Functional interpretation of Aczel's constructive set theory

Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 104 (1-3):31-73 (2000)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In the present paper we give a functional interpretation of Aczel's constructive set theories CZF − and CZF in systems T ∈ and T ∈ + of constructive set functionals of finite types. This interpretation is obtained by a translation × , a refinement of the ∧ -translation introduced by Diller and Nahm 49–66) which again is an extension of Gödel's Dialectica translation. The interpretation theorem gives characterizations of the definable set functions of CZF − and CZF in terms of constructive set functionals. In a second part we introduce constructive set theories in all finite types. We expand the interpretation to these theories and give a characterization of the translation × . We further show that the simplest non-trivial axiom of extensionality is not interpretable by functionals of T ∈ and T ∈ + . We obtain this result by adapting Howard's notion of hereditarily majorizable functionals to set functionals. Subject of the last section is the translation ∨ that is defined in Burr for an interpretation of Kripke-Platek set theory with infinity

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,296

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-01-16

Downloads
4 (#1,644,260)

6 months
16 (#172,419)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

From the weak to the strong existence property.Michael Rathjen - 2012 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 163 (10):1400-1418.
The natural numbers in constructive set theory.Michael Rathjen - 2008 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 54 (1):83-97.
Hybrids of the ×-translation for CZF ω.Dominic Schulte - 2008 - Journal of Applied Logic 6 (3):443-458.
Logical problems of functional interpretations.Justus Diller - 2002 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 114 (1-3):27-42.

View all 8 citations / Add more citations