Synthese

, Volume 192, Issue 8, pp 2437–2462 | Cite as

Transfinite recursion and computation in the iterative conception of set

Article

Abstract

Transfinite recursion is an essential component of set theory. In this paper, we seek intrinsically justified reasons for believing in recursion and the notions of higher computation that surround it. In doing this, we consider several kinds of recursion principles and prove results concerning their relation to one another. We then consider philosophical motivations for these formal principles coming from the idea that computational notions lie at the core of our conception of set. This is significant because, while the iterative conception of set has been widely recognized as insufficient to establish replacement and recursion, its supplementation by considerations pertaining to algorithms suggests a new and philosophically well-motivated reason to believe in such principles.

Keywords

Set theory Infinity Recursion Replacement Iterative conception Transfinite computation Ordinal Turing machine Kreisel 

References

  1. Awodey, S. (2004). An answer to Hellman’s question: Does category theory provide a framework for mathematical structuralism? Philosophia Mathematica, 12(1), 54–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beeson, M. J. (1985). Foundations of constructive mathematics (Vol. 6), Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Bernays, P. (1976). On the problem of schemata of infinity in axiomatic set theory. In G. H. Müller (Ed.), Sets and classes on the work by Paul Bernays (Vol. 84, pp. 121–172), Studies in logic and the foundations of mathematics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  4. Boolos, G. (1971). The iterative conception of set. Journal of Philosophy, 68(8), 215–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boolos, G. (1989). Iteration again. Philosophical Topics, 17, 5–21. Reprinted in George Boolos (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boolos, G. (1998). Logic, logic, and logic. In R. Jeffrey (Ed.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  7. Burgess, J. P. (1985). Reviews. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50, 544–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burgess, J. P. (2004). E pluribus unum: Plural logic and set theory. Philosophia Mathematica, 12(3), 193–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carl, M. (2013).Towards a church-turing-thesis for infinitary computations. PreprintGoogle Scholar
  10. Drake, D. R. (1974). Set theory: An introduction to large cardinals (Vol. 76), Studies in logic and the foundations of mathematics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  11. Fine, K. (1998). Cantorian abstraction: A reconstruction and defense. The Journal of Philosophy, 95(12), 599–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gödel, K. (2001). Kurt Gödel, collected works, volume III: Unpublished essays and lectures. New York, USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hallett, M. (1984). Cantorian set theory and limitation of size (Vol. 10), Oxford logic guides. New York: The Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  14. Horsten, L. (2011). The Tarskian turn. Cambridge: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jech,T. (2003). Set theory. Springer monographs in mathematics. The Third Millennium Edition. Berlin: Springer,Google Scholar
  16. Jensen, R. B., & Karp, C. (1971). Primitive recursive set functions. In D. S. Scott (Ed.), Axiomatic Set Theory Volume XIII (Part 1) of Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics (pp. 143–176). Providence, Rhode Island: American Mathematical SocietyGoogle Scholar
  17. Kanamori, A. (2006). Levy and set theory. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 140(1), 233–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kanamori, A. (2009). Bernays and set theory. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 15(1), 43–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kanamori, A. (2012). In praise of replacement. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 18(1), 46–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koepke, P. (2005). Computations on ordinals. The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 11(3(Sep., 2005)), 377–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koellner, P. (2009). On reflection principles. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 157(2–3), 206–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koellner, P. (2010). Strong logics of first and second order. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 16(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kreisel, G. (1961). Set theoretic problems suggested by the notion of potential totality. In Infinitistic methods (pp. 103–140). New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  24. Kreisel, G. (1971). Some reasons for generalizing recursion theory. In R. O. Gandy & C. E. M. Yates (Eds.), Logic colloquium ’69 (Vol. 61, pp. 139–198), Studies in logic and the foundations of mathematics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  25. Kreisel, G., & Sacks, G. E. (1965). Metarecursive sets. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 30(3), 318–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Koepke, P., & Seyfferth, B. (2009). Ordinal machines and admissible recursion theory. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 160(3), 310–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kunen, K. (1980). Set theory : An introduction to independence proofs, Studies in logic and the foundations of mathematics. Amsterdam, Lausanne, New York: Elsevier. Fifth impression.Google Scholar
  28. Kuratowski, C. (1922). Une méthode d’élimination des nombres transfinis des raisonnements mathématiques. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 3(1), 76–108.Google Scholar
  29. Lévy, A. (1960). Axiom schemata of strong infinity in axiomatic set theory. Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 10(1), 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Landry, E. (1999).Category theory as a framework for mathematical structuralism. In The 1998 Annual Proceedings of the Canadian Society for the History and Philosophy of Mathematics (pp. 133–142) .Google Scholar
  31. Lavine, S. (1999). Skolem was wrong. Dated June: Unpublished.Google Scholar
  32. Linnebo, Ø. (2008). Structuralism and the notion of dependence. The Philosophical Quarterly, 58(230), 59–79.Google Scholar
  33. Martin, D. A. (1970). Review of W. V. Quine (1969). The Journal of Philosophy, 67(4), 111–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mathias, A. R. D. (2001). Slim models of zermelo set theory. The Journal of Symbol Logic, 66(2), 487–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Potter, M. D. (1993). Iterative set theory. The Philosophical Quarterly, 43(171), 178–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Potter, M. (2004). Set theory and its philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Quine, W. V. (1969). Set theory and its logic (Revised ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Reinhardt, W. N. (1974). Remarks on reflection principles, large cardinals, and elementary embeddings. In T. Jech (Ed.), Axiomatic set theory (pp. 189–205). Providence: American Mathematical Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sacks, G. E. (1990). Higher recursion theory., Perspectives in mathematical logic Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sieg, W. (2005). Church without dogma: Axioms for computability. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Soare, R. I. (1987). Recursively enumerable sets and degrees., Perspectives in mathematical logic Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Tappenden, J. (2008). Mathematical concepts and definitions. In P. Mancosu (Ed.), The philosophy of mathematical practice (pp. 256–276). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Turing, A. M. (1936). On computable numbers, with an application to the entscheidungsproblem. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 2(42), 230–265.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CaliforniaIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations