arXiv subjects

Tim Button

Publications and source records attributed to Tim Button.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2023

The iterative conception of function and the iterative conception of set

Hilary Putnam once suggested that "the actual existence of sets as 'intangible objects' suffers... from a generalization of a problem first pointed out by Paul Benacerraf... are sets a kind of function or are functions a sort of set?" Sadly, he did not elaborate; my aim, here, is to do so on his behalf. There are well-known methods for treating sets as functions and functions as sets. But these do not raise any obvious philosophical or foundational puzzles. For that, we first need to provide a full-fledged function theory. I supply such a theory: it axiomatizes the iterative notion of function in exactly the same sense that ZF axiomatizes the iterative notion of set. Indeed, this function theory is synonymous with ZF. It might seem that set theory and function theory present us with rival foundations for mathematics, since they postulate different ontologies. But appearances are deceptive. Set theory and function theory provide the very same judicial foundation for mathematics. They do not supply rival metaphysical foundations; indeed, if they supply metaphysical foundations at all, then they supply the very same metaphysical foundations.

math.LO↗

arXiv2023

Wand/set theories: A realization of Conway's mathematicians' liberation movement, with an application to Church's set theory with a universal set

Consider a variant of the usual story about the iterative conception of sets. As usual, at every stage, you find all the (bland) sets of objects which you found earlier. But you also find the result of tapping any earlier-found object with any magic wand (from a given stock of magic wands). By varying the number and behaviour of the wands, we can flesh out this idea in many different ways. This paper's main Theorem is that any loosely constructive way of fleshing out this idea is synonymous with a ZF-like theory. This Theorem has rich applications; it realizes John Conway's (1976) Mathematicians' Liberation Movement; and it connects with a lovely idea due to Alonzo Church (1974).

math.LO↗

arXiv2021

Against Cumulative Type Theory

Standard Type Theory, STT, tells us that $b^n(a^m)$ is well-formed iff $n=m+1$. However, Linnebo and Rayo (2012) have advocated for the use of Cumulative Type Theory, CTT, which has more relaxed type-restrictions: according to CTT, $b^\beta(a^\alpha)$ is well-formed iff $\beta > \alpha$. In this paper, we set ourselves against CTT. We begin our case by arguing against Linnebo & Rayo's claim that CTT sheds new philosophical light on set theory. We then argue that, while CTT's type-restrictions are unjustifiable, the type-restrictions imposed by STT are justified by a Fregean semantics. What is more, this Fregean semantics provides us with a principled way to resist Linnebo & Rayo's Semantic Argument for CTT. We end by examining an alternative approach to cumulative types due to Florio & Jones (2021); we argue that their theory is best seen as a misleadingly formulated version of STT.

math.LO↗

arXiv2021

Level Theory, parts 1-3

This document comprises Level Theory, parts 1-3. PART 1. The following bare-bones story introduces the idea of a cumulative hierarchy of pure sets: 'Sets are arranged in stages. Every set is found at some stage. At any stage S: for any sets found before S, we find a set whose members are exactly those sets. We find nothing else at S.' Surprisingly, this story already guarantees that the sets are arranged in well-ordered levels, and suffices for quasi-categoricity. I show this by presenting Level Theory, a simplifiation of set theories due to Scott, Montague, Derrick, and Potter. PART 2. Potentialists think that the concept of set is importantly modal. Using tensed language as an heuristic, the following bare-bones story introduces the idea of a potential hierarchy of sets: 'Always: for any sets that existed, there is a set whose members are exactly those sets; there are no other sets.' Surprisingly, this story already guarantees well-foundedness and persistence. Moreover, if we assume that time is linear, the ensuing modal set theory is almost definitionally equivalent with non-modal set theories; specifically, with Level Theory, as developed in Part 1. PART 3. On a very natural conception of sets, every set has an absolute complement. The ordinary cumulative hierarchy dismisses this idea outright. But we can rectify this, whilst retaining classical logic. Indeed, we can develop a boolean algebra of sets arranged in well-ordered levels. I show this by presenting Boolean Level Theory, which fuses ordinary Level Theory (from Part 1) with ideas due to Thomas Forster, Alonzo Church, and Urs Oswald. BLT neatly implement Conway's games and surreal numbers; and a natural extension of BLT is definitionally equivalent with ZF.

math.LO↗

arXiv2015

Structure and Categoricity: Determinacy of Reference and Truth-Value in the Philosophy of Mathematics

This article surveys recent literature by Parsons, McGee, Shapiro and others on the significance of categoricity arguments in the philosophy of mathematics. After discussing whether categoricity arguments are sufficient to secure reference to mathematical structures up to isomorphism, we assess what exactly is achieved by recent `internal' renditions of the famous categoricity arguments for arithmetic and set theory.

math.HO↗

arXiv2014

Grades of Discrimination: Indiscernibility, symmetry, and relativity

There are several relations which may fall short of genuine identity, but which behave like identity in important respects. Such grades of discrimination have recently been the subject of much philosophical and technical discussion. This paper aims to complete their technical investigation. Grades of indiscernibility are defined in terms of satisfaction of certain first-order formulas. Grades of symmetry are defined in terms of symmetries on a structure. Both of these families of grades of discrimination have been studied in some detail. However, this paper also introduces grades of relativity, defined in terms of relativeness correspondences. This paper explores the relationships between all the grades of discrimination, exhaustively answering several natural questions that have so far received only partial answers. It also establishes which grades can be captured in terms of satisfaction of object-language formulas, and draws connections with definability theory.

math.LO↗