1 / 31

Topological Forcing Semantics with Settling

Topological Forcing Semantics with Settling. Robert S. Lubarsky Florida Atlantic University. background. Classical forcing: A term σ is a set of the form {〈 σ i , p i 〉 | σ i a term, p i a forcing condition, i ∊ I, I an index set}.

Download Presentation

Topological Forcing Semantics with Settling

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Topological Forcing Semantics with Settling Robert S. Lubarsky Florida Atlantic University

  2. background Classical forcing: • A term σ is a set of the form {〈σi, pi〉 | σi a term, pi a forcing condition, i ∊ I, I an index set}. • The ground model embeds into the forcing extension, by always choosing pi to be ⊤. • p ⊩ φ is defined inductively on formulas.

  3. background Classical forcing: • σ = {〈σi, pi〉 | σi a term, pi a condition, i ∊ I} • ground model embeds into the extension • p ⊩ φ defined inductively on formulas Topological semantics: • σ = {〈σi, Ji〉 | σi a term, Ji an open set, i ∊ I} • ground model embeds into the extension, by always choosing Ji to be the whole space T • J ⊩ φ defined inductively on formulas

  4. Classical forcing: • σ = {〈σi, pi〉 | i ∊ I}, ground model V embeds into the extension, p ⊩ φ defined inductively on formulas Topological semantics: • σ = {〈σi, Ji〉 | i ∊ I}, ground model V embeds into the extension, J ⊩ φ defined inductively on formulas Topological semantics with settling: • σ = {〈σi, Ji〉 | i ∊ I} ∪ {〈σh, rh〉 | rh ∊ T, h ∊ H} • The ground model V embeds into the extension, by choosing Ji to be T and H to be empty. • J ⊩ φ is defined inductively on formulas.

  5. The settling-down functions σr (r ∊ T) is defined inductively on σ: σr = {〈σir, T〉 | 〈σi, Ji〉 ∊ σ and r ∊ Ji} ∪ {〈σhr, T〉 | 〈σh, r〉 ∊ σ }

  6. The settling-down functions σr (r ∊ T) is defined inductively on σ: σr = {〈σir, T〉 | 〈σi, Ji〉 ∊ σ and r ∊ Ji} ∪ {〈σhr, T〉 | 〈σh, r〉 ∊ σ } Note: a) σr is a (term for a) ground model set. b) (σr)s = σr . Notation: φr is φ with each parameter σ replaced by σr.

  7. Topological semantics ⊩ J ⊩ σ = τ iff for all 〈σi, Ji〉 ∊ σ J∩Ji ⊩ σi ∊ τ, and vice versa, J ⊩ σ ∊ τ iff for all r ∊ J there are 〈τi, Ji〉 ∊ τ and Jr ⊆ Ji such that r ∊ Jr ⊩ σ = τi J ⊩ φ ∧ ψ iff J ⊩ φ and J ⊩ ψ J ⊩ φ ∨ ψ iff for all r ∊ J there is a Jr ⊆ J such that r ∊ Jr ⊩ φ or r ∊ Jr ⊩ ψ J ⊩ φ → ψ iff for all J’ ⊆ J if J’ ⊩ φ then J’ ⊩ ψ J ⊩ ∃x φ(x) iff for all r ∊ J there are σr and Jr such that r ∊ Jr ⊩ φ(σ) J ⊩ ∀x φ(x) iff for all σ J ⊩ φ(σ)

  8. Topological semantics with settling J ⊩ σ = τ iff for all 〈σi, Ji〉 ∊ σ J∩Ji ⊩ σi ∊ τ, and vice versa, and for all r ∊ J σr = τr J ⊩ σ ∊ τ iff … J ⊩ φ∧/∨ψ iff … J ⊩ φ → ψ iff for all J’ ⊆ J if J’⊩ φ then J’⊩ ψ, and for all r ∊ J there is a Jr ∍ r such that for all K ⊆ Jr if K ⊩ φr then K ⊩ψr J ⊩ ∃x φ(x) iff … J ⊩ ∀x φ(x) iff for all σ J ⊩ φ(σ), and for all r ∊ J there is a Jr ∍ r such that for all σ Jr ⊩ φr(σ)

  9. Application with intuition Example Let T be ℝ (the reals). Equivalent description of the topological model as a Kripke model.

  10. Application with intuition Example Let T be ℝ (the reals). Equivalent description of the topological model as a Kripke model. Starting node r ∊ ℝ.

  11. Application with intuition Example Let T be ℝ (the reals). Equivalent description of the topological model as a Kripke model. Starting node r ∊ ℝ. r ⊨ σ∊ (resp. =) τ iff for some Jr ∍ r Jr ⊩ σ∊ (resp. =) τ

  12. Application with intuition Example Let T be ℝ (the reals). Equivalent description of the topological model as a Kripke model. Starting node r ∊ ℝ. r ⊨ σ∊ (resp. =) τ iff for some Jr ∍ r Jr ⊩ σ∊ (resp. =) τ The node s extends r if s is infinitesimally close to r. (set-up: r ∊ M ≺ M’ ∍ s)

  13. Application with intuition Example Let T be ℝ (the reals). r ⊨ σ∊ / = τ iff for some Jr ∍ r Jr ⊩ σ∊ / = τ The node s extends r if s is infinitesimally close to r. (set-up: r ∊ M ≺ M’ ∍ s) Two transition functions: • f the elementary embedding from M to M’

  14. Application with intuition Example Let T be ℝ (the reals). r ⊨ σ∊ / = τ iff for some Jr ∍ r Jr ⊩ σ∊ / =) τ The node s extends r if s is infinitesimally close to r. (set-up: r ∊ M ≺ M’ ∍ s) Two transition functions: • f the elementary embedding from M to M’ • σ ↦ f(σ)s

  15. Application with intuition Example Let T be ℝ (the reals). r ⊨ σ∊ / = τ iff for some Jr ∍ r Jr ⊩ σ∊ / =) τ s extends r if s is infinitesimally close to r. Two transition functions: • f the elementary embedding from M to M’ • σ ↦ f(σ)s Truth Lemma r ⊨ φ iff Jr ⊩ φ for some Jr ∍ r.

