Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 0905.1680

Is set theory indispensable?

Nik Weaver
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Although Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZFC) is generally accepted as the appropriate foundation for modern mathematics, proof theorists have known for decades that virtually all mainstream mathematics can actually be formalized in much weaker systems which are essentially number-theoretic in nature. Feferman has observed that this severely undercuts a famous argument of Quine and Putnam according to which set theoretic platonism is validated by the fact that mathematics is "indispensable" for some successful scientific theories (since in fact ZFC is not needed for the mathematics that is currently used in science). I extend this critique in three ways: (1) not only is it possible to formalize core mathematics in these weaker systems, they are in important ways better suited to the task than ZFC; (2) an improved analysis of the proof-theoretic strength of predicative theories shows that most if not all of the already rare examples of mainstream theorems whose proofs are currently thought to require metaphysically substantial set-theoretic principles actually do not; and (3) set theory itself, as it is actually practiced, is best understood in formalist, not platonic, terms, so that in a real sense *set theory is not even indispensable for set theory*. I also make the point that even if ZFC is consistent, there are good reasons to suspect that some number-theoretic assertions provable in ZFC may be false. This suggests that set theory should not be considered central to mathematics.

Explore related subjects

math.HO

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Nik Weaver. 2009-05-11. Is set theory indispensable?. https://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1680

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

On the Reconstruction of SAS from Other Triangle Congruence Criteria, Part II: Eliminating the Pons Asinorum

In the first part of this work we showed that, within a Hilbert plane deprived of the Side-Angle-Side axiom, the Side-Angle-Angle criterion, together with a ray correspondence principle [\textbf{RCT}], the existence of angle bisectors [\textbf{AB}], the congruence of supplements of congruent angles [\textbf{SA}], and the Pons Asinorum [\textbf{PA}], suffices to reconstruct SAS. We left open the question of whether [\textbf{PA}] is genuinely required alongside the other three principles, noting only a qualitative asymmetry in the nature of the principles involved. In this second part we answer this question: we show that \begin{equation*} \textrm{SAA},\ [\textbf{RCT}],\ [\textbf{AB}] \;\vdash\; [\textbf{PA}], \end{equation*} so that [\textbf{PA}] is redundant among the hypotheses of our main theorem, which improves to \begin{equation*} \textrm{SAA},\ [\textbf{RCT}],\ [\textbf{AB}],\ [\textbf{SA}] \;\vdash\; \textrm{SAS}. \end{equation*} The proof adapts an argument recently given by Donnelly, who reconstructs SAS from SAA together with an angle addition axiom and the existence of angle bisectors.

math.HO↗
arXiv2026

Descartes' Circle Theorem, Princess Elizabeth, and Spinors

In this article, on Descartes' famous "circle theorem," we first attempt to explain how the philosopher could have arrived at the equation that he presents without demonstration in a letter to Princess Palatine Elizabeth of Bohemia in November 1643 (a previously unpublished proof, to our knowledge). Then we report some stages of the subsequent generalization of this theorem, whose Cliffordian flavor, via the equivalence of a quadratic form and the square of a linear form, still mobilizes mathematicians today. This statement, which, over time, has undergone different extensions, Euclidean and non-Euclidean, has found, {\it in fine}, a spinor formalization. We see there the proof of what we may call, in a Bachelardian style, an "inductive value" of the truth, which extends by successive generalizations. We conclude, more briefly, with the contacts between Elizabeth and Descartes, and the perhaps symbolic meaning of these considerations on "kissing circles," as they are called in Anglo-Saxon countries, in the context of their correspondence on the soul and the body, and the question of passions.

math.HO↗
arXiv2026

Mathematical folklore

We present reflections on an experimental seminar studying the human and cultural roots of modern mathematics.

math.HO↗