Symbolic Logic, 2000, pp. 449–464.Google Scholar