  16. Application with intuition Example Let T be ℝ (the reals). Two transition functions: • f the elementary embedding from M to M’ • σ ↦ f(σ)s Truth Lemma r ⊨ φ iff Jr ⊩ φ for some Jr ∍ r. Application This structure models IZFExp (and therefore “the Cauchy reals are a set”) + “the Dedekind reals do not form a set”.

  17. What is valid under settling?

  18. What is valid under settling? Theorem T ⊩ IZF with the following changes: • Eventual Power Set instead of Power Set: every set X has a collection of subsets C such that every subset of X cannot be different from everything in C, i.e. ∀X ∃C (∀Y∊C Y⊆X) ∧ (∀Y⊆X ¬∀Z ∊C Y≠Z)

  19. What is valid under settling? Theorem T ⊩ IZF with the following changes: • Eventual Power Set instead of Power Set: ∀X ∃C (∀Y∊C Y⊆X) ∧ (∀Y⊆X ¬∀Z ∊C Y≠Z) • Bounded (i.e. Δ0) Separation instead of Full Separation

  20. What is valid under settling? Theorem T ⊩ IZF with the following changes: • Eventual Power Set instead of Power Set • Δ0 Separation instead of Full Separation • Collection instead of Strong Collection: every total relation from a set to V has a bounding set, but the bounding set may contain elements not in the range of the relations

  21. Does Separation really fail so badly? Definitions T is locally homogeneousaround r, s ∊ T if there is a homeomorphism between neighborhoods of r and s interchanging r and s. U is homogeneous if U is locally homogeneous around each r, s ∊ U. T is locally homogeneous if every r ∊ T has a homogeneous neighborhood.

  22. Does Separation really fail so badly? Definitions T is locally homogeneousaround r, s ∊ T if there is a local homeomorphism between neighborhoods of r and s interchanging r and s. U is homogeneous if U is locally homogeneous around each r, s ∊ U. T is locally homogeneous if every r ∊ T has a homogeneous neighborhood. Theorem If T is locally homogeneous then T ⊩ Full Separation.

  23. Does Separation really fail so badly? Theorem If T is locally homogeneous then T ⊩ Full Separation. Counter-example Let Tn be the topological space for collapsing ℵn to be countable. Let T be ⋃Tn ∪ {∞}. A neighborhood of ∞ contains cofinitely many Tns. T falsifies Replacement for a Boolean combination of Σ1 and Π1 formulas.

  24. Does Separation really fail so badly? Counter-example Tn ⊩ “ℵn is countable.” T is ⋃Tn ∪ {∞}. A neighborhood of ∞ contains ⋃n>I Tns. Let ω∞ be {〈n, ∞〉 | n ∊ ω}. Then T ⊩ “∀n∊ω∞ ∃!y (y=0 ∧ ℵn is uncountable) ∨ (y=1 ∧ ¬ℵn is uncountable)”.

  25. Does Separation really fail so badly? Counter-example Tn ⊩ “ℵn is countable.” Then T ⊩ “∀n∊ω∞ ∃!y (y=0 ∧ ℵn is uncountable) ∨ (y=1 ∧ ¬ℵn is uncountable)”. Suppose ∞ ∊ J ⊩ “∀n∊ω∞ (f(n)=0 ∧ ℵn is uncountable) ∨ (f(n)=1 ∧ ¬ℵn is uncountable)”. Then …

  26. Does Separation really fail so badly? Counter-example Tn ⊩ “ℵn is countable.” Suppose ∞ ∊ J ⊩ “∀n∊ω∞ (f(n)=0 ∧ ℵn is uncountable) ∨ (f(n)=1 ∧ ¬ℵn is uncountable)”. Then ∞ ∊ K ⊩ “∀n∊ω∞ (f∞(n)=0 ∧ ℵn is uncountable) ∨ (f∞(n)=1 ∧ ¬ℵn is uncountable)”.

  27. Does Separation really fail so badly? Counter-example Tn ⊩ “ℵn is countable.” Then ∞ ∊ K ⊩ “∀n∊ω∞ (f∞(n)=0 ∧ ℵn is uncountable) ∨ (f∞(n)=1 ∧ ¬ℵn is uncountable)”. But K determines f∞(n) for each n, yet K does not determine whether ℵn is uncountable for each n – contradiction.

  28. Does Power Set really fail so badly?

  29. Does Power Set really fail so badly? Theorem If T is locally connected then T ⊩ Exponentiation.

  30. Does Power Set really fail so badly? Theorem If T is locally connected then T ⊩ Exponentiation. Counter-example Let T be Cantor space. The generic is a 0-1 sequence, i.e. a function from ℕ to {0, 1}. So that function space does not exist as a set.

  31. Does Power Set really fail so badly? Theorem If T is locally connected then T ⊩ Exponentiation. Counter-example Let T be Cantor space. The generic is a 0-1 sequence, i.e. a function from ℕ to {0, 1}. So that function space does not exist as a set. THE END

More Related