Inaccessible set axions may have little consistency strength

Abstract The paper investigates inaccessible set axioms and their consistency strength in constructive set theory. In ZFC inaccessible sets are of the form V κ where κ is a strongly inaccessible cardinal and V κ denotes the κ th level of the von Neumann hierarchy. Inaccessible sets figure prominently in category theory as Grothendieck universes and are related to universes in type theory. The objective of this paper is to show that the consistency strength of inaccessible set axioms heavily depend on the context in which they are embedded. The context here will be the theory CZF − of constructive Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory but without ∈ -Induction (foundation). Let INAC be the statement that for every set there is an inaccessible set containing it. CZF − + INAC is a mathematically rich theory in which one can easily formalize Bishop style constructive mathematics and a great deal of category theory. CZF − + INAC also has a realizability interpretation in type theory which gives its theorems a direct computational meaning. The main result presented here is that the proof theoretic ordinal of CZF − + INAC is a small ordinal known as the Feferman–Schutte ordinal Γ 0 .

[1]  Michael Rathjen,et al.  The strength of Martin-Löf type theory with a superuniverse. Part II , 2001, Arch. Math. Log..

[2]  Michael Rathjen The Strength of Martin-ll of Type Theory with a Superuniverse. Part , 2000 .

[3]  Michael Rathjen,et al.  Inaccessibility in Constructive Set Theory and Type Theory , 1998, Ann. Pure Appl. Log..

[4]  Peter Aczel,et al.  Non-well-founded sets , 1988, CSLI lecture notes series.

[5]  Chen C. Chang,et al.  Model Theory: Third Edition (Dover Books On Mathematics) By C.C. Chang;H. Jerome Keisler;Mathematics , 1966 .

[6]  Gerhard Jäger Fixed Points in Peano Arithmetic with Ordinals , 1993, Ann. Pure Appl. Log..

[7]  Per Martin-Löf,et al.  Intuitionistic type theory , 1984, Studies in proof theory.

[8]  Michael Rathjen,et al.  The strength of some Martin-Löf type theories , 1994, Arch. Math. Log..

[9]  P. Aczel The Type Theoretic Interpretation of Constructive Set Theory: Choice Principles , 1982 .

[10]  M. Rathjen,et al.  The Anti-Foundation Axiom in Constructive Set Theories , 2003 .

[11]  A. R. D. Mathias,et al.  NON‐WELL‐FOUNDED SETS (CSLI Lecture Notes 14) , 1991 .

[12]  Kenneth Kunen,et al.  Set Theory: An Introduction to Independence Proofs , 2010 .

[13]  John R. Myhill,et al.  Constructive set theory , 1975, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[14]  Gerhard Max Jäger,et al.  Theories for admissible sets : a unifying approach to proof theory , 1986 .

[15]  Peter Aczel,et al.  The Type Theoretic Interpretation of Constructive Set Theory: Inductive Definitions , 1986 .

[16]  J. Paris,et al.  The Type Theoretic Interpretation of Constructive Set Theory , 1978 .

[17]  Solomon Feferman,et al.  Iterated Inductive Fixed-Point Theories: Application to Hancock's Conjecture , 1982 .

[18]  Patrick Suppes,et al.  Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science , 1963 .

[19]  Ingrid Lindström,et al.  A construction of non-well-founded sets within Martin-Löf's type theory , 1989, Journal of Symbolic Logic.