The related question is:

Is Kripke Platek theory finitely axiomatizable?

My questions are as follows:

Let $\mathsf{KP}$ be the Kripke Platek set theory with only $\Pi_1$-foundation, and without the axiom of infinity.

Let $\mathsf{KPI}=\mathsf{KP}+{}$ the axiom of infinity.

On page 165, line 17 of Mathias's paper The strength of Mac Lane set theory, it is claimed that $\mathsf{KPI}$ is finitely axiomatizable, and on page 47 of his handwritten notes Notes on set theory (see T215 there), this fact is proved.

Is $\mathsf{KP}$ also finitely axiomatizable?

In fact, I do not even know the following things about $\mathsf{KP}$:

1, Is "$x$ is finite" $\Delta_1^{\mathsf{KP}}$ ?

2, Can $\mathsf{KP}$ prove that "for all finite $x$, the power set of $x$ exists"?

3, Can $\mathsf{KP}$ prove that "if there is an infinite set, then $\omega$ exists"?

4, Can $\mathsf{KP}$ prove that "for all $x$, if $\mathrm{rank}(x)<\omega$, then $x$ is finite"?

5, In $\mathsf{KP}$, do we have the truth definition as in $\mathsf{KPI}$?

where "$x\in\omega$" is defined to be "$x$ and all its members are 0 or successor ordinals", and "$x$ is finite" is defined to be "$\exists n\in\omega\exists f($ $f$ is a bijection from $n$ onto $x$ $)$"; the rank function is defined in $\mathsf{KP}$ by the "definition by recursion" theorem.

My another related question about the finite axiomatizability of $\mathsf{KPI}$ is:

If we extend $\mathsf{KPI}$ to contain also $\Sigma_n$-separation, $\Sigma_n$-collection, and $\Pi_n$-foundation, is this extension still finitely axiomatizable?

Edit: The answer to the question 2 is affirmative, as shown in Proposition 2.13 on page 161 of Mathias's paper Weak Systems of Gandy, Jensen and Devlin.

  • $\begingroup$ What is $\Pi_1$-foundation? $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Sep 21 '17 at 6:20
  • $\begingroup$ @Asaf It states that every non-void $\Pi_1$ class has a minimal member. $\endgroup$ – Guozhen Shen Sep 21 '17 at 7:40

I think the answer to questions 1,3,4 is affirmative. The sketch is as follows (maybe not right):

4 implies 3, and if 3 holds, then we have that

$x$ is infinite${}\leftrightarrow{}\exists y(y=\omega\wedge\forall z\in y\exists f(f\text{ is an injection from $z$ into $x$}))$

which is a $\Sigma_1$ formula. Hence 3 implies 1.

We need only to show 4 in $\mathsf{KP}$.

In $\mathsf{KP}$, we can define the transitive closure $\mathrm{TC}(x)$ of any set $x$, and we can prove that $y=\mathrm{TC}(x)$ is $\Delta_1^\mathsf{KP}$ (see D088, T089, T109 and T110 of Mathias's handwritten notes). By $\Sigma_1$-induction on $x$ we can prove that $\mathrm{rank}(x)=\mathrm{rank}(\mathrm{TC}(x))$. Let $x$ be a set such that $\mathrm{rank}(x)<\omega$. We need only to show that $\mathrm{TC}(x)$ is finite. Let $y=\mathrm{TC}(x)$. Let $h=\mathrm{rank}\upharpoonright y$. Then $h$ is a function from $y$ into a natural number. We can prove that for all $n\in\omega$, $\{z\in y\mid h(z)=n\}\subseteq\mathscr{P}(\{z\in y\mid h(z)<n\})$. Since "$n\in\omega\to\exists u(u=\{z\in y\mid h(z)<n\}\text{ and $u$ is finite})$" is a $\Sigma_1$ formula, by $\Sigma_1$-induction on $n$, we can prove that $\forall n\in\omega\exists u(u=\{z\in y\mid h(z)<n\}\text{ and $u$ is finite})$ (use also that "the power set of any finite set exists and is also finite", see Mathias's paper mentioned in the Edit). Since the range of $h$ is included in a natural number, $y$ is finite.

  • $\begingroup$ I think $\mathsf{KP}$ is probably finitely axiomatizable. $\endgroup$ – Guozhen Shen Sep 21 '17 at 9:03

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.