In this paper the notion of unifier is extended to the infinite set case. The proof of existence of the most general unifier of any infinite, unifiable set of types (terms) is presented. Learning procedure, based on infinite set unification, is described.

The axiom of infinity states that infinite sets exist. I will argue that this axiom lacks justification. I start by showing that the axiom is not self-evident, so it needs separate justification. Following Maddy’s :481–511, 1988) distinction, I argue that the axiom of infinity lacks both intrinsic and extrinsic justification. Crucial to my project is Skolem’s From Frege to Gödel: a source book in mathematical logic, 1879–1931, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, pp. 290–301, 1922) distinction between a theory of (...) real sets, and a theory of objects that theory calls “sets”. While Dedekind’s argument fails, his approach was correct: the axiom of infinity needs a justification it currently lacks. This epistemic situation is at variance with everyday mathematical practice. A dilemma ensues: should we relax epistemic standards or insist, in a skeptical vein, that a foundational problem has been ignored? (shrink)

Neo-Fregeans have been troubled by the Nuisance Principle, an abstraction principle that is consistent but not jointly satisfiable with the favored abstraction principle HP. We show that logically this situation persists if one looks at joint consistency rather than satisfiability: under a modest assumption about infinite concepts, NP is also inconsistent with HP.

A systematic effort to rethink Freud's theory of the unconscious, aiming to separate out the different forms of unconsciousness.

In this paper, we consider, for a set \ of natural numbers, the following notions of finitenessFIN1:There are a natural number l and a bijection f between \\);FIN5:It is not the case that \\), and infinitenessINF1:There are not a natural number l and a bijection f between \\);INF5:\\). In this paper, we systematically compare them in the method of constructive reverse mathematics. We show that the equivalence among them can be characterized by various combinations of induction axioms and non-constructive principles, (...) including the axiom of bounded comprehension. (shrink)

Given the old conception of the relation greater than, the proposition that the whole is greater than the part is an immediate consequence. But being greater in this sense is not incompatible with being equal in the sense of one-one correspondence. Some who failed to recognize this formulated invalid arguments against the possibility of infinite quantities. Others who did realize that the relations of equal and greater when so defined are compatible, concluded that such relations are not appropriately taken (...) as quantitative relations, at least, not in general. If suitable quantitative relations were to be defined, there was a possibility of retaining either the traditional definition of greater and finding another concept of equality, or of retaining the concept of equality as one-one correspondence and defining greater than so that it is incompatible with equality in this sense. The former alternative was implicitly taken by Bolzano, who never succeeded in defining suitable quantitative relations. The latter alternative was taken by Cantor, and is the basis of his great success in constructing a mathematical theory of the transfinite. (shrink)

This article enlarges classical syllogistic logic with assertions having to do with comparisons between the sizes of sets. So it concerns a logical system whose sentences are of the following forms: Allxareyand Somexarey, There are at least as manyxasy, and There are morexthany. Herexandyrange over subsets (not elements) of a giveninfiniteset. Moreover,xandymay appear complemented (i.e., as$\bar{x}$and$\bar{y}$), with the natural meaning. We formulate a logic for our language that is based on the classical syllogistic. The main result is a soundness/completeness (...) theorem. There are efficient algorithms for proof search and model construction. (shrink)

Let A and B be subsets of the space 2 N of sets of natural numbers. A is said to be Wadge reducible to B if there is a continuous map Φ from 2 N into 2 N such that A = Φ -1 (B); A is said to be monotone reducible to B if in addition the map Φ is monotone, that is, $a \subset b$ implies $\Phi (a) \subset \Phi(b)$ . The set A is said to be (...) monotone if a ∈ A and $a \subset b$ imply b ∈ A. For monotone sets, it is shown that, as for Wadge reducibility, sets low in the arithmetical hierarchy are nicely ordered. The ▵ 0 1 sets are all reducible to the (Σ 0 1 but not ▵ 0 1 ) sets, which are in turn all reducible to the strictly ▵ 0 2 sets, which are all in turn reducible to the strictly Σ 0 2 sets. In addition, the nontrivial Σ 0 n sets all have the same degree for n ≤ 2. For Wadge reducibility, these results extend throughout the Borel hierarchy. In contrast, we give two natural strictly Π 0 2 monotone sets which have different monotone degrees. We show that every Σ 0 2 monotone set is actually Σ 0 2 positive. We also consider reducibility for subsets of the space of compact subsets of 2 N . This leads to the result that the finitely iterated Cantor-Bendixson derivative D n is a Borel map of class exactly 2n, which answers a question of Kuratowski. (shrink)

