The Axiom of Infinity and Transformations j: V → V

Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 16 (1):37-84 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX


We suggest a new approach for addressing the problem of establishing an axiomatic foundation for large cardinals. An axiom asserting the existence of a large cardinal can naturally be viewed as a strong Axiom of Infinity. However, it has not been clear on the basis of our knowledge of ω itself, or of generally agreed upon intuitions about the true nature of the mathematical universe, what the right strengthening of the Axiom of Infinity is—which large cardinals ought to be derivable? It was shown in the 1960s by Lawvere that the existence of an infinite set is equivalent to the existence of a certain kind of structure-preserving transformation from V to itself, not isomorphic to the identity. We use Lawvere's transformation, rather than ω, as a starting point for a reasonably natural sequence of strengthenings and refinements, leading to a proposed strong Axiom of Infinity. A first refinement was discussed in later work by Trnková—Blass, showing that if the preservation properties of Lawvere's tranformation are strengthened to the point of requiring it to be an exact functor , such a transformation is provably equivalent to the existence of a measurable cardinal. We propose to push the preservation properties as far as possible, short of inconsistency. The resulting transformation V→V is strong enough to account for virtually all large cardinals, but is at the same time a natural generalization of an assertion about transformations V→V known to be equivalent to the Axiom of Infinity



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 80,119

External links

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

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Expressing infinity without foundation.Franco Parlamento & Alberto Policriti - 1991 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 56 (4):1230-1235.
Why Believe Infinite Sets Exist?Andrei Mărăşoiu - 2018 - Axiomathes 28 (4):447-460.
The strength of extensionality I—weak weak set theories with infinity.Kentaro Sato - 2009 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 157 (2-3):234-268.
Iteration one more time.Roy T. Cook - 2003 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 44 (2):63--92.
The strength of extensionality II—weak weak set theories without infinity.Kentaro Sato - 2011 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 162 (8):579-646.
Predicative Logic and Formal Arithmetic.John P. Burgess & A. P. Hazen - 1998 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 39 (1):1-17.
The axiom of infinity.Bertrand Russell - 1903 - Hibbert Journal 2:809-812.
The Axiom of Infinity.Cassius Jackson Keyser - 1904 - Hibbert Journal 3:380-383.
On ω-inconsistency and a so-called axiom of infinity.W. V. Quine - 1953 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 18 (2):119-124.
On ω-Consistency and a so-Called Axiom of Infinity.W. V. Quine - 1954 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 19 (2):128-129.


Added to PP

108 (#124,580)

6 months
1 (#477,905)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Higher Infinite.Akihiro Kanamori - 2000 - Studia Logica 65 (3):443-446.
Set Theory.Keith J. Devlin - 1981 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 46 (4):876-877.
Believing the axioms. I.Penelope Maddy - 1988 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 53 (2):481-511.
Adjointness in Foundations.F. William Lawvere - 1969 - Dialectica 23 (3‐4):281-296.
Believing the axioms. II.Penelope Maddy - 1988 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 53 (3):736-764.

View all 16 references / Add more references