Results 1 
8 of
8
Relating firstorder set theories and elementary toposes
 BULLETIN OF SYMBOLIC LOGIC
, 2007
"... We show how to interpret the language of firstorder set theory in an elementary topos endowed with, as extra structure, a directed structural system of inclusions (dssi). As our main result, we obtain a complete axiomatization of the intuitionistic set theory validated by all such interpretations. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 7 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We show how to interpret the language of firstorder set theory in an elementary topos endowed with, as extra structure, a directed structural system of inclusions (dssi). As our main result, we obtain a complete axiomatization of the intuitionistic set theory validated by all such interpretations. Since every elementary topos is equivalent to one carrying a dssi, we thus obtain a firstorder set theory whose associated categories of sets are exactly the elementary toposes. In addition, we show that the full axiom of Separation is validated whenever the dssi is superdirected. This gives a uniform explanation for the known facts that cocomplete and realizability toposes provide models for Intuitionistic ZermeloFraenkel set theory (IZF).
Stack semantics and the comparison of material and structural set theories. arXiv:1004.3802v1
, 2010
"... ar ..."
(Show Context)
An Outline of Algebraic Set Theory
"... This survey article is intended to introduce the reader to the field of Algebraic Set Theory, in which models of set theory of a new and fascinating kind are determined algebraically. The method is quite robust, admitting adjustment in several respects to model different theories including classical ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This survey article is intended to introduce the reader to the field of Algebraic Set Theory, in which models of set theory of a new and fascinating kind are determined algebraically. The method is quite robust, admitting adjustment in several respects to model different theories including classical, intuitionistic, bounded, and predicative ones. Under this scheme some familiar set theoretic properties are related to algebraic ones, like freeness, while others result from logical constraints, like definability. The overall theory is complete in two important respects: conventional elementary set theory axiomatizes algebraic framework itself are also complete with respect to a range of natural models consisting of “ideals ” of sets, suitably defined. Some previous results involving realizability, forcing, and sheaf models are
From Sets to Types to Categories to Sets
, 2008
"... 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 s ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
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
Published In From Sets to Types to Categories to Sets∗
"... 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 s ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
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 third step from categories to sets is based on quite recent work, but captures in a precise way an intuition from the early days of foundational studies. With these pieces in place, we can then draw some conclusions regarding the differences between the three schemes, and their relative merits. In particular, it is possible to state more precisely why the methods of category theory are more appropriate to philosophical structuralism. 1 Sets