Strong axioms of infinity in NFU

Journal of Symbolic Logic 66 (1):87-116 (2001)
  Copy   BIBTEX


This paper discusses a sequence of extensions ofNFU, Jensen's improvement of Quine's set theory “New Foundations” (NF) of [16].The original theoryNFof Quine continues to present difficulties. After 60 years of intermittent investigation, it is still not known to be consistent relative to any set theory in which we have confidence. Specker showed in [20] thatNFdisproves Choice (and so proves Infinity). Even if one assumes the consistency ofNF, one is hampered by the lack of powerful methods for proofs of consistency and independence such as are available for use withZFC; very clever work has been done with permutation methods, starting with [18] and [5], and exemplified more recently by [14], but permutation methods can only be applied to show the consistency or independence of unstratified sentences (see the definition ofNFUbelow for a definition of stratification). For example, there is no method available to determine whether the assertion “the continuum can be well-ordered” is consistent with or independent ofNF. There is one substantial independence result for an assertion with nontrivial stratified consequences, using metamathematical methods: this is Orey's proof of the independence of the Axiom of Counting fromNF(see below for a statement of this axiom).We mention these difficulties only to reassure the reader of their irrelevance to the present work. Jensen's modification of “New Foundations” (in [13]), which was to restrict extensionality to sets, allowing many non-sets (urelements) with no elements, has almost magical effects.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,642

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

Strong axioms of infinity in NFU.M. Randall Holmes - 2001 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 66 (1):87-116.
On the strength of a weak variant of the axiom of counting.Zachiri McKenzie - 2017 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 63 (1-2):94-103.
The strength of Mac Lane set theory.A. R. D. Mathias - 2001 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 110 (1-3):107-234.
Introduction to Axiomatic Set Theory.Jean-Louis Krivine - 1971 - Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer.
Inner models for set theory—Part I.J. C. Shepherdson - 1951 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 16 (3):161-190.
On the set of atoms.M. Crabbé - 2000 - Logic Journal of the IGPL 8 (6):751-759.
On the philosophical significance of consistency proofs.Michael D. Resnik - 1974 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 3 (1/2):133 - 147.


Added to PP

4 (#1,013,551)

6 months
9 (#1,260,759)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

Set Theory.Thomas Jech - 1999 - Studia Logica 63 (2):300-300.
Typical Ambiguity.Ernst P. Specker - 1962 - In Ernest Nagel (ed.), Logic, methodology, and philosophy of science. Stanford, Calif.,: Stanford University Press. pp. 116--23.
Review Essay: Reflections on Kurt GodelReflections on Kurt Godel.Palle Yourgrau & Hao Wang - 1989 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 50 (2):391.

View all 7 references / Add more references