We can have credences in an infinite number of propositions—that is, our opinion set can be infinite. Accuracy-first epistemologists have devoted themselves to evaluating credal states with the help of the concept of ‘accuracy’. Unfortunately, under several innocuous assumptions, infinite opinion sets yield several undesirable results, some of which are even fatal, to accuracy-first epistemology. Moreover, accuracy-first epistemologists cannot circumvent these difficulties in any standard way. In this regard, we will suggest a non-standard approach, called a (...) relativistic approach, to accuracy-first epistemology and show that such an approach can successfully circumvent undesirable results while having some advantages over the standard approach. (shrink)

One result of this note is about the nonconstructivity of countably infinite lotteries: even if we impose very weak conditions on the assignment of probabilities to subsets of natural numbers we cannot prove the existence of such assignments constructively, i.e., without something such as the axiom of choice. This is a corollary to a more general theorem about large-small filters, a concept that extends the concept of free ultrafilters. The main theorem is that proving the existence of large-small filters (...) requires a nonconstructive axiom like AC. (shrink)

Este artículo da cuenta de la aparición histórica de lo infinito en la teoría de conjuntos, y de cómo lo tratamos dentro y fuera de las matemáticas. La primera sección analiza el surgimiento de lo infinito como una cuestión de método en la teoría de conjuntos. La segunda sección analiza el infinito dentro y fuera de las matemáticas, y cómo deben adoptarse. This article address the historical emergence of the infinite in set theory, and how we are to take (...) the infinite in and out of mathematics.The first section discusses the emergence of the infinite as a matter of method in set theory. The second section discusses the infinite in and out of mathematics, and how it is to be taken. (shrink)

It is consistent that there exists a set mapping $F: \lbrack\omega_2\rbrack^2 \rightarrow \lbrack\omega_2\rbrack^{<\omega}$ such that $F(\alpha, \beta) \subseteq \alpha$ for $\alpha < \beta < \omega_2$ and there is no infinite free subset for F. This solves a problem of A. Hajnal and A. Mate.

There is a well-known equivalence between avoiding accuracy dominance and having probabilistically coherent credences (see, e.g., de Finetti 1974, Joyce 2009, Predd et al. 2009, Pettigrew 2016). However, this equivalence has been established only when the set of propositions on which credence functions are defined is finite. In this paper, I establish connections between accuracy dominance and coherence when credence functions are defined on an infinite set of propositions. In particular, I establish the necessary results to extend the classic (...) accuracy argument for probabilism to certain classes of infinite sets of propositions including countably infinite partitions. (shrink)

Contractions on belief sets that have no finite representation cannot be finite in the sense that only a finite number of sentences is removed. However, such contractions can be delimited so that the actual change takes place in a logically isolated, finite-based part of the belief set. A construction that answers to this principle is introduced, and is axiomatically characterized. It turns out to coincide with specified meet contraction.

We construct the set of the title, answering a question of Cholak, Jockusch, and Slaman [1], and discuss its connections with the study of the proof-theoretic strength and effective content of versions of Ramsey's Theorem. In particular, our result implies that every ω-model of RCA 0 + SRT 2 2 must contain a nonlow set.

This chapter challenges Cantor’s notion of the ‘power’, or ‘cardinality’, of an infinite set. According to Cantor, two infinite sets have the same cardinality if and only if there is a one-to-one correspondence between them. Cantor showed that there are infinite sets that do not have the same cardinality in this sense. Further, he took this result to show that there are infinite sets of different sizes. This has become the standard understanding of (...) the result. The chapter challenges this, arguing that we have no reason to think there are infinite sets of different sizes. It begins with an initial argument against Cantor’s claim that there are infinite sets of different sizes and then proceeds, by way of an analogy between Cantor’s mathematical result and Russell’s paradox, to a more direct argument. (shrink)

Related Works: Part II: C. T. Chong, Yue Yang. $\Sigma_2$ Induction and Infinite Injury Priority Argument, Part II: Tame $\Sigma_2$ Coding and the Jump Operator. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic, vol. 87, no. 2, 103--116. Mathematical Reviews : MR1490049 Part III: C. T. Chong, Lei Qian, Theodore A. Slaman, Yue Yang. $\Sigma_2$ Induction and Infinite Injury Priority Argument, Part III: Prompt Sets, Minimal Paries and Shoenfield's Conjecture. Mathematical Reviews : MR1818378.

