Abstract
Full intuitionistic Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, IZF, is obtained from constructive Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, CZF, by adding the full separation axiom scheme and the power set axiom. The strength of CZFplus full separation is the same as that of second order arithmetic, using a straightforward realizability interpretation in classical second order arithmetic and the fact that second order Heyting arithmetic is already embedded in CZFplus full separation. This paper is concerned with the strength of CZFaugmented by the power set axiom, \({\mathbf{CZF}}_{\mathcal{P}}\). It will be shown that it is of the same strength as Power KripkeāPlatek set theory, \(\mathbf{KP}(\mathcal{P})\), as well as a certain system of type theory, \({\mathbf{MLV}}_{\mathbf{P}}\), which is a calculus of constructions with one universe. The reduction of \({\mathbf{CZF}}_{\mathcal{P}}\)to \(\mathbf{KP}(\mathcal{P})\)uses a realizability interpretation wherein a realizer for an existential statement provides a set of witnesses for the existential quantifier rather than a single witness. The reduction of \(\mathbf{KP}(\mathcal{P})\)to \({\mathbf{CZF}}_{\mathcal{P}}\)employs techniques from ordinal analysis which, when combined with a special double negation interpretation that respects extensionality, also show that \(\mathbf{KP}(\mathcal{P})\)can be reduced to CZFwith the negative power set axiom. As CZFaugmented by the latter axiom can be interpreted in \({\mathbf{MLV}}_{\mathbf{P}}\)and this type theory has a types-as-classes interpretation in \({\mathbf{CZF}}_{\mathcal{P}}\), the circle will be completed.
MSC: 03F50, 03F35
Work on the ideas for this paper started while I was a fellow of SCAS, the Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study, in the period January-June 2009. SCAS provided an exquisite, intellectually inspiring environment for research. I am grateful to Erik Palmgren, Sten Lindstrƶm, and the people of SCAS for making this possible. Part of the material is also based upon research supported by the EPSRC of the UK through grant No. EP/G029520/1.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Curiously, Tharp calls this scheme Replacement.
- 2.
The \({\Delta }_{0}^{\mathcal{P}}\)-formulae of DefinitionĀ 15.1.
References
Aczel, P. 1978. The type theoretic interpretation of constructive set theory. In Logic Colloquium ā77, ed. A. MacIntyre, L. Pacholski, and J. Paris. Amsterdam: NorthāHolland.
Aczel, P. 1982. The type theoretic interpretation of constructive set theory: Choice prinicples. In The L.E.J. brouwer centenary symposium, ed. A.S. Troelstra and D. van Dalen. Amsterdam: NorthāHolland.
Aczel, P. 1986. The type theoretic interpretation of constructive set theory: Inductive definitions. In Logic, methodology and philosophy science VII, ed. R.B. Marcus et al., 17ā49. Amsterdam: NorthāHolland.
Aczel, P. 2000. On relating type theories and set theories. In Types ā98, Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 1257, ed. T. Altenkirch, W. Naraschewski, and B. Reus. Berlin: Springer.
Aczel, P., and M. Rathjen. 2001. Em notes on constructive set theory, Technical report 40, Institut Mittag-Leffler. Stockholm: The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. http://www.ml.kva.se/preprints/archive2000-2001.php
Aczel, P., and M. Rathjen. 2010. Constructive set theory, book draft.
Barwise, J. 1975. Admissible sets and structures. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer.
Beeson, M. 1985. Foundations of constructive mathematics. Berlin: Springer.
Chen, R.-M., and M. Rathjen. 2010. Lifschitz realizability for intuitionistic Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, submitted.
Coquand, T. 1990. Metamathematical investigations of a calculus of constructions. In Logic and Computer science, ed. P. Oddifreddi, 91ā122. London: Academic.
Friedman, H. 1973a. Some applications of Kleeneās method for intuitionistic systems. In Cambridge summer school in mathematical logic, Lectures notes in mathematics, vol. 337, ed. A.Ā Mathias and H. Rogers, 113ā170. Berlin: Springer.
Friedman, H. 1973b. Countable models of set theories. In Cambridge summer school in mathematical logic, Lectures Notes in Mathematics, vol. 337, ed. A. Mathias and H. Rogers, 539ā573. Berlin: Springer.
Friedman, H. 1973c. The consistency of classical set theory relative to a set theory with intuitionistic logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic38: 315ā319.
