This is the third in a series of papers on algebraic set theory, the aim of which is to develop a categorical semantics for constructive set theories, including predicative ones, based on the notion of a “predicative category with small maps”. 1 In the first paper in this series [8] we discussed how these predicative categories

This paper introduces Basic Intuitionistic Set Theory BIST, and investigates it as a first-order set-theory extending the internal logic of elementary toposes. Given an elementary topos, together with the extra structure of a directed structural system of inclusions (dssi) on the topos, a forcing-style interpretation of the language of first-order set theory in the topos is given, which conservatively extends the internal logic of the topos. Since every topos is equivalent to one carrying a dssi, the language of first-order has a forcing interpretation in every elementary topos. We prove that the set theory BIST+ Coll (where Coll is the strong Collection axiom) is sound and complete relative to forcing interpretations in toposes with natural numbers object (nno). Furthermore, in the case that the structural system of inclusions is superdirected, the full Separation schema is modelled. We show that every cocomplete topos and every realizability topos can be endowed (up to equivalence) with such a superdirected structural system of inclusions. This provides a uniform explanation for why such “real-world ” toposes model Separation. A large part of the paper is devoted to an alternative notion of category-theoretic model for BIST, which, following the general approach of Joyal and Moerdijk’s Algebraic Set Theory, axiomatizes the structure possessed by categories of classes compatible with ∗Corresponding author. 1Previously, lecturer at Heriot-Watt University (2000–2001), and the IT University of

Three different styles of foundations of mathematics are now commonplace: set theory, type theory, and category theory. How do they relate, and how do they differ? What advantages and disadvantages does each one have over the others? We pursue these questions by considering interpretations of each system into the others and examining the preservation and loss of mathematical content thereby. In order to stay focused on the “big picture”, we merely sketch the overall form of each construction, referring to the literature for details. Each of the three steps considered below is based on more recent logical research than the preceding one. The first step from sets to types is essentially the familiar idea of set theoretic semantics for a syntactic system, i.e. giving a model; we take a brief glance at this step from the current point of view, mainly just to fix ideas and notation. The second step from types to categories is known to categorical logicians as the construction of a “syntactic category”; we give some specifics for the benefit of the reader who is not familiar with it. The