Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic

Rudimentary Recursion, Gentle Functions and Provident Sets

A. R. D. Mathias and N. J. Bowler

Full-text: Access denied (no subscription detected)

We're sorry, but we are unable to provide you with the full text of this article because we are not able to identify you as a subscriber. If you have a personal subscription to this journal, then please login. If you are already logged in, then you may need to update your profile to register your subscription. Read more about accessing full-text

Abstract

This paper, a contribution to “micro set theory”, is the study promised by the first author in [M4], as improved and extended by work of the second. We use the rudimentarily recursive (set-theoretic) functions and the slightly larger collection of gentle functions to initiate the study of provident sets, which are transitive models of PROVI, a subsystem of KP whose minimal model is Jensen’s Jω. PROVI supports familiar definitions, such as rank, transitive closure and ordinal addition—though not ordinal multiplication—and (shown in [M8]) Shoenfield’s unramified forcing. Providence is preserved under directed unions. An arbitrary set has a provident closure, and (shown in [M8]) the extension of a provident M by a set-generic G is the provident closure of M{G}. The improvidence of many models of Z is shown. The final section uses similar but simpler recursions to show, in the weak system MW, that the truth predicate for Δ˙0 formulæ is Δ1.

Article information

Source
Notre Dame J. Formal Logic, Volume 56, Number 1 (2015), 3-60.

Dates
First available in Project Euclid: 24 March 2015

Permanent link to this document
https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ndjfl/1427202973

Digital Object Identifier
doi:10.1215/00294527-2835101

Mathematical Reviews number (MathSciNet)
MR3326588

Zentralblatt MATH identifier
1371.03061

Subjects
Primary: 03E30: Axiomatics of classical set theory and its fragments 03D65: Higher-type and set recursion theory
Secondary: 03E40: Other aspects of forcing and Boolean-valued models 03E45: Inner models, including constructibility, ordinal definability, and core models

Keywords
rudimentary recursion provident set, provident closure gentle function attain delay progress (canonical, strict, solid)

Citation

Mathias, A. R. D.; Bowler, N. J. Rudimentary Recursion, Gentle Functions and Provident Sets. Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 56 (2015), no. 1, 3--60. doi:10.1215/00294527-2835101. https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ndjfl/1427202973


Export citation

References

  • [De] Devlin, K., Constructibility, Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Springer, Berlin, 1984.
  • [Do] Dodd, A. J., The Core Model, vol. 61 of London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982.
  • [G] Gandy, R. O., “Set-theoretic functions for elementary syntax,” pp. 103–126 in vol. 13, part II of Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, edited by T. Jech, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1974.
  • [J1] Jensen, R. B., Stufen der konstruktiblen Hierarchie. Habilitationsschrift, Universit at Bonn, 1967.
  • [J2] Jensen, R. B., “The fine structure of the constructible hierarchy,” with a section by Jack Silver, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 4 (1972), pp. 229–308. Erratum, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 4 (1972), p. 443.
  • [JK] Jensen, R. B., and C. Karp, “Primitive recursive set functions,” pp. 143–176 in vol. 13, part I of Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, edited by D. Scott, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1971.
  • [M1] Mathias, A. R. D., “Slim models of Zermelo set theory,” Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 66 (2001), pp. 487–496.
  • [M2] Mathias, A. R. D., “The strength of Mac Lane set theory,” Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 110 (2001), pp. 107–234.
  • [M3] Mathias, A. R. D., “Weak systems of Gandy, Jensen and Devlin,” pp. 149–224 in Set Theory: Centre de Recerca Matemàtica, Barcelona 2003–4, edited by Joan Bagaria and Stevo Todorcevic, Trends in Mathematics, Birkhäuser, Basel, 2006.
  • [M4] Mathias, A. R. D., “Set forcing over models of Zermelo or Mac Lane,” pp. 41–66 in One Hundred Years of Axiomatic Set Theory, edited by R. Hinnion and T. Libert, vol. 17 of Cahiers du Centre de logique, Academia-Bruylant, Louvain-la-Neuve, 2010.
  • [M5] Mathias, A. R. D., “Rudimentary recursion and provident sets,” preprint, 2009, http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~ardm/rudrec41.pdf.
  • [M6] Mathias, A. R. D., “Provident sets and rudimentary set forcing,” preprint, 2009, http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~ardm/fifo31.pdf.
  • [M7] Mathias, A. R. D., “Unordered pairs in the set theory of Bourbaki 1949,” Archiv für Mathematik, vol. 94 (2010), pp. 1–10.
  • [M8] Mathias, A. R. D., “Provident sets and rudimentary set forcing,” preprint, to appear in Fundamenta Mathematicæ.
  • [M9] Mathias, A. R. D., “Provident set theory,” in preparation.
  • [S] Scott, D., personal correspondence on formal geometry and rudimentary functions, February/March 2006.
  • [SMcC] Scott, D., and D. McCarty, “Reconsidering ordered pairs,” Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, vol. 14 (2008), 379–97.
  • [Stan] Lee, S., Review of [De], Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 53 (1987), 864–8.
  • [Stav] Stavi, J., “A converse of the Barwise completeness theorem,” Journal of Symbolic Logic vol. 38 (1973), 594–612.
  • [SZ] Schindler, R., and M. Zeman, “Fine structure,” in Handbook of Set Theory, vol. 1, edited by M. Foreman and A. Kanamori, Springer, Dordrecht, 2010, 605–656.
  • [W] Weaver, N., “Analysis in $J_{2}$,” preprint, arXiv:math.LO/0509245.