Feferman, S. 1979. Constructive theories of functions and classes. In Logic colloquium ā78, ed. M.Ā Boffa, D. van Dalen, and K. McAloon, 1ā52. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Gambino, N. 1999. Types and sets: A study on the jump to full impredicativity, Laurea dissertation, Department of Pure and Applied Mathematics, University of Padua.
Lifschitz, V. 1979. CT0 is stronger than CT0! Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society73: 101ā106.
Lubarsky, R.S. 2006. CZF and second order arithmetic. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic141: 29ā34.
Mac Lane, S. 1992. Form and function. Berlin: Springer.
Martin-Lƶf, P. 1984. Intuitionistic type theory. Naples: Bibliopolis.
Mathias, A.R.D. 2001. The strength of Mac Lane set theory. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic110: 107ā234.
Moschovakis, Y.N. 1976. Recursion in the universe of sets, mimeographed note.
Moss, L. 1995. Power set recursion. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic71: 247ā306.
Myhill, J. 1975. Constructive set theory. Journal of Symbolic Logic40: 347ā382.
Normann, D. 1978. Set recursion. In Generalized recursion theory II, 303ā320. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Palmgren, E. 1993. Type-theoretic interpretations of iterated, strictly positive inductive definitions. Archive for Mathematical Logic32: 75ā99.
Pozsgay, L. 1971. Liberal intuitionism as a basis for set theory, in Axiomatic set theory. Proceedings Symposium Pure Mathematics12(1): 321ā330.
Pozsgay, L. 1972. Semi-intuitionistic set theory. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic13: 546ā550.
Rathjen, M. 1994. The strength of some Martin-Lƶf type theories. Archive for Mathematical Logic33: 347ā385.
Rathjen, M. 2005. Replacement versus collection in constructive Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic136: 156ā174.
Rathjen, M. 2006a. Choice principles in constructive and classical set theories. In Logic colloquium 2002, Lecture notes in logic, vol. 27, ed. Z. Chatzidakis, P. Koepke, and W. Pohlers, 299ā326. Wellesley: A.K. Peters.
Rathjen, M. 2006b. Realizability for constructive Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. In Logic Colloquium 2003, Lecture notes in logic, vol. 24, ed. J. VƤƤnƤnen and V. Stoltenberg-Hansen, 282ā314. Wellesley: A.K. Peters.
Rathjen, M. 2006c. The formulae-as-classes interpretation of constructive set theory. In Proof technology and computation, Proceedings of the international summer school marktoberdorf 2003, ed. H. Schwichtenberg and K. Spies, 279ā322. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Rathjen, M., and S. Tupailo. 2006. Characterizing the interpretation of set theory in Martin-Lƶf type theory. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic141: 442ā471.
Rathjen, M. 2011. An ordinal analysis of Power KripkeāPlatek set theory, Centre de Recerca MatemĆ tica Barcelona preprint series.
Rathjen, M. The weak existence property for intuitionistic set theories.
Rathjen, M., and A. Weiermann. 1993. Proof-theoretic investigations on Kruskalās theorem. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic60: 49ā88.
Sacks, G.E. 1990. Higher recursion theory. Berlin: Springer.
Tharp, L. 1971. A quasi-intuitionistic set theory. Journal of Symbolic Logic36: 456ā460.
Thiele, E.J. 1968. Ćber endlich axiomatisierbare Teilsysyteme der Zermelo-Fraenkelāschen Mengenlehre. Zeitschrift fĆ¼r Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik14: 39ā58.
Troelstra, A.S. 1998. Realizability. In Handbook of proof theory, ed. S.R. Buss, 407ā473. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Troelstra, A.S., and D. van Dalen. 1988. Constructivism in mathematics, volumes I, II. Amsterdam: North Holland.
van Oosten, J. 1990. Lifschitzās realizability. The Journal of Symbolic Logic55: 805ā821.
Wolf, R.S. 1974. Formally intuitionistic set theories with bounded predicates decidable. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
Ā© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rathjen, M. (2012). Constructive Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory, Power Set, and the Calculus of Constructions. In: Dybjer, P., Lindstrƶm, S., Palmgren, E., Sundholm, G. (eds) Epistemology versus Ontology. Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science, vol 27. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4435-6_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4435-6_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4434-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4435-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)