15
$\begingroup$

Gabriel Sabbagh, a PhD student of Pierre Samuel, called his thesis Ensembles artiniens, univers et galaxies. I learned from a recent talk of Colin McLarty that Grothendieck, in his 1973 Buffalo lectures on topos theory, mentioned how Samuel had at one point suggested that the use of Grothendieck universes could be bypassed in favour of 'galaxies'.

Screenshot of McLary's talk giving transcription of Grothendieck's talk, 1

"By the way with respect to universes there is an idea of Samuel's which has never I think been really looked at carefully. There is a little trouble with universe because in order to be able to work with with them one has to add such a strong axiom to set theory about existence of universes."

It's not entirely clear, since Grothendieck either can't quite remember the definition, or he was just a bit too vague, but it seems to be the same as a strong limit cardinal, i.e. essentially a universe but dropping regularity.

Screenshot of McLary's talk giving transcription of Grothendieck's talk, 2

"But Samuel he thought about introducing galaxies that are universes that are kind of small, you see. You make all the axiom of universes except that the axiom involves the union."

This latter doesn't cause problems a lot of the time, since apparently Samuel noted that the constructions one wants to do by taking unions, tend to be already contained in an ambient set that is known to be in the universe.

Sabbagh wrote one paper on set theory, Les univers et l'axiome de fondation, that seems to be relevant, except he never uses the word "galaxy", just dealing with results involving universes. Sabbagh does use a vaguely relevant axiom in addition to his use of ZF-Foundation, namely the strong limit cardinals are cofinal among all cardinals. However, there is a minor comment at the end, how that the results work if one replaces "universe" everywhere with "microcosmos", a concept appearing the 1963 thesis of Jacques Mersch (Le problème du quotient dans les catégories).

Screenshot of Definition 1.1.2 in Mersch's thesis

Un microcosme $M$ est un ensemble tel que si $X$ appartient à $M$, alors les éléments de $X$, l'ensemble des parties de $X$ et les parties de $M$ équipotentes à $X$ appartiennent aussi à $M$.

(Kühnrich has shown that a microcosmos is a "weak universe" ("schwaches Universum"), namely a transitive strong limit set closed under binary unions.)

As emphasised in the MR review by Isbell that

it is a theorem of ordinary set theory that every set belongs to a [microcosmos]

So we are seeing a circle of ideas all floating around at the same time. But there is no reference to Samuel by any of these authors.

The date of Samuel's idea is (according to McLarty's talk) apparently a decade before the lectures, so about 1963. I haven't been able to find anything more about Samuel's galaxies, so I'm wondering if anyone knows where to look, or knows a place where the definition is given, at least.

$\endgroup$
11
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Why are people so afraid of inaccessibles? Sure they have higher consistency strength, thus "might be" inconsistent from the perspective of ZFC, but in the grand scheme of things from the set theorists' perspective, they are relatively innocuous. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 23, 2022 at 12:20
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @MonroeEskew yes, but most mathematicians are not set theorists for whom measurable cardinals and larger are no big deal. It's not about being "afraid", but wanting to know if the de facto standard axioms for maths are actually sufficient to do generic mathematics. $\endgroup$
    – David Roberts
    Commented Jun 23, 2022 at 13:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The reason for my question is to understand the motivations and philosophy. Although RM is "a thing", my impression is that most mathematicians are not Reverse but Forward, meaning they primarily care about proving new results and reaching a new understanding of a topic and knowing what's true, rather than investigating what axioms or fragments of schema are needed for a result. So when people start using universes to prove things but then get worried about going beyond ZFC, this seems like this is a relatively isolated concern rather than part of a pattern of being an RMer. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 24, 2022 at 7:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I would be less perplexed if the same people also were cataloguing exactly how complex of formulae they were using with Replacement and Comprehension, or whether the full Powerset axiom was needed, etc. To illustrate my point, it is rare to find a mathematician who is deeply interested in Harvey Friedman's RM result about Borel determinacy, but much more common to find one who wants to know a proof of Borel determinacy, or apply it. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 24, 2022 at 7:36
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @MonroeEskew perhaps you should ask a fresh MO question about all this, rather than me, on my question, which is deliberately rather narrow in scope :-) $\endgroup$
    – David Roberts
    Commented Jun 24, 2022 at 12:42

2 Answers 2

9
$\begingroup$

Two brief remarks: Samuel gave me a text on the universes and the galaxies (and wanted me to prove a result which was impossible to prove) but never told me that he authored the text with the help of his friend Lacombe, a logician, in order to assist Grothendieck and Bourbaki. He specifically asked me to not refer to his text; he was a perfect human being. I learned the whole story only fairly recently through a lecture of Cartier. The axiom 'there exists a strongly inaccessible cardinal' is not relatively consistent with respect to ZFC: this is clear for many reasons.

Gabriel Sabbagh

$\endgroup$
2
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Welcome to MathOverflow. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 26, 2022 at 17:14
  • $\begingroup$ I'd like to add my welcome to that of Andreas. Thank you, that is very interesting! I guess the document may have ended up as the appendix Univers in SGA? But back to the original question, which wasn't as explicit as it should have been: what is the definition of a galaxy? I tried asking my library to arrange to somehow borrow or get an electronic copy of your thesis, but it seems I have to talk to Paris instead. My quest is not yet over... $\endgroup$
    – David Roberts
    Commented Aug 27, 2022 at 1:25
3
$\begingroup$

In a private email correspondence Prof Sabbagh confirmed to me that the definition of galaxy that I guessed is correct: as strong inaccessible cardinals are to universes, strong limit cardinals are to galaxies. The intent of the thesis was to examine a desideratum for ZF-Foundation involving the closure of universes and galaxies under Hilbert $\tau$ operator. This turned out to imply the axiom of Foundation, which was the main result of the thesis, and published in

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ In particular I am pretty sure that microcosmos (in this paper) <-> galaxy, as in the thesis. $\endgroup$
    – David Roberts
    Commented Aug 29, 2022 at 16:26

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .