5
$\begingroup$

As is well known, the following theory is equiconsistent with $PA$:

$ZFC$ with the axiom of infinity replaced by its negation.

Since this theory is equiconsistent with $PA$, it would seem reasonable to infer (wouldn't it?) that the consistency of '$ZFC$ with the axiom of infinity replaced by its negation' could be provable in "$PRA$ + $TI({\epsilon_0})$.

So what 'theory of sets'(?) is mutually interpretable with "$PRA$ + $TI({\epsilon_0})$? Also, can one define a notion of forcing in the aforementioned theory?

(If this seems too silly a question, please let me know and I will delete....)

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ What do the underlines and single quote marks mean? Or can we delete them? $\endgroup$ – Matt F. Dec 20 '16 at 15:20
  • $\begingroup$ @MattF.: Feel free to edit according to whatever the standard form for writing $T$ + $Axiom$ is, where $T$ is some formal theory. Thanks for the help. $\endgroup$ – Thomas Benjamin Dec 20 '16 at 15:38
  • $\begingroup$ ZFC with the axiom of infinity replaced by its negation is not a fragment of ZFC (it is even inconsistent with ZFC). A fragment of ZFC equiconsistent with PA is ZFC with the axiom of infinity dropped. $\endgroup$ – Emil Jeřábek Dec 20 '16 at 15:44
  • $\begingroup$ @EmilJeřábek: You are, of course, correct. Please let me know if the corrections are suitable, and if not, what would be, and I will re-edit. Thanks. $\endgroup$ – Thomas Benjamin Dec 20 '16 at 15:54
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, this is fine. $\endgroup$ – Emil Jeřábek Dec 20 '16 at 16:12
6
$\begingroup$

Yes, the consistency of "ZFC with the axiom of infinity replaced by its negation" is provable in "PRA + TI($\epsilon_0$)". Technically one has to also show that "PRA + TI($\epsilon_0$)" can prove the equiconsistency result (since it already proves the consistency of PA), but these are fairly natural theories so that shouldn't be a problem.

I'm not aware of a natural fragment of ZFC equiconsistent with "PRA + TI($\epsilon_0$)", and can't think of any reason there would be one. It's sort of remarkable that ZFC has a fragment which matches up perfectly with PA (which is mostly a reflection of how PA is a very natural theory).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. Is it also possible to define notions of forcing in $PRA$ + $TI({\epsilon_0})$ over the ground model "ZFC with the axiom of infinity replaced by its negation"? Also, since it's possible to interpret $Q$ in terms of sets and $PRA$ is an extension of $Q$, has anyone used the set interpretation of $Q$ to derive a set interpretation of $PRA$ + $TI({\epsilon_0})$? $\endgroup$ – Thomas Benjamin Dec 21 '16 at 11:22
  • $\begingroup$ @ThomasBenjamin: It's surely possible to define some kind of notion of forcing in PRA+TI($\epsilon_0$) (or even just PRA), but I'm not aware of any work doing this, nor am I aware of work on set interpretations of TI($\epsilon_0$). $\endgroup$ – Henry Towsner Dec 21 '16 at 16:30

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.