Results 1  10
of
13
The strength of Mac Lane set theory
 ANNALS OF PURE AND APPLIED LOGIC
, 2001
"... SAUNDERS MAC LANE has drawn attention many times, particularly in his book Mathematics: Form and Function, to the system ZBQC of set theory of which the axioms are Extensionality, Null Set, Pairing, ..."
Abstract

Cited by 12 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
SAUNDERS MAC LANE has drawn attention many times, particularly in his book Mathematics: Form and Function, to the system ZBQC of set theory of which the axioms are Extensionality, Null Set, Pairing,
Typical ambiguity: trying to have your cake and eat it too
 the proceedings of the conference Russell 2001
"... Would ye both eat your cake and have your cake? ..."
About the coexistence of classical sets with nonclassical ones: a survey’, Logic and Logical Philosophy, this issue
 Logic and Logical Philosophy 11 (2003
"... Abstract. This is a survey of some possible extensions of ZF to a larger universe, closer to the “naive set theory ” (the universes discussed here concern, roughly speaking: stratified sets, partial sets, positive sets, paradoxical sets and double sets). ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. This is a survey of some possible extensions of ZF to a larger universe, closer to the “naive set theory ” (the universes discussed here concern, roughly speaking: stratified sets, partial sets, positive sets, paradoxical sets and double sets).
Enriched stratified systems for the foundations of category
"... This is the fourth in a series of intermittent papers on the foundations of category theory stretching back over more than thirtyfive years. The first three were “Settheoretical foundations of category theory ” [1969], “Categorical foundations and foundations of category theory ” [1977], and much ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This is the fourth in a series of intermittent papers on the foundations of category theory stretching back over more than thirtyfive years. The first three were “Settheoretical foundations of category theory ” [1969], “Categorical foundations and foundations of category theory ” [1977], and much more recently, “Typical ambiguity: Trying to have
Russell's Paradox Of The Totality Of Propositions
, 2000
"... on this analysis, and although Oksanen quoted Russell's description of the paradox in detail, he did not show how it is explained in NFU after his resolution of the other related modal paradoxes; in fact, it is not at all clear how this might be done in NFU. 1PoM, p. 527. 2See, e.g., Grim 1991, ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
on this analysis, and although Oksanen quoted Russell's description of the paradox in detail, he did not show how it is explained in NFU after his resolution of the other related modal paradoxes; in fact, it is not at all clear how this might be done in NFU. 1PoM, p. 527. 2See, e.g., Grim 1991, pp. 92f. 3See, e.g., Grim 1991, p. 119 and Jubien 1988, p. 307. 4See Oksanen 1999. NFU is a modified version of Quine's system NF. It was first described in Jenson 1968 and recently has been extensively developed in Holmes 1999. Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 2537. 2000 Taylor & Francis. 26 nino b. cocchiarella One reason why Russell's argument is dicult to reconstruct in NFU is that it is based on the logic of propositions, and implicitly in that regard on a theory of predication rather than a theory of membership. A mo
The Mark2 Theorem Prover
"... ABSTRACT1 @ ?x: ?x = 68 Id @ ?x ["ID"] *)  s "?x";  rri "ID";ex();  p "ABSTRACT1@?x"; (* ABSTRACT2 @ ?x: ?f @ ?a = COMP != ?f @ (ABSTRACT @ ?x) =? ?a ["COMP"] *)  s "?f@?a";  rri "COMP";  right(); right(); ri "ABSTRACT@?x";  prove "ABSTRACT2@?x"; (* ABSTRACT3 @ ?x: ?a & ? ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
ABSTRACT1 @ ?x: ?x = 68 Id @ ?x ["ID"] *)  s "?x";  rri "ID";ex();  p "ABSTRACT1@?x"; (* ABSTRACT2 @ ?x: ?f @ ?a = COMP != ?f @ (ABSTRACT @ ?x) =? ?a ["COMP"] *)  s "?f@?a";  rri "COMP";  right(); right(); ri "ABSTRACT@?x";  prove "ABSTRACT2@?x"; (* ABSTRACT3 @ ?x: ?a & ?b = RAISE0 =? ((ABSTRACT @ ?x) =? ?a) & (ABSTRACT @ ?x) =? ?b [] *)  s "?a&?b";  right();  ri "ABSTRACT@?x";  up();left();  ri "ABSTRACT@?x";  top();  ri "RAISE0";  prove "ABSTRACT3@?x"; (* ABSTRACT4 @ ?x: ?a = [?a] @ ?x [] *)  s "?a";  ri "BIND@?x"; ex(); 69  p "ABSTRACT4@?x"; (* ABSTRACT@term will (attempt to) express a target term as a function of its parameter "term" *) (* ABSTRACT @ ?x: ?a = (ABSTRACT4 @ ?x) =?? (ABSTRACT3 @ ?x) =?? (ABSTRACT2 @ ?x) =?? (ABSTRACT1 @ ?x) =? ?a ["COMP","ID"] *)  s "?a";  ri "ABSTRACT1@?x";  ari "ABSTRACT2@?x";  ari "ABSTRACT3@?x";  ari "ABSTRACT4@?x";  p "ABSTRACT@?x"; (* REDUCE will reverse the effect of ABSTRACT; it will "evaluate" functions built by ABSTRACT *) (* REDUCE: ?f @ ?x = (ABSTRACT4 @ ?x) !!= ((RL @ REDUCE) *? RAISE0) !!= ((RIGHT @ REDUCE) *? COMP) =?? ID =? ?f @ ?x ["COMP","ID"] *)  dpt "REDUCE";  s "?f@?x";  ri "ID";  ari "(RIGHT@REDUCE)*?COMP";  arri "(RL@REDUCE)*?RAISE0";  arri "ABSTRACT4@?x";  prove "REDUCE"; (* old approach to hypotheses *) (* equational forms of tactics given without proof; the proofs of the tactics involve no actual rewriting *) PIVOT: (?a = ?b)  ?T , ?U = (RIGHT @ LEFT @ EVAL) =? HYP =? (?a = ?b) 70  ((BIND @ ?a) =? ?T) , ?U ["HYP"] REVPIVOT: (?a = ?b)  ?T , ?U = (RIGHT @ LEFT @ EVAL) =? HYP != (?a = ?b)  ((BIND @ ?b) =? ?T) , ?U ["HYP"] We now present examples of the use of thes...
