Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1409.3483

Relative Categoricity and Abstraction Principles

Sean Walsh·Sean Ebels-Duggan
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Many recent writers in the philosophy of mathematics have put great weight on the relative categoricity of the traditional axiomatizations of our foundational theories of arithmetic and set theory (\cite{Parsons1990a}, \cite{Parsons2008} §{49}, \cite{McGee1997aa}, \cite{Lavine1999aa}, \cite{Vaananen2014aa}). Another great enterprise in contemporary philosophy of mathematics has been Wright's and Hale's project of founding mathematics on abstraction principles (\cite{Hale2001}, \cite{Cook2007aa}). In \cite{Walsh2012aa}, it was noted that one traditional abstraction principle, namely Hume's Principle, had a certain relative categoricity property, which here we term \emph{natural relative categoricity}. In this paper, we show that most other abstraction principles are \emph{not} naturally relatively categorical, so that there is in fact a large amount of incompatibility between these two recent trends in contemporary philosophy of mathematics. To better understand the precise demands of relative categoricity in the context of abstraction principles, we compare and contrast these constraints to (i) stability-like acceptability criteria on abstraction principles (cf. \cite{Cook2012aa}), (ii) the Tarski-Sher logicality requirements on abstraction principles studied by Antonelli \cite{Antonelli2010aa} and Fine~\cite{Fine2002}, and (iii) supervaluational ideas coming out of Hodes' work \cite{Hodes1984, Hodes1990aa, Hodes1991}.

Explore related subjects

math.LO

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Sean Walsh, Sean Ebels-Duggan. 2015-01-24. Relative Categoricity and Abstraction Principles. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1755020315000052

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

There is no maximal $K$-degree

The Kolmogorov complexity of a string characterize how complex it is to describe the string. If every prefix of a real $x$ is more complex to describe than every prefix (of the same length) of real $y$, then it is seen as $x$ is more complex to describe than $y$. It is wondered if there is a real $x$ so that no other reals are strictly more complex (to describe) than $x$. The behavior of Kolmogorov complexity functions generated by reals (namely $n\mapsto$ the minimal description length of the real) is quite chaos. Therefore, it is widely believed that there are many reals that are maximally complex to describe. For instance, it is conjectured that all random enough reals have maximal $K$-degree. In this paper, it is shown that there is no real with maximal $K$-degree. Actually, for almost all real $x$, we can uniformly computably find another real whose $K$-degree is strictly above $x$.

math.LO↗
arXiv2026

Quadruples and cubes

We prove, in $\mathsf{ZFC}$, that the $\lambda$-terraced cube relation fails whenever $\lambda$ is an uncountable cardinal. The corresponding terraced relation for quadruples fails for every $\lambda$. If $\lambda$ is $\aleph_0$ then the pretinent terraced relation has consistency strength of at least one Woodin cardinal. We prove positive polarized relations at a successor and a double successor from wondrous ideals. We show, however, that there are no such ideals over two consecutive cardinals simultaneously.

math.LO↗
arXiv2026

Possibilistic Logic over a Logic of Formal Inconsistency

In this article, we have introduced a new possibilistic logic on a logic of formal inconsistency with the aim of developing a possibility theoretic framework to deal with uncertainty and inconsistency meaningfully without leading to a system collapse. We have discussed the syntax and semantics for this logic and have proved the soundness and completeness theorems. A set of new measures of consistency, contradictoriness, and triviality of a set of formulas have been defined. These have then been put to use in an example to show that this framework can provide better means of machine reasoning.

math.LO↗