The nature of of Infinite Number is discussed in a rigorous but easy-to-follow manner. Special attention is paid to Cantor's proof that any given set has more subsets than members, and it is discussed how this fact bears on the question: How many infinite numbers are there? This work is ideal for people with little or no background in set theory who would like an introduction to the mathematics of the infinite.

Some philosophers have claimed that it is meaningless or paradoxical to consider the probability of a probability. Others have however argued that second-order probabilities do not pose any particular problem. We side with the latter group. On condition that the relevant distinctions are taken into account, second-order probabilities can be shown to be perfectly consistent. May the same be said of an infinite hierarchy of higher-order probabilities? Is it consistent to speak of a probability of a probability, and of (...) a probability of a probability of a probability, and so on, {\em ad infinitum}? We argue that it is, for it can be shown that there exists an infinite system of probabilities that has a model. In particular, we define a regress of higher-order probabilities that leads to a convergent series which determines an infinite-order probability value. We demonstrate the consistency of the regress by constructing a model based on coin-making machines. (shrink)

We study randomness beyond${\rm{\Pi }}_1^1$-randomness and its Martin-Löf type variant, which was introduced in [16] and further studied in [3]. Here we focus on a class strictly between${\rm{\Pi }}_1^1$and${\rm{\Sigma }}_2^1$that is given by the infinite time Turing machines introduced by Hamkins and Kidder. The main results show that the randomness notions associated with this class have several desirable properties, which resemble those of classical random notions such as Martin-Löf randomness and randomness notions defined via effective descriptive set theory such (...) as${\rm{\Pi }}_1^1$-randomness. For instance, mutual randoms do not share information and a version of van Lambalgen’s theorem holds.Towards these results, we prove the following analogue to a theorem of Sacks. If a real is infinite time Turing computable relative to all reals in some given set of reals with positive Lebesgue measure, then it is already infinite time Turing computable. As a technical tool towards this result, we prove facts of independent interest about random forcing over increasing unions of admissible sets, which allow efficient proofs of some classical results about hyperarithmetic sets. (shrink)

The main result of the present article is the following: Let N be an infinite subset of,, and let be a matrix with infinitely many rows of completely Ramsey subsets of such that for every n,. Then there exist, a sequence of nonempty finite subsets of N, and an infinite subset T of such that for every infinite subset I of. We also give an application of this result to partitions of an uncountable analytic subset of a (...) Polish space X into sets belonging to the σ‐algebra generated by the analytic subsets of X. (shrink)

We obtain a large class of significant examples of n-random reals (i.e., Martin-Löf random in oracle $\varphi ^{(n - 1)} $ ) à la Chaitin. Any such real is defined as the probability that a universal monotone Turing machine performing possibly infinite computations on infinite (resp. finite large enough, resp. finite self-delimited) inputs produces an output in a given set O ⊆(ℕ). In particular, we develop methods to transfer $\Sigma _n^0 $ or $\Pi _n^0 $ or many-one completeness (...) results of index sets to n-randomness of associated probabilities. (shrink)

For an integer \, Ramsey Choice\ is the weak choice principle “every infinite setxhas an infinite subset y such that\ has a choice function”, and \ is the weak choice principle “every infinite family of n-element sets has an infinite subfamily with a choice function”. In 1995, Montenegro showed that for \, \. However, the question of whether or not \ for \ is still open. In general, for distinct \, not even the status of (...) “\” or “\” is known. In this paper, we provide partial answers to the above open problems and among other results, we establish the following:1.For every integer \, if \ is true for all integers i with \, then \ is true for all integers i with \.2.If \ are any integers such that for some prime p we have \ and \, then in \: \ and \.3.For \, \\\ implies \, and \ implies neither \ nor \ in \.4.For every integer \, \ implies “every infinite linearly orderable family of k-element sets has a partial Kinna–Wagner selection function” and the latter implication is not reversible in \ ). In particular, \ strictly implies “every infinite linearly orderable family of 3-element sets has a partial choice function”.5.The Chain-AntiChain Principle implies neither \ nor \ in \, for every integer \. (shrink)

Infinite time Turing machines extend the operation of ordinary Turing machines into transfinite ordinal time. By doing so, they provide a natural model of infinitary computability, a theoretical setting for the analysis of the power and limitations of supertask algorithms.

A number of philosophers have thought that fair lotteries over countably infinite sets of outcomes are conceptually incoherent by virtue of violating countable additivity. In this article, I show that a qualitative analogue of this argument generalizes to an argument against the conceptual coherence of a much wider class of fair infinite lotteries—including continuous uniform distributions. I argue that this result suggests that fair lotteries over countably infinite sets of outcomes are no more conceptually problematic (...) than continuous uniform distributions. Along the way, I provide a novel argument for a weak qualitative, epistemic version of regularity. (shrink)

Infinite time Turing machines extend the operation of ordinary Turing machines into transfinite ordinal time. By doing so, they provide a natural model of infinitary computability, a theoretical setting for the analysis of the power and limitations of supertask algorithms.

In this dissertation we discuss infinite regress arguments from both a historical and a logical perspective. Throughout we deal with arguments drawn from various areas of philosophy. ;We first consider the regress generating portion of the argument. We find two main ways in which infinite regresses can be developed. The first generates a regress by defining a relation that holds between objects of some kind. An example of such a regress is the causal regress used in some versions (...) of the Cosmological Argument. The second sort of regress is generated by defining a certain procedure that can be repeated indefinitely many times. This will often be a procedure of analysis or of explanation. ;We then argue that for purposes of discussing regressive viciousness it is helpful to divide regresses into two main types. One type raises primarily epistemological issues. In this class we find the regress of justification often used in foundational arguments in epistemology. We also discuss certain arguments that treat theories of predication as attempts to explain predication. Our other class contains those regresses that raise primarily metaphysical problems. This class includes the causal regress as well as those arguments concerned with predication as an ontological problem. ;We agree with some philosophers that one problem that arises in the case of vicious regression is circularity. We show how this problem can be generalized to include other apparently non-circular regresses. The other main problem in epistemological regresses arises as a result of certain conditions that are placed on the relation involved. We look in detail at the epistemological justification regress to illustrate this last point. ;With respect to metaphysical regresses we again find several types of viciousness arguments. One problem is whether the infinite collection required for the regress is even possible. Another problem is whether an infinite number of events can occur in a finite time. These we deal with only briefly. The main difficulty with these regresses, considered as regresses and not just as infinite sets, again turns out to be certain conditions built into the relation involved. We focus on some arguments about causal regression to illustrate this point. ;Finally, we find no absolutely general conditions for regressive viciousness. There is, however, a certain limited range of ways in which a regress may be vicious. We make these ways explicit. (shrink)

As an application of his Material Theory of Induction, Norton (2018; manuscript) argues that the correct inductive logic for a fair infinite lottery, and also for evaluating eternal inflation multiverse models, is radically different from standard probability theory. This is due to a requirement of label independence. It follows, Norton argues, that finite additivity fails, and any two sets of outcomes with the same cardinality and co-cardinality have the same chance. This makes the logic useless for evaluating multiverse (...) models based on self-locating chances, so Norton claims that we should despair of such attempts. However, his negative results depend on a certain reification of chance, consisting in the treatment of inductive support as the value of a function, a value not itself affected by relabeling. Here we define a purely comparative infinite lottery logic, where there are no primitive chances but only a relation of ‘at most as likely’ and its derivatives. This logic satisfies both label independence and a comparative version of additivity as well as several other desirable properties, and it draws finer distinctions between events than Norton's. Consequently, it yields better advice about choosing between sets of lottery tickets than Norton's, but it does not appear to be any more helpful for evaluating multiverse models. Hence, the limitations of Norton's logic are not entirely due to the failure of additivity, nor to the fact that all infinite, co-infinite sets of outcomes have the same chance, but to a more fundamental problem: We have no well-motivated way of comparing disjoint countably infinite sets. (shrink)

Cantor’s theory of cardinal numbers offers a way to generalize arithmetic from finite sets to infinite sets using the notion of one-to-one association between two sets. As is well known, all countable infinite sets have the same ‘size’ in this account, namely that of the cardinality of the natural numbers. However, throughout the history of reflections on infinity another powerful intuition has played a major role: if a collectionAis properly included in a collectionBthen the (...) ‘size’ ofAshould be less than the ‘size’ ofB(part–whole principle). This second intuition was not developed mathematically in a satisfactory way until quite recently. In this article I begin by reviewing the contributions of some thinkers who argued in favor of the assignment of different sizes to infinite collections of natural numbers (Thabit ibn Qurra, Grosseteste, Maignan, Bolzano). Then, I review some recent mathematical developments that generalize the part–whole principle to infinite sets in a coherent fashion (Katz, Benci, Di Nasso, Forti). Finally, I show how these new developments are important for a proper evaluation of a number of positions in philosophy of mathematics which argue either for the inevitability of the Cantorian notion of infinite number (Gödel) or for the rational nature of the Cantorian generalization as opposed to that, based on the part–whole principle, envisaged by Bolzano (Kitcher). (shrink)

