Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 1712.02669

Which axioms of set theory are intrinsically justified?

Abstract

We recently formulated a new large-cardinal axiom of strength intermediate between a totally indescribable cardinal and an $ω$-Erdős cardinal, positing the existence of what we called an "extremely reflective cardinal", and we showed that the property of being extremely reflective was in fact equivalent to the property of being remarkable, and we sought to argue that this axiom should be seen as intrinsically justified. This built on related earlier work in which the notion of an $α$-reflective cardinal was formulated. Then Welch and Roberts put forward a family of reflection principles, Welch's principle implying the existence of a proper class of Shelah cardinals and provably consistent relative to a superstrong cardinal, and Roberts' principle implying the existence of a proper class of 1-extendible cardinals and provably consistent relative to a 2-extendible cardinal. Roberts tentatively argued that his principle should be seen as intrinsically justified (at least on the assumption that a weaker form of reflection involving reflection of second-order formulas with a second-order parameter should be seen as intrinsically justified). This work overlapped with previous work of Victoria Marshall's on reflection principles. We analyze the relationship between reflection principles equivalent to those studied in my earlier work and stronger but similar reflection principles which are natural extensions of those of Welch and Roberts. We also show how a natural strengthening of Roberts' reflection principle yields the existence of supercompact cardinals, and in the process solve a question which Marshall left open, of whether her theory $B_0(V_0)$ is strong enough to imply the existence of supercompact cardinals. We also manage to resolve negatively her question of whether her theory $B_1(V_0)$ implies the existence of a huge cardinal.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Rupert McCallum. 2017-12-14. Which axioms of set theory are intrinsically justified?. https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.02669

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Bluebirds and mockingbirds cannot produce a fixed-point combinator

Let $B$ be the bluebird combinator with reduction rule $Bxyz \to_{w} x\left(yz\right)$, let $M$ be the mockingbird combinator with reduction rule $Mx \to_{w} xx$, and let $I$ be the identity bird combinator with reduction rule $Ix \to_{w} x$. A fixed-point combinator, called a sage bird by Smullyan, is a closed term $Y$ such that, for a fresh variable $x$, $Yx$ is equivalent to $x\left(Yx\right)$ under these reduction rules. For a fixed variable $x$, we construct an invariant $\mathrm{Tr}_{x}\left(u\right)$ of a $BMI$-term $u$ with respect to $\to_{w}$. This invariant traces the occurrences of $x$ in the leftmost-innermost reduction sequence of $u$. We then prove that $\mathrm{Tr}_{x}\left(Yx\right) \neq \mathrm{Tr}_{x}\left(x^{r}\left( Yx \right)\right)$ for every $x$-free $BMI$-term $Y$ and every $r\geq 1$. Consequently, there exists no fixed-point combinator in $BMI$-combinatory logic. This provides a negative answer to the problem posed by Smullyan in 1985.

math.LO

Pointwise provable equality and the failure of composition

Montagna (1989) and Di Paola--Montagna (1991) claim that the algebraic systems $S'$ and $S'_T$, respectively, are categories. We show that the proposed composition is not independent of the choice of representatives. For every consistent recursively enumerable extension $T$ of Peano arithmetic ($\mathrm{PA}$), we exhibit two program indices that are pointwise provably equal in $T$ but yield inequivalent composites when each is run after the same program. Montagna's $S'$ is the case $T=\mathrm{PA}$. The failure already occurs for partial maps from $ω$ to itself. Weak totality and the proposed range assignment also depend on the choice of representatives. More generally, for consistent $T\supseteq\mathrm{PA}$, pointwise provable equality is a composition congruence exactly when $T$ proves every true $Π^0_1$ sentence, in which case it is extensional equality. This completeness condition fails for every consistent recursively enumerable $T\supseteq\mathrm{PA}$ by Gödel's second incompleteness theorem. For every extension $T\supseteq\mathrm{PA}$, the least composition congruence containing pointwise provable equality is extensional equality if $T$ is $Σ^0_1$-sound and the universal relation otherwise.

math.LO

Compactness via Consistency Properties

We will use consistency properties to characterize strongly compact cardinals, first showing an adequate Model Existence Theorem for larger fragments.

math.LO