Three Conceptual Problems That Bug Me
, 1996
"... Introduction I will talk here about three problems that have bothered me for a number of years, during which time I have experimented with a variety of solutions and encouraged others to work on them. I have raised each of them separately both in full and in passing in various contexts, but thought ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
Introduction I will talk here about three problems that have bothered me for a number of years, during which time I have experimented with a variety of solutions and encouraged others to work on them. I have raised each of them separately both in full and in passing in various contexts, but thought it would be worthwhile on this occasion to bring them to your attention side by side. In this talk I will explain the problems, together with some things that have been tried in the past and some new ideas for their solution. Types of conceptual problems. A conceptual problem is not one which is formulated in precise technical terms and which calls for a definite answer. For this reason, there are no clearcut criteria for their solution, but one can bring some criteria to bear. These will vary from case to case. There are three general types of conceptual problems in mathematics of which the ones that I will discuss today are examples. These are: 1 ffi<F
A Functional Formulation of FirstOrder Logic "with Infinity" without Bound Variables
"... We present a system of combinatory logic EFT (for "external function theory") equivalent to firstorder logic with equality with the additional axioms "there are at least n objects" for each concrete n. This work was inspired by the system of Tarski and Givant, based on relation algebras, which they ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
We present a system of combinatory logic EFT (for "external function theory") equivalent to firstorder logic with equality with the additional axioms "there are at least n objects" for each concrete n. This work was inspired by the system of Tarski and Givant, based on relation algebras, which they show to be able to interpret firstorder theories while avoiding the use of bound variables. The TarskiGivant system, like other systems which have been proposed to demonstrate that firstorder logic can be done without bound variables (Quine's predicate functor logic, for example), would be quite difficult to use in practice. We believe that EFT is unlike the earlier proposals in that (with extensions) it is a practical medium for mathematical reasoning. We have written software which implements reasoning in EFT , and our experience with it so far supports this claim (but the assistance of the software in carrying out certain tedious forms of reasoning automatically is helpful). 2 Introd...
Identity of indiscernibles in Quine's "New Foundations" and related theories
"... this paper refers to some witness to the appropriate instance of the comprehension axiom, and does not implicitly assume the existence of a unique or even a canonical witness) ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
this paper refers to some witness to the appropriate instance of the comprehension axiom, and does not implicitly assume the existence of a unique or even a canonical witness)
The usual model construction for NFU preserves information
, 2009
"... The “usual ” model construction for NFU (Quine’s New Foundations with urelements, shown to be consistent by Jensen) starts with a model of the usual set theory with an automorphism that moves a rank (this rank is the domain of the model). “Most ” elements of the resulting model of NFU are urelements ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
The “usual ” model construction for NFU (Quine’s New Foundations with urelements, shown to be consistent by Jensen) starts with a model of the usual set theory with an automorphism that moves a rank (this rank is the domain of the model). “Most ” elements of the resulting model of NFU are urelements (it appears that information about their extensions is discarded). The surprising result of this paper is that this information is not discarded at all: the membership relation of the original model (restricted to the domain of the model of NFU) is definable in the language of NFU. A corollary of this is that the urelements of a model of NFU obtained by the “usual ” construction are inhomogeneous: this was the question the author was investigating initially. Other aspects of the mutual interpretability of NFU and a fragment of ZFC are discussed in sufficient detail to place