<span class='italic'>ω</span>-models of finite set theory

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511910616.004

ω-models of finite set theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 October 2011

Ali Enayat ,

James H. Schmerl and

Albert Visser

Edited by

Juliette Kennedy and

Roman Kossak

Show author details

Juliette Kennedy: Affiliation:
University of Helsinki
Roman Kossak: Affiliation:
City University of New York

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Abstract. Finite set theory, here denoted ZFfin, is the theory obtained by replacing the axiom of infinity by its negation in the usual axiomatization of ZF (Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory). An ω-model of ZFfin is a model in which every set has at most finitely many elements (as viewed externally). Mancini and Zambella (2001) employed the Bernays-Rieger method of permutations to construct a recursive ω-model of ZFfin that is nonstandard (i.e., not isomorphic to the hereditarily finite sets Vω). In this paper we initiate the metamathematical investigation of ω-models of ZFfin. In particular, we present a new method for building ω-models of ZFfin that leads to a perspicuous construction of recursive nonstandard ω-models of ZFfin without the use of permutations. Furthermore, we show that every recursive model of ZFfin is an ω-model. The central theorem of the paper is the following:

Theorem A. For every graph (A, F), where F is a set of unordered pairs of A, there is an ω-model m of ZFfin whose universe contains A and which satisfies the following conditions:

(1) (A, F) is definable in m;

(2) Every element of m is definable in (m, a)a ∈ A;

(3) If (A, F) is pointwise definable, then so is m;

(4) Aut(m) ≅ Aut(A, F).

Theorem A enables us to build a variety of ω-models with special features, in particular:

Corollary 1. Every group can be realized as the automorphism group of an ω-model of ZFfin.

Corollary 2. For each infinite cardinal κ there are 2κrigid nonisomorphic ω-models of ZFfinof cardinality κ. […]

Type: Chapter
Information: Set Theory, Arithmetic, and Foundations of Mathematics
Theorems, Philosophies
, pp. 43 - 65

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511910616.004 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2011

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

[BF] S., Baratella and R., Ferro, A theory of sets with the negation of the axiom of infinity, Mathematical Logic Quarterly, vol. 39 (1993), no. 3, pp. 338–352.Google Scholar

[Ba] J., Barwise, Admissible Sets and Structures, Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1975.Google Scholar

[Be-1] P., Bernays, A system of axiomatic set theory. Part II, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 6 (1941), pp. 1–17.Google Scholar

[Be-2] P., Bernays, A system of axiomatic set theory. Part VII, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 19 (1954), pp. 81–96.Google Scholar

[CK] C. C., Chang and H. J., Keisler, Model Theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1973.Google Scholar

[Fr] R., Frucht, Herstellung von Graphen mit vorgegebener abstrakter Gruppe, Compositio Mathematica, vol. 6 (1939), pp. 239–250.Google Scholar

[HP] P., Hájek and P., Pudlák, Metamathematics of First-Order Arithmetic, Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998.Google Scholar

[HV] P., Hájek and P., Vopěnka, Über die Gültigkeit des Fundierungsaxioms in speziellen Systemen der Mengentheorie, Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, vol. 9 (1963), pp. 235–241.Google Scholar

[Ha] K., Hauschild, Bemerkungen, das Fundierungsaxiom betreffend, Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, vol. 12 (1966), pp. 51–56.Google Scholar

[Ho] W., Hodges, Model Theory, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, vol. 42, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993.Google Scholar

[IT] K, Ikeda and A., Tsuboi, Nonstandard models that are definable in models of Peano arithmetic, Mathematical Logic Quarterly, vol. 53 (2007), no. 1, pp. 27–37.Google Scholar

[Ka] R., Kaye, Tennenbaum's theorem for models of arithmetic, this volume.

[KW] R., Kaye and T., Wong, On interpretations of arithmetic and set theory, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 48 (2007), no. 4, pp. 497–510.Google Scholar

[KS] R., Kossak and J. H., Schmerl, The Structure of Models of Peano Arithmetic, Oxford Logic Guides, vol. 50, The Clarendon Press Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006, Oxford Science Publications.Google Scholar

[Kr] G., Kreisel, Note on arithmetic models for consistent formulae of the predicate calculus. II, Actes du XIème Congrès International de Philosophie, Bruxelles, 20–26 Août 1953, vol. XIV, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1953, pp. 39–49.Google Scholar

[Li] P., Lindström, Aspects of Incompleteness, second ed., Lecture Notes in Logic, vol. 10, Association for Symbolic Logic, Urbana, IL, 2003.Google Scholar

[Lo] L., Lovász, Combinatorial Problems and Exercises, AMS Chelsea Publishing, Providence, RI, 2007, Corrected reprint of the 1993 second edition.

[Mac] S. Mac, Lane, Categories for the Working Mathematician, second ed., Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 5, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1998.Google Scholar

[MZ] A., Mancini and D., Zambella, A note on recursive models of set theories, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 42 (2001), no. 2, pp. 109–115.Google Scholar

[Moh] S., Mohsenipour, A recursive nonstandard model for open induction with GCD property and cofinal primes, Logic in Tehran, Lecture Notes in Logic, vol. 26, ASL, La Jolla, CA, 2006, pp. 227–238.Google Scholar

[Mos] A., Mostowski, On a system of axioms which has no recursively enumerable arithmetic model, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 40 (1953), pp. 56–61.Google Scholar

[NP] J., Nešetřil and A., Pultr, A note on homomorphism-independent families, Combinatorics (Prague, 1998), Discrete Mathematics, vol. 235 (2001), no. 1-3, pp. 327–334.Google Scholar

[P] E. A., Perminov, The number of rigid graphs that are mutually nonimbeddable into one another, Izvestiya Vysshikh Uchebnykh Zavedeniî. Matematika, (1985), no. 8, pp. 77–78, 86.

[Ra] M., Rabin, On recursively enumerable and arithmetic models of set theory, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 23 (1958), pp. 408–416.Google Scholar

[Ri] L., Rieger, A contribution to Gödel's axiomatic set theory, Czechoslovak Mathematical Journal, vol. 7 (1957), pp. 323–357.Google Scholar

[Sch-1] J. H., Schmerl, An axiomatization for a class of two-cardinal models, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 42 (1977), no. 2, pp. 174–178.Google Scholar

[Sch-2] J. H., Schmerl, Tennenbaum's theorem and recursive reducts, this volume.

[Sco] D., Scott, On a theorem of Rabin, Nederl. Akad. Wetensch. Proc. Ser. A 63 = Indag. Math., vol. 22 (1960), pp. 481–484.Google Scholar

[Vi-1] A., Visser, Faith & Falsity, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 131 (2005), no. 1-3, pp. 103–131.Google Scholar

[Vi-2] A., Visser, Categories of theories and interpretations, Logic in Tehran, Lecture Notes in Logic, vol. 26, ASL, La Jolla, CA, 2006, pp. 284–341.Google Scholar

[Vo-1] P., Vopěnka, Axiome der Theorie endlicher Mengen, Československá Akademie Věd. Časopis Pro Pěstování Matematiky, vol. 89 (1964), pp. 312–317.Google Scholar

[Vo-2] P., Vopěnka, Mathematics in the Alternative Set Theory, Teubner-Verlag, Leipzig, 1979.Google Scholar

Book contents

ω-models of finite set theory

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive