Journal ArticleDOI

# Generalized algebra-valued models of set theory

01 Mar 2015-Review of Symbolic Logic (Cambridge University Press)-Vol. 8, Iss: 1, pp 192-205

TL;DR: A model of a paraconsistent logic that validates all axioms of the negation-free fragment of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory is shown.

AbstractWe generalize the construction of lattice-valued models of set theory due to Takeuti, Titani, Kozawa and Ozawa to a wider class of algebras and show that this yields a model of a paraconsistent logic that validates all axioms of the negation-free fragment of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory.

### Reasonable implication algebras.

• These facts are being used in the calculations later in the paper.
• It is easy to check that all Boolean algebras and Heyting algebras are reasonable and deductive implication algebras.
• The following two examples will be crucial during the rest of the paper:.

### 3.1. Definitions and basic properties.

• In the Boolean-valued case, the names behave nicely with respect to their interpretations as names for sets.
• If two names denote the same object, then the properties of the object do not depend on the name you are using.

### Negation and paraconsistency.

• This definition, together with minimal requirements, makes it impossible to have paraconsistency.
• This gives us the following result immediately: THEOREM 6.1.
• In particular, the class of names x such that N (x) does not form a ∼-equivalence class.
• The authors paraconsistent set theory behaves very differently from the considerations of paraconsistent set theory in the mentioned papers, as the authors can show that the axiom scheme of Comprehension is not valid in their model: THEOREM 6.3.

Did you find this useful? Give us your feedback

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (http
s
://dare.uva.nl)
Generalized algebra-valued models of set theory
Löwe, B.; Tarafder, S.
DOI
10.1017/S175502031400046X
Publication date
2015
Document Version
Final published version
Published in
Review of Symbolic Logic
Citation for published version (APA):
Löwe, B., & Tarafder, S. (2015). Generalized algebra-valued models of set theory.
Review of
Symbolic Logic
,
8
(1), 192-205. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175502031400046X
General rights
It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s)
and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open
Disclaimer/Complaints regulations
If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please
let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material
inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter
to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You
will be contacted as soon as possible.

T
HE
R
EVIEW OF
S
YMBOLIC
L
OGIC
Volume 8, Number 1, March 2015
GENERALIZED ALGEBRA-VALUED MODELS OF SET THEORY
BENEDIKT WE
Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, Universiteit van Amsterdam and
Fachbereich Mathematik, Universität Hamburg
SOURAV TARAFDER
Department of Commerce (Morning), St. Xavier’s College and Department of Pure
Mathematics, Calcutta University
Abstract. We generalize the construction of lattice-valued models of set theory due to Takeuti,
Titani, Kozawa and Ozawa to a wider class of algebras and show that this yields a model of a
paraconsistent logic that validates all axioms of the negation-free fragment of Zermelo-Fraenkel
set theory.
§1. Introduction. If B is any Boolean algebra and V a model of set theory, we can
construct by transﬁnite recursion the Boolean-valued model of set theory V
B
consisting of
names for sets, an extended language L
B
, and an interpretation function · : L
B
B
assigning truth values in B to formulas of the extended language. Using the notion of
validity derived from ·, all of the axioms of ZFC are valid in V
B
. Boolean-valued models
were introduced in the 1960s by Scott, Solovay, and Vop
ˇ
enka; an excellent exposition of
the theory can be found in Bell (2005).
Replacing the Boolean algebra in the above construction by a Heyting algebra H, one
obtains a Heyting-valued model of set theory V
H
. The proofs of the Boolean case transfer
to the Heyting-valued case to yield that V
H
is a model of IZF, intuitionistic ZF, where
the logic of the Heyting algebra H determines the logic of the Heyting-valued model of
set theory (cf. Grayson, 1979; Bell, 2005, chap. 8). This idea was further generalized
by Takeuti & Titani (1992), Titani (1999), Titani & Kozawa (2003), Ozawa (2007), and
Ozawa (2009), replacing the Heyting algebra H by appropriate lattices that allow models
of quantum set theory (where the algebra is an algebra of truth-values in quantum logic) or
fuzzy set theory.
In this paper, we shall generalize this model construction further to work on algebras that
we shall call reasonable implication algebras (§2). These algebras do not have a negation
symbol, and hence we shall be focusing on the negation-free fragment of ﬁrst-order logic:
the closure under the propositional connectives , , , and . Classically, of course,
every formula is equivalent to one in the negation-free fragment (since ¬ϕ is equivalent to
ϕ →⊥). In §3, we deﬁne the model construction and prove that assuming a number
of additional assumptions (among them a property we call the bounded quantiﬁcation
property), we have constructed a model of the negation-free fragment of ZF
(which is
classically equivalent to ZF
).
In §4 and §5, we apply the results of §3 to a particular three-valued algebra where we
prove the bounded quantiﬁcation property (§4) and the axiom scheme of Foundation (§5).
c
Association for Symbolic Logic, 2014
192
doi:10.1017/S175502031400046X
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175502031400046X

GENERALIZED ALGEBRA
-
VALUED MODELS OF SET THEORY
193
Finally, in §6, we add a negation symbol to our language. With the appropriate negation,
our example from §4 and §5 becomes a model of a paraconsistent set theory that validates
all formulas from the negation-free fragment of ZF. We compare our paraconsistent set
theory to other paraconsistent set theories from the literature and observe that it is funda-
mentally different from them.
We should like to mention that Joel Hamkins independently investigated the construction
that is at the heart of this paper and proved a result equivalent to our Theorem 6.3 (presented
at the Workshop on Paraconsistent Set Theory in Storrs, CT in October 2013).
§2. Reasonable implication algebras.
Implication algebras and implication-negation algebras. In this paper, all structures
(A, , , 0, 1) will be complete distributive lattices with smallest element 0 and largest
element 1. As usual, we abbreviate x y = x as x y. An expansion of this structure by
an additional binary operation is called an implication algebra and an expansion with
and another unary operation
is called an implication-negation algebra. We emphasize
that no requirements are made for and
at this point.
Interpreting propositional logic in algebras. By L
Prop
we denote the language of
propositional logic without negation (with connectives , , , and and countably
many variables Var); we write L
Prop,¬
for the expansion of this language to include the
negation symbol ¬. Let L be either L
Prop
or L
Prop,¬
, and let A be either an implication
algebra or an implication-negation algebra, respectively. Any map ι from Var to A (called
an assignment) allows us to interpret L-formulas ϕ as elements ι(ϕ) of the algebra. Par
abus de langage, for an L-formula ϕ and some X A, we write ϕ X for “for all
assignments ι :Var A, we have that ι(ϕ) X ”. As usual, we call a set D A a ﬁlter if
the following four conditions hold: (i) 1 D, (ii) 0 / D, (iii) if x, y D, then x y D,
and (iv) if x D and x y, then y D; in this context, we call ﬁlters designated sets of
truth values, since the algebra A and a ﬁlter D together determine a logic
A
,D
by deﬁning
for every set of L
Prop
-formulas and every L
Prop
-formula ϕ
A
,D
ϕ : ⇐⇒ if for all ψ ,wehaveψ D, then ϕ D.
We write Pos
A
:={x A ; x = 0} for the set of positive elements in A. In all of the
examples considered in this paper, this set will be a ﬁlter.
The negation-free fragment. If L is any ﬁrst-order language including the connectives
, , and and any class of L-formulas, we denote closure of under , , ,
, , and by Cl() and call it the negation-free closure of . A class of formulas
is negation-free closed if Cl() = . By NFF we denote the negation-free closure of the
atomic formulas; its elements are called the negation-free formulas.
1
Obviously, if L does not contain any connectives beyond , , , and , then NFF =
L. Similarly, if the logic we are working in allows to deﬁne negation in terms of the other
connectives (as is the case, e.g., in classical logic), then every formula is equivalent to one
in NFF.
1
In some contexts, our negation-free fragment is called the positive fragment; in other contexts,
the positive closure is the closure under
, , , , and (not including ). In order to avoid
confusion with the latter contexts, we use the phrase “negation-free” rather than “positive”.
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175502031400046X

194
BENEDIKT WE AND SOURAV TARAFDER
Reasonable implication algebras. We call an implication algebra A = (A, , , 0,
1, ) reasonable if the operation satisﬁes the following axioms:
P1 (x y) z implies x (y z),
P2 y z implies (x y) (x z), and
P3 y z implies (z x) (y x).
We say that a reasonable implication algebra is deductive if
((x y) z) = (x (y z)).
It is easy to see that any reasonable implication algebra satisﬁes that x y implies x
y =
1. Similarly, it is easy to see that in reasonable and deductive implication algebras, we
have (x y) = (x (x y)). These facts are being used in the calculations later in
the paper. It is easy to check that all Boolean algebras and Heyting algebras are reasonable
and deductive implication algebras.
Recurring examples. The following two examples will be crucial during the rest of
the paper: The three-valued Łukasiewicz algebra Ł
3
= ({0,
1
/
2
, 1}, , , , 0, 1) with
operations deﬁned as in Figure 1 is a reasonable, but non-deductive implication algebra.
The three-valued algebra PS
3
= ({0,
1
/
2
, 1}, , , , 0, 1) with operations deﬁned as in
Figure 2 is a reasonable and deductive implication algebra which is not a Heyting algebra.
Let us emphasize that, contrary to usage in other papers, we consider Ł
3
and PS
3
as
implication algebras without negation (cf. §6 for adding negations to PS
3
).
§3. The model construction.
3.1. Deﬁnitions and basic properties. Our construction follows very closely the
Boolean-valued construction as it can be found in Bell (2005). We ﬁx a model of set theory
V and an implication algebra A = (A, , , 0, 1, ) and construct a universe of names
by transﬁnite recursion:
V
A
α
={x ; x is a function and ran(x) A
and there is ξ<αwith dom(x) V
A
ξ
)} and
V
A
={x ;∃α(x V
A
α
)}.
We note that this deﬁnition does not depend on the algebraic operations in A, but only on
the set A, so any expansion of A to a richer language will give the same class of names
V
A
.ByL
, we denote the ﬁrst-order language of set theory using only the propositional
connectives , , , and . We can now expand this language by adding all of the
Fig. 1. Connectives for the algebra Ł
3
.
Fig. 2. Connectives for PS
3
.
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175502031400046X

GENERALIZED ALGEBRA
-
VALUED MODELS OF SET THEORY
195
elements of V
A
as constants; the expanded (class-sized) language will be called L
A
.Asin
the Boolean case (Bell, 2005, Induction Principle 1.7), the (meta-)induction principle for
V
A
can be proved by a simple induction on the rank function: for every property of
names, if for all x V
A
,wehave
y dom(x )((y)) implies (x),
then all names x V
A
have the property .
As in the Boolean case, we can now deﬁne a map · assigning to each negation-free
formula in L
A
a truth value in A as follows. If u,v in V
A
and ϕ,ψ NFF, we deﬁne
= 0,
u v =
xdom(v)
(v(x) x = u),
u = v =
xdom(u)
(u(x) x v)
ydom(v)
(v(y) y u),
ϕ ψ = ϕ ψ,
ϕ ψ = ϕ ψ,
ϕ ψ = ϕ ψ,
xϕ(x) =
uV
A
ϕ(u), and
xϕ(x) =
uV
A
ϕ(u).
As usual, we abbreviate x(x u ϕ(x)) by x u ϕ(x) and x(x u ϕ(x)) by
x u ϕ(x) and call these bounded quantiﬁers. Bounded quantiﬁers will play a crucial
role in this paper.
If D is a ﬁlter on A and σ is a sentence of L
A
, we say that σ is D-valid in V
A
if σ D
and write V
A
|
D
σ .
In the Boolean-valued case, the names behave nicely with respect to their interpretations
as names for sets. For instance, if two names denote the same object, then the properties
of the object do not depend on the name you are using. In our generalized setting, we have
to be very careful since many of these reasonable rules do not hold in general: cf. §4 for
details.
P
ROPOSITION
3.1. If A is a reasonable implication algebra and u V
A
, we have that
u = u = 1 and u(x) x u (for each x dom(u)).
Proof. This is an easy induction, using the fact that we have that in all reasonable
implication algebras, x y implies x y = 1.
However, things break down rather quickly if you go beyond Proposition 3.1. The in-
equality u = v v = w u = w representing transitivity of equality of names does
not hold in general in the model constructed over Ł
3
: consider the functions
p
0
={, 0},
p
1
/
2
={,
1
/
2
}, and
p
1
={, 1}.
Then it can be easily checked that p
0
= p
1
/
2
=
1
/
2
= p
1
/
2
= p
1
> p
0
= p
1
= 0.
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175502031400046X

##### Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Modifications of Semmes's game characterization of the Borel functions are defined, obtaining game characterizations of the Baire class $\alpha$ functions for each fixed $\alpha < \omega_1$.
Abstract: Game characterizations of classes of functions in descriptive set theory have their origins in the seminal work of Wadge, with further developments by several others. In this thesis we study such characterizations from several perspectives. We define modifications of Semmes's game characterization of the Borel functions, obtaining game characterizations of the Baire class $\alpha$ functions for each fixed $\alpha < \omega_1$. We also define a construction of games which transforms a game characterizing a class $\Lambda$ of functions into a game characterizing the class of functions which are piecewise $\Lambda$ on a countable partition by $\Pi^0_\alpha$ sets, for each $0 < \alpha < \omega_1$. We then define a parametrized Wadge game by using computable analysis, and show how the parameters affect the class of functions that is characterized by the game. As an application, we recast our games characterizing the Baire classes into this framework. Furthermore, we generalize our game characterizations of function classes to generalized Baire spaces, show how the notion of computability on Baire space can be transferred to generalized Baire spaces, and show that this is appropriate for computable analysis by defining a representation of Galeotti's generalized real line and analyzing the Weihrauch degree of the intermediate value theorem for that space. Finally, we show how the game characterizations of function classes discussed lead in a natural way to a stratification of each class into a hierarchy, intuitively measuring the complexity of functions in that class. This idea and the results presented open new paths for further research.

16 citations

Book ChapterDOI
08 Jan 2015
TL;DR: It is proved that the collection of all ordinals is not a set in this model which is dissimilar to the other existing paraconsistent set theories.
Abstract: This paper deals with ordinal numbers in an algebra-valued model of a paraconsistent set theory. It is proved that the collection of all ordinals is not a set in this model which is dissimilar to the other existing paraconsistent set theories. For each ordinal α of classical set theory α-like elements are defined in the mentioned algebra-valued model whose collection is not singleton. It is shown that two α-like elements (for same α) may perform conversely to validate a given formula of the corresponding paraconsistent set theory.

7 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A unifying framework is provided that allows to better understand the relationship between different Q-worlds, and a general method for transferring concepts and results between TQT and QST is defined, thereby significantly increasing the expressive power of both approaches.
Abstract: Quantum set theory (QST) and topos quantum theory (TQT) are two long running projects in the mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics that share a great deal of conceptual and technical affinity. Most pertinently, both approaches attempt to resolve some of the conceptual difficulties surrounding quantum mechanics by reformulating parts of the theory inside of non-classical mathematical universes, albeit with very different internal logics. We call such mathematical universes, together with those mathematical and logical structures within them that are pertinent to the physical interpretation, `Q-worlds'. Here, we provide a unifying framework that allows us to (i) better understand the relationship between different Q-worlds, and (ii) define a general method for transferring concepts and results between TQT and QST, thereby significantly increasing the expressive power of both approaches. Along the way, we develop a novel connection to paraconsistent logic and introduce a new class of structures that have significant implications for recent work on paraconsistent set theory.

6 citations

### Cites background from "Generalized algebra-valued models o..."

• ...In recent years, Weber [36, 37], Brady [4], Löwe and Tarafder [21] and others have done exciting work in exploring the possibility of developing a nontrivial set theory built over a paraconsistent logic....

[...]

• ...In recent years, Weber [36, 37], Brady [4], Löwe and Tarafder [21] and others have done exciting work in exploring the possibility of developing a nontrivial set theory built over a paraconsistent logic....

[...]

• ..., Libert [20], Löwe and Tarafder [21])....

[...]

• ...However, there is still no well established model theory for paraconsistent set theory, despite some promising recent developments (see e.g., Libert [20], Löwe and Tarafder [21])....

[...]

• ...[21] Löwe, B. & Tarafder, S. (2015)....

[...]

Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 2015
TL;DR: Soundness and completeness theorems are established in a three-valued paraconsistent logic obtained from some algebra-valued model of set theory.
Abstract: This paper presents a three-valued paraconsistent logic obtained from some algebra-valued model of set theory. Soundness and completeness theorems are established. The logic has been compared with other three-valued paraconsistent logics.

6 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: It is argued that the implication operator of LPT0 is more suitable for a paraconsistent set theory than the implication of PS3, since it allows for genuinely inconsistent sets w such that [(w = w)] = 1/2 .
Abstract: Boolean-valued models of set theory were independently introduced by Scott, Solovay and Vop\v{e}nka in 1965, offering a natural and rich alternative for describing forcing. The original method was adapted by Takeuti, Titani, Kozawa and Ozawa to lattice-valued models of set theory. After this, L\"{o}we and Tarafder proposed a class of algebras based on a certain kind of implication which satisfy several axioms of ZF. From this class, they found a specific 3-valued model called PS3 which satisfies all the axioms of ZF, and can be expanded with a paraconsistent negation *, thus obtaining a paraconsistent model of ZF. The logic (PS3 ,*) coincides (up to language) with da Costa and D'Ottaviano logic J3, a 3-valued paraconsistent logic that have been proposed independently in the literature by several authors and with different motivations such as CluNs, LFI1 and MPT. We propose in this paper a family of algebraic models of ZFC based on LPT0, another linguistic variant of J3 introduced by us in 2016. The semantics of LPT0, as well as of its first-order version QLPT0, is given by twist structures defined over Boolean agebras. From this, it is possible to adapt the standard Boolean-valued models of (classical) ZFC to twist-valued models of an expansion of ZFC by adding a paraconsistent negation. We argue that the implication operator of LPT0 is more suitable for a paraconsistent set theory than the implication of PS3, since it allows for genuinely inconsistent sets w such that [(w = w)] = 1/2 . This implication is not a 'reasonable implication' as defined by L\"{o}we and Tarafder. This suggests that 'reasonable implication algebras' are just one way to define a paraconsistent set theory. Our twist-valued models are adapted to provide a class of twist-valued models for (PS3,*), thus generalizing L\"{o}we and Tarafder result. It is shown that they are in fact models of ZFC (not only of ZF).

5 citations

##### References
More filters
Book ChapterDOI
TL;DR: An enormous variety of paraconsistent logics in the literature is shown to constitute C- System, and a novel notion of consistency is introduced.
Abstract: A thorough investigation of the foundations of paraconsistent logics. Relations between logical principles are formally studied, a novel notion of consistency is introduced, the logics of formal inconsistency, and the subclasses of C-systems and dC-systems are defined and studied. An enormous variety of paraconsistent logics in the literature is shown to constitute C-systems.

170 citations

Book
01 Jan 1990

121 citations

Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 1981
TL;DR: This paper studies set theory based on quantum logic, which is the lattice of all closed linear subspaces of a Hilbert space and shows the fact that there are many complete Boolean algebras inside quantum logic.
Abstract: In this paper, we study set theory based on quantum logic. By quantum logic, we mean the lattice of all closed linear subspaces of a Hilbert space. Since quantum logic is an intrinsic logic, i.e. the logic of the quantum world, (cf. 1) it is an important problem to develop mathematics based on quantum logic, more specifically set theory based on quantum logic. It is also a challenging problem for logicians since quantum logic is drastically different from the classical logic or the intuitionistic logic and consequently mathematics based on quantum logic is extremely difficult. On the other hand, mathematics based on quantum logic has a very rich mathematical content. This is clearly shown by the fact that there are many complete Boolean algebras inside quantum logic. For each complete Boolean algebra B, mathematics based on B has been shown by our work on Boolean valued analysis 4, 5, 6 to have rich mathematical meaning. Since mathematics based on B can be considered as a sub-theory of mathematics based on quantum logic, there is no doubt about the fact that mathematics based on quantum logic is very rich. The situation seems to be the following. Mathematics based on quantum logic is too gigantic to see through clearly.

