Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:50:54.698Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Uniform inseparability in explicit mathematics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Andrea Cantini  and
Pierluigi Minari
Andrea Cantini
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Università Degli Studi di Firenze, Via Bolognese 52, 1-50139 Firenze, Italy E-mail: [email protected]
Pierluigi Minari
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Università Degli Studi di Firenze, Via Bolognese 52, 1-50139 Firenze, Italy E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We deal with ontological problems concerning basic systems of explicit mathematics, as formalized in Jäger's language of types and names. We prove a generalized inseparability lemma, which implies a form of Rice's theorem for types and a refutation of the strong power type axiom POW+. Next, we show that POW+ can already be refuted on the basis of a weak uniform comprehension without complementation, and we present suitable optimal refinements of the remaining results within the weaker theory.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 64 , Issue 1 , March 1999 , pp. 313 - 326
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1999

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

[1]Beeson, M. J., Foundations of constructive mathematics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Cantini, A., Relating Quine's NF to explicit mathematics, Studia Logica, to appear.Google Scholar
[3]Cantini, A., Logical frameworks for truth and abstraction, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1996.Google Scholar
[4]Feferman, S., A language and axioms for explicit mathematics, Algebra and logic (Crossley, J. N., editor), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 450, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1975, pp. 87–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Feferman, S., Constructive theories of functions and classes, Logic colloquium '78 (Boffa, M., van Dalen, D., and McAloon, K., editors), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1979, pp. 159–225.Google Scholar
[6]Glass, T., Understanding uniformity in Feferman's explicit mathematics, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 75 (1995), pp. 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Glass, T., On power set in explicit mathematics, this Journal, vol. 61 (1996), pp. 468–489.Google Scholar
[8]Jäger, G., Induction in the elementary theory of types and names, CSL '87 (Börger, E.et al., editors), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 329, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987, pp. 118–128.Google Scholar
[9]Jäger, G., Power types in explicit mathematics, this Journal, vol. 62 (1997), pp. 1142–1146.Google Scholar
[10]Minari, P., Theories of types and names with positive stratified comprehension, Studia Logica, to appear.Google Scholar
[11]Odifreddi, P., Classical recursion theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1989.Google Scholar
[12]Rogers, H. Jr., Theory of recursive functions and effective computability, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967.Google Scholar
[13]Takahashi, S., Monotone inductive definitions in a constructive theory of functions and classes, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 42 (1989), pp. 255–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar