# How Woodin changed his mind: new thoughts on the Continuum Hypothesis

- 847 Downloads
- 3 Citations

## Abstract

The Continuum Problem has inspired set theorists and philosophers since the days of Cantorian set theory. In the last 15 years, W. Hugh Woodin, a leading set theorist, has not only taken it upon himself to engage in this question, he has also changed his mind about the answer. This paper illustrates Woodin’s solutions to the problem, starting in Sect. 3 with his 1999–2004 argument that Cantor’s hypothesis about the continuum was incorrect. From 2010 onwards, Woodin presents a very different argument, an argument that Cantor’s hypothesis is in fact true. This argument is still incomplete, but according to Woodin, some of the philosophical issues surrounding the Continuum Problem have been reduced to precise mathematical questions, questions that are, unlike Cantor’s hypothesis, solvable from our current theory of sets.

## Keywords

Canonical Theory Force Extension Large Cardinal Measurable Cardinal Proper Class## Notes

### Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Brendan Larvor, Dominik Adolf, Jeremy Grey and José Ferreiós for their helpful comments.

## References

- Bagaria, Joan, Neus Castells, and Paul Larson. 2006. An \(\Omega \)-logic primer. In
*Set theory*, ed. Joan Bagaria, and Stevo Todorcevic, 1–28. Basel: Birkhäuser.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Dodd, Anthony. 1982.
*The core model; London Mathematical Society, lecture note series no. 61*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar - Ferreirós, José. 2007.
*Labyrinth of thought*, 2nd ed. Basel: Birkhäuser.zbMATHGoogle Scholar - Fraenkel, Abraham, Yehoshua Bar-Hillel, and Azriel Levy. 1984.
*Foundations of set theory*, 2nd ed. Amsterdam: North-Holland.zbMATHGoogle Scholar - Gödel, Kurt. 1938. The consistency of the axiom of choice and of the generalized continuum hypothesis.
*Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*24: 556–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Gödel, Kurt. 1939. Consistency-proof for the generalized Continuum-Hypothesis.
*Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*25: 220–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Gödel, Kurt. 1940.
*The consistency of the Continuum Hypothesis, annals of mathematics studies no. 3*. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar - Gödel, Kurt. 1965. Remarks before the Princeton bicentennial conference on problems in mathematics. In
*The undecidable. Basic papers on undecidable propositions, unsolvable problems and computable functions*, ed. Davis Martin, 84–88. New York: Raven Press.Google Scholar - Hajnal, András. 1956. On a consistency theorem connected with the generalized continuum problem.
*Zeitschrift für mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik*2: 131–136.Google Scholar - Hajnal, András. 1960. On a consistency theorem connected with the generalized continuum problem.
*Acta mathematicae Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae*12: 321–376.Google Scholar - Harrington, Leo. 1978. Analytic determinacy and \({0}^{\#}\).
*The Journal of Symbolic Logic*43(04): 685–693.Google Scholar - Honzik, Rader. 2013.
*Large cardinals and the Continuum Hypothesis*. http://logika.ff.cuni.cz/radek/papers/failureCHandLargecardinals. Accessed 13 Aug 2014. - Jech, Thomas. 2006.
*Set theory*. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar - Kanamori, Akihiro. 2009.
*The higher infinite, large cardinals in set theory from their beginnings*. Heidelberg: Springer.zbMATHGoogle Scholar - Koellner, Peter. 2011. Independence and large cardinals. In
*The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy*, (Summer 2011 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/independence-large-cardinals/. Accessed 13 Aug 2014. - Koellner, Peter. 2013. The Continuum Hypothesis. In
*The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy*, ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/continuum-hypothesis/. Accessed 13 Aug 2014. - Koellner, Peter. 2014. Large cardinals and determinacy. In
*The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy*(Spring 2014 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/large-cardinals-determinacy/. Accessed 13 Aug 2014. - Kunen, Kenneth. 2006.