89 citations

### "Generalized algebra-valued models o..." refers methods in this paper

• ...This idea was further generalized by Takeuti & Titani (1992), Titani (1999), Titani & Kozawa (2003), Ozawa (2007), and Ozawa (2009), replacing the Heyting algebra H by appropriate lattices that allow models of quantum set theory (where the algebra is an algebra of truth-values in quantum logic) or…...

[...]

• ...In the Boolean and Heyting cases, as well as in the algebras considered by Takeuti & Titani (1992), Titani (1999), Titani & Kozawa (2003), and Ozawa (2007, 2009), negation is defined in terms of implication via a∗ := a ⇒ 0....

[...]

Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 1979

84 citations

### "Generalized algebra-valued models o..." refers background in this paper

• ...The proofs of the Boolean case transfer to the Heyting-valued case to yield that VH is a model of IZF, intuitionistic ZF, where the logic of the Heyting algebra H determines the logic of the Heyting-valued model of set theory (cf. Grayson, 1979; Bell, 2005, chap....

[...]

Book
17 Dec 2011
Abstract: Foreword Preface List of Problems 0 Boolean and Heyting Algebras: The Essentials 1 Boolean-Valued Models: First Steps 2 Forcing and Some Independece Proofs 3 Group Actions on V(B) and the Independence of the Axiom of Choice 4 Generic Ultrafilters and Transitive Models of ZFC 5 Cardinal Collapsing, Boolean Isomorphism and Applications to the Theory of Boolean Algebras 6 Iterated Boolean Extensions, Martin's Axiom and Souslin's Hypothesis 7 Boolean-Valued Analysis 8 Intuitionistic Set Theory and Heyting-Algebra-Valued Models Appendix Boolean- and Heyting-Algebra-Valued Models as Categories Historical Notes Bibliography Index of Symbols Index of Terms

77 citations

### "Generalized algebra-valued models o..." refers background or methods in this paper

• ...…the axioms and axiom schemes that we use in our proofs (in the schemes, ϕ is a formula with n + 2 free variables); the concrete formulations follows Bell (2005) very closely: ∀x∀y[∀z(z ∈ x ↔ z ∈ y) → x = y] (Extensionality) ∀x∀y∃z∀w(w ∈ z ↔ (w = x ∨ w = y)) (Pairing) ∃x[∃y(∀z(z ∈ y → ⊥) ∧ y ∈ x)…...

[...]

• ...Using the notion of validity derived from · , all of the axioms of ZFC are valid in VB. Boolean-valued models were introduced in the 1960s by Scott, Solovay, and Vopěnka; an excellent exposition of the theory can be found in Bell (2005)....

[...]

• ...Our construction follows very closely the Boolean-valued construction as it can be found in Bell (2005)....

[...]

• ...In the Boolean case, the inequality proved in Proposition 3.2 is an equality (Bell, 2005, p. 23): ∃x ∈ u ϕ(x) = ∨ x∈dom(u) ( u(x) ∧ ϕ(x) ) and ∀x ∈ u ϕ(x) = ∧ x∈dom(u) ( u(x) ⇒ ϕ(x) ) ....

[...]

• ...As in the Boolean case (Bell, 2005, Induction Principle 1.7), the (meta-)induction principle for VA can be proved by a simple induction on the rank function: for every property of names, if for all x ∈ VA, we have ∀y ∈ dom(x)( (y)) implies (x), then all names x ∈ VA have the property ....

[...]