arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1801.01897

Power Kripke-Platek set theory and the axiom of choice

Michael Rathjen
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Whilst Power Kripke-Platek set theory, KPP, shares many properties with ordinary Kripke-Platek set theory, KP, in several ways it behaves quite differently from KP. This is perhaps most strikingly demonstrated by a result, due to Mathias, to the effect that adding the axiom of constructibility to KPP gives rise to a much stronger theory, whereas in the case of KP the constructible hierarchy provides an inner model, so that KP and KP+V=L have the same strength. This paper will be concerned with the relationship between KPP and KPP plus the axiom of choice or even the global axiom of choice, GAC. Since L is the standard vehicle to furnish a model in which this axiom holds, the usual argument for demonstrating that the addition of AC or GAC to KPP does not increase proof-theoretic strength does not apply in any obvious way. Among other tools, the paper uses techniques from ordinal analysis to show that KPP+GAC has the same strength as KPP, thereby answering a question of Mathias. Moreover, it is shown that KPP+GAC is conservative over KPP for Pi-1-4 statements of analysis. The method of ordinal analysis for theories with power set was developed in an earlier paper. The technique allows one to compute witnessing information from infinitary proofs, providing bounds for the transfinite iterations of the power set operation that are provable in a theory. As the theory KPP+GAC provides a very useful tool for defining models and realizability models of other theories that are hard to construct without access to a uniform selection mechanism, it is desirable to determine its exact proof-theoretic strength. This knowledge can for instance be used to determine the strength of Feferman's operational set theory with power set operation as well as constructive Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice.

Explore related subjects

math.LO

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Michael Rathjen. 2018-01-05. Power Kripke-Platek set theory and the axiom of choice. https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.01897

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

There is no maximal $K$-degree

The Kolmogorov complexity of a string characterize how complex it is to describe the string. If every prefix of a real $x$ is more complex to describe than every prefix (of the same length) of real $y$, then it is seen as $x$ is more complex to describe than $y$. It is wondered if there is a real $x$ so that no other reals are strictly more complex (to describe) than $x$. The behavior of Kolmogorov complexity functions generated by reals (namely $n\mapsto$ the minimal description length of the real) is quite chaos. Therefore, it is widely believed that there are many reals that are maximally complex to describe. For instance, it is conjectured that all random enough reals have maximal $K$-degree. In this paper, it is shown that there is no real with maximal $K$-degree. Actually, for almost all real $x$, we can uniformly computably find another real whose $K$-degree is strictly above $x$.

math.LO↗
arXiv2026

Quadruples and cubes

We prove, in $\mathsf{ZFC}$, that the $\lambda$-terraced cube relation fails whenever $\lambda$ is an uncountable cardinal. The corresponding terraced relation for quadruples fails for every $\lambda$. If $\lambda$ is $\aleph_0$ then the pretinent terraced relation has consistency strength of at least one Woodin cardinal. We prove positive polarized relations at a successor and a double successor from wondrous ideals. We show, however, that there are no such ideals over two consecutive cardinals simultaneously.

math.LO↗
arXiv2026

Possibilistic Logic over a Logic of Formal Inconsistency

In this article, we have introduced a new possibilistic logic on a logic of formal inconsistency with the aim of developing a possibility theoretic framework to deal with uncertainty and inconsistency meaningfully without leading to a system collapse. We have discussed the syntax and semantics for this logic and have proved the soundness and completeness theorems. A set of new measures of consistency, contradictoriness, and triviality of a set of formulas have been defined. These have then been put to use in an example to show that this framework can provide better means of machine reasoning.

math.LO↗