000000001. Introduction Call a theory of the good—be it moral or prudential—aggregative just in case (1) it recognizes local (or location-relative) goodness, and (2) the goodness of states of affairs is based on some aggregation of local goodness. The locations for local goodness might be points or regions in time, space, or space-time; or they might be people, or states of nature.1 Any method of aggregation is allowed: totaling, averaging, measuring the equality of the distribution, measuring the minimum, etc.. Call (...) a theory of the good finitely additive just in case it is aggregative, and for any finite set of locations it aggregates by adding together the goodness at those locations. Standard versions of total utilitarianism typically invoke finitely additive value theories (with people as locations). A puzzle can arise when finitely additive value theories are applied to cases involving an infinite number of locations (people, times, etc.). Suppose, for example, that temporal locations are the locus of value, and that time is discrete, and has no beginning or end.2 How would a finitely additive theory (e.g., a temporal version of total utilitarianism) judge the following two worlds? Goodness at Locations (e.g. times) w1:..., 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, ..... w2:..., 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, ..... Example 1 At each time w1 contains 2 units of goodness and w2 contains only 1. Intuitively, we claim, if the locations are the same in each world, finitely additive theorists will want to claim that w1 is better than w2. But it's not clear how they could coherently hold this view. For using standard mathematics the sum of each is the same infinity, and so there seems to be no basis for claiming that one is better than the other.3 (Appealing to Cantorian infinities is of no help here, since for any Cantorian infinite N, 2xN=1xN.). (shrink)

One finds intertwined with ideas at the core of evolutionary theory claims about frequencies in counterfactual and infinitely large populations of organisms, as well as in sets of populations of organisms. One also finds claims about frequencies in counterfactual and infinitely large populations—of events—at the core of an answer to a question concerning the foundations of evolutionary theory. The question is this: To what do the numerical probabilities found throughout evolutionary theory correspond? The answer in question says that evolutionary (...) probabilities are “hypothetical frequencies” (including what are sometimes called “long-run frequencies” and “long-run propensities”). In this paper, I review two arguments against hypothetical frequencies. The arguments have implications for the interpretation of evolutionary probabilities, but more importantly, they seem to raise problems for biologists’ claims about frequencies in counterfactual or infinite populations of organisms and sets of populations of organisms. I argue that when properly understood, claims about frequencies in large and infinite populations of organisms and sets of populations are not threatened by the arguments. Seeing why gives us a clearer understanding of the nature of counterfactual and infinite population claims and probability in evolutionary theory. (shrink)

This paper deals with two different problems in which infinity plays a central role. I first respond to a claim that infinity renders counting knowledge-level beliefs an infeasible approach to measuring and comparing how much we know. There are two methods of comparing sizes of infinite sets, using the one-to-one correspondence principle or the subset principle, and I argue that we should use the subset principle for measuring knowledge. I then turn to the normalizability and coarse tuning objections (...) to fine-tuning arguments for the existence of God or a multiverse. These objections center on the difficulty of talking about the epistemic probability of a physical constant falling within a finite life-permitting range when the possible range of that constant is infinite. Applying the lessons learned regarding infinity and the measurement of knowledge, I hope to blunt much of the force of these objections to fine-tuning arguments. (shrink)

Infinite time Turing machines with only one tape are in many respects fully as powerful as their multi-tape cousins. In particular, the two models of machine give rise to the same class of decidable sets, the same degree structure and, at least for partial functions f : ℝ → ℕ, the same class of computable functions. Nevertheless, there are infinite time computable functions f : ℝ → ℝ that are not one-tape computable, and so the two models (...) of infinitary computation are not equivalent. Surprisingly, the class of one-tape computable functions is not closed under composition; but closing it under composition yields the full class of all infinite time computable functions. Finally, every ordinal that is clockable by an infinite time Turing machine is clockable by a one-tape machine, except certain isolated ordinals that end gaps in the clockable ordinals. (shrink)