Archive for History of Exact Sciences

, Volume 69, Issue 2, pp 125–151 | Cite as

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



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.


  1. 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
  2. Dodd, Anthony. 1982. The core model; London Mathematical Society, lecture note series no. 61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ferreirós, José. 2007. Labyrinth of thought, 2nd ed. Basel: Birkhäuser.MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Fraenkel, Abraham, Yehoshua Bar-Hillel, and Azriel Levy. 1984. Foundations of set theory, 2nd ed. Amsterdam: North-Holland.MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Gödel, Kurt. 1939. Consistency-proof for the generalized Continuum-Hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 25: 220–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gödel, Kurt. 1940. The consistency of the Continuum Hypothesis, annals of mathematics studies no. 3. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Hajnal, András. 1960. On a consistency theorem connected with the generalized continuum problem. Acta mathematicae Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 12: 321–376.Google Scholar
  11. Harrington, Leo. 1978. Analytic determinacy and \({0}^{\#}\). The Journal of Symbolic Logic 43(04): 685–693.Google Scholar
  12. Honzik, Rader. 2013. Large cardinals and the Continuum Hypothesis. Accessed 13 Aug 2014.
  13. Jech, Thomas. 2006. Set theory. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Kanamori, Akihiro. 2009. The higher infinite, large cardinals in set theory from their beginnings. Heidelberg: Springer.MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Koellner, Peter. 2011. Independence and large cardinals. In The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, (Summer 2011 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta. Accessed 13 Aug 2014.
  16. Koellner, Peter. 2013. The Continuum Hypothesis. In The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. Accessed 13 Aug 2014.
  17. Koellner, Peter. 2014. Large cardinals and determinacy. In The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta. Accessed 13 Aug 2014.
  18. Kunen, Kenneth. 2006. Set theory, an introduction to independence proofs, 10th impression. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Lévy, Azriel. 1960. A generalization of Gödel’s notion of constructibility. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 25: 147–155.Google Scholar
  21. Lévy, Azriel, and Robert M. Solovay. 1967. Measurable cardinals and the Continuum Hypothesis. IJM 5: 234–248.MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. Mitchell, William J., and John Steel. 1994. Fine structure and iteration trees. Lecture notes in logic, vol. 3. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. Powell, William C. 1974. Variations of Keisler’s theorem for complete embeddings. Fundamenta Mathematicae 81: 121–132.MATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.MATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. Woodin, W. Hugh. 2001a. The Continuum Hypothesis Part I. Notices of the AMS 48(6): 567–576.Google Scholar
  34. Woodin, W. Hugh. 2001b. The Continuum Hypothesis Part II. Notices of the AMS 48(7): 681–690.Google Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Woodin, W. Hugh. 2009a. The transfinite universe. Exploring the frontiers of incompleteness. Accessed 13 Aug 2014.
  37. Woodin, W. Hugh. 2009b. The realm of the infinite, exploring the frontiers of incompleteness. Accessed 13 Aug 2014.
  38. 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
  39. Woodin, W. Hugh. 2010b. Suitable extender models I. Journal of Mathematical Logic 10: 101–339.Google Scholar
  40. Woodin, W. Hugh. 2010c. Ultimate L. Talk given at the University of Pennsylvania 15th October. Accessed 13 Aug 2014.
  41. Woodin, W. Hugh. 2011. Suitable extender models II. Journal of Mathematical Logic 11(2): 115–436.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.HatfieldUK

Personalised recommendations