Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).

nLab > Latest Changes: ZFC

Bottom of Page

1 to 16 of 16

  1.  
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeOct 31st 2019

    Add Mike's stack semantics paper to the references (for its classification of axioms of material set theories).

    diff, v32, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeOct 31st 2019

    Have I forgotten how to link an internal bibliographic reference, or does that no longer work?

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeNov 1st 2019

    Actually, maybe the spin-off paper that contains just the material/structural set theory material would be better?

    (OT: I’m hoping the spin-off stack semantics paper will turn up too, at some point)

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorAlexisHazell
    • CommentTimeNov 1st 2019

    @TobyBartels: re. #2, could you describe the specific issue you’re having?

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeNov 1st 2019

    I’m hoping the spin-off stack semantics paper will turn up too, at some point

    It will…

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeNov 1st 2019

    Thanks :-) I’m looking at having a student do their honours project next year on the stack semantics (mostly a survey of toposes and the internal logic, with end goal of proving a particular statement in the internal logic holds in a particular example).

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeNov 1st 2019

    @AlexisHazell #4 : I was indeed formatting it incorrectly; I referred to another page and fixed it. (The issue is that if you want to attach an id tag to an li element, then it has to go in a separate line that does not have the indented spacing that you would use to keep a new paragraph in the list item.)

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeNov 1st 2019

    @David Roberts #3 : Yes, that is better. (I didn't realize that it was publicly available yet.) I've changed it.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeNov 2nd 2019

    Updated reference to Mike’s paper: 2018 not 2010.

    diff, v35, current

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeNov 2nd 2019
    • (edited Nov 2nd 2019)

    I think it might be worth saying something about ZF(C)−\mathrm{ZF}(\mathrm{C})-, Zermelo–Fraenkel without the axiom of powerset, as it turns up now and then in various settings. But there’s subtlety in that other axioms need fiddling with (or adding, if they no longer follow from the rest of them). This paper takes the ’C\mathrm{C}’ to mean the well-ordering principle, rather than AC. There also seems to be work of Andrzej Zarach in this area.

    I guess it might also be worth also isolating the structural analogues of ZF(C)−\mathrm{ZF}(\mathrm{C})-. For BZ−\mathrm{BZ}- (whatever that might be) one probably gets something like a well-pointed Boolean pretopos with NNO and subobject classifier. I guess carefully adding one of the now non-equivalent stronger structural replacement-ish axioms gets us to ZF−\mathrm{ZF}-.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeNov 2nd 2019

    IMO in almost any setting where replacement no longer implies collection, in practice one wants to assume collection rather than replacement. I think that was also the lesson of the GHJ paper.

    The paper of mine cited in #3 compiles a fairly extensive list of structural axioms that correspond to various axioms of ZFC.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2019

    @Mike Ah, I didn’t see that the GHJ ZFC- was listed in your paper. I’m really looking at ZF-, so I will see if I can extract something. Krapf’s thesis (for example) gives ZF- as

    1. extensionality,
    2. foundation,
    3. pairing,
    4. union,
    5. infinity,
    6. collection

    Given V\mathbf{V} that satisfies these and we have classical logic, I would guess that foundation+infinity implies Set(V)Set(\mathbf{V}) has a parametrised NNO. Collection+infinity implies empty set and also the weak separation and replacement from the core axioms (an educated guess). So Set(V)Set(\mathbf{V}) is a well-pointed boolean pretopos. Then the core axioms + collection for V\mathbf{V} give structural collection for Set(V)Set(\mathbf{V}). There’s probably more that can be said, but I’ll leave it there for now and come back.

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeNov 5th 2019

    Also mention Mike's paper in the part of the article that is about that subject (comparison to structural set theories).

    diff, v36, current

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2020

    Added redirects.

    diff, v37, current

  15. Original version is not correct. There is no set which has exactly one element in common with every element of {{0},{1},{0,1}}.

    Robin Adams

    diff, v42, current

  16. Note that Zermelo’s axioms did not include the Axiom of Foundation.

    Robin Adams

    diff, v44, current

1 to 16 of 16

  1.