*Set theory, an introduction to independence proofs, 10th impression*. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar - Lévy, Azriel. 1957. Indépendance conditionnelle de V=L et d’axiomes qui se rattachent au système de M. Gödel.
*Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Sciences*245: 1582–1583.Google Scholar - Lévy, Azriel. 1960. A generalization of Gödel’s notion of constructibility.
*The Journal of Symbolic Logic*25: 147–155.Google Scholar - Lévy, Azriel, and Robert M. Solovay. 1967. Measurable cardinals and the Continuum Hypothesis.
*IJM*5: 234–248.zbMATHGoogle Scholar - Mitchell, William. 1979. Hypermeasurable Cardinals. In
*Logic Colloquium ’78*, vol. 97 of*Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics*, pp. 303–316. Elsevier: North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar - Mitchell, William J. 2012. Inner models for large cardinals. In
*Set’s and extensions in the twentieth century, volume 6 of the handbook for the history of logic*, ed. Dov M. Gabbay, Akihiro Kanamori, and John Woods, 415–456. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar - Mitchell, William J., and John Steel. 1994.
*Fine structure and iteration trees. Lecture notes in logic*, vol. 3. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Mycielski, Jan, and Hugo Steinhaus. 1962. A mathematical axiom contradicting the axiom of choice.
*Bulletin de l’Académie Polonaise des Sciences, Série des Sciences Mathématiques, Astronomiques et Physiques*, Vol. X.Google Scholar - Myhill, John R., and Dana S. Scott. 1967. Ordinal definability. In
*Axiomatic set theory, proceedings of the symposium of pure mathematics, vol. XIII, Part I*, ed. Dana S. Scott. Los Angeles: University of California.Google Scholar - Powell, William C. 1974. Variations of Keisler’s theorem for complete embeddings.
*Fundamenta Mathematicae*81: 121–132.zbMATHGoogle Scholar - Scott, Dana. 1961. Measurable cardinals and constructible sets.
*Bulletin de l’ Académie Polonaise des Sciences, Série des sciences mathématiques, astronomiques et physiques*9: 521–524.zbMATHGoogle Scholar - Shepherdson, John C. 1951–1953. Inner models for set theory? Part I-III.
*Journal of Symbolic Logic*16–18: 161–190; 225–237; 145–167.Google Scholar - Solovay, Robert. 1969. The cardinality of \(\Sigma _2^1\) sets of reals. In
*Foundations of mathematics, symposium papers commemorating the sixtieth birthday of Kurt Gödel*, ed. Jack J. Bulloff, Thomas C. Holyoke, and Samuel W. Hahn. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar - Vopěnka, Petr, Bohuslav Balcar, and Petr Hájek. 1968. The notion of effective sets and a new proof of the consistency of the axiom of choice.
*Journal of Symbolic Logic*33: 495–496.Google Scholar - Woodin, W. Hugh. 1999.
*The axiom of determinacy, forcing axioms, and the nonstationary ideal, Vol. 1 of de Gruyter series in logic and its applications*. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar - Woodin, W. Hugh. 2001a. The Continuum Hypothesis Part I.
*Notices of the AMS*48(6): 567–576.Google Scholar - Woodin, W. Hugh. 2001b. The Continuum Hypothesis Part II.
*Notices of the AMS*48(7): 681–690.Google Scholar - Woodin, W. Hugh. 2004. Set theory after Russell. In
*One hundred years of Russell’s paradox*, ed. G. Link. New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar - Woodin, W. Hugh. 2009a.
*The transfinite universe. Exploring the frontiers of incompleteness*. http://logic.harvard.edu/efi. Accessed 13 Aug 2014. - Woodin, W. Hugh. 2009b.
*The realm of the infinite, exploring the frontiers of incompleteness*. http://logic.harvard.edu/efi. Accessed 13 Aug 2014. - Woodin, W. Hugh. 2010a. Strong axioms of infinity and the search for V. In
*Proceedings of the international congress of mathematicians*, Hyderabad, India.Google Scholar - Woodin, W. Hugh. 2010b. Suitable extender models I.
*Journal of Mathematical Logic*10: 101–339.Google Scholar - Woodin, W. Hugh. 2010c.
*Ultimate L*. Talk given at the University of Pennsylvania 15th October. http://philosophy.sas.upenn.edu/WSTPM/Woodin. Accessed 13 Aug 2014. - Woodin, W. Hugh. 2011. Suitable extender models II.
*Journal of Mathematical Logic*11(2): 115–436.Google Scholar