0
$\begingroup$

I've noticed that most of the work in Ackermann set theory is primarily concerned with constructing sets in $V$, the rest of the classes are just excess material, carrying no comprehension over them. There is a try of Muller in which he strengthen the class existence principle of Ackermann into Separation over classes, the resultant theory is $A$, and adding Regularity $R$, and Choice $C$, he gets into $ARC$, a theory claimed [see here] to serve as a foundation of both category and set theory, and thus for most of mathematics.

This gave me the idea of reflecting-out of $V$ principle, since Ackermann's set theory can be interpeted in systems using reflection [see here] , so if to any of the two systems appearing in that posting (with reflection in them re-named as reflection in $V$), we add the following principle:

Reflection out of $V$ schema: if $\varphi$ is a sentence in $FOL(=,\in)$, i.e. doesn't use the symbol $V$, and $\varphi^V$ is the bounded by $V$ sentence of $\varphi$, i.e. the sentence obtained by merely bounding every quantifier in $\varphi$ by $V$, then: $ \varphi^V \to \varphi $, is an axiom.

In other words we are reversing the reflection process, so we are concluding things about classes in general by reflecting from the inside of $V$ to outside it. By that, all set axioms (i.e. sentences in the language of set theory that are satisfied in $V$), would generalize over all classes. This way we easily get to interpret Muller's theory.

Question: is there an obvious inconsistency with a theory that both uses reflection in $V$ and reflection out of $V$ principles?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ What about a schema with a constant symbol $c$ asserting that $c$ is some $V_\alpha$, and $V_\alpha$ is elementary in $V$? This is a mild theory. $\endgroup$ – Monroe Eskew Dec 18 '18 at 11:57
  • $\begingroup$ @MonroeEskew your point is not clear? what do you want to say? $\endgroup$ – Zuhair Al-Johar Dec 18 '18 at 14:06
  • $\begingroup$ Fix some $V_\alpha$ satisfying ZFC and pretend it is $V$ and the higher-rank sets are hyperclasses. Possibly $V_\alpha \prec V$. In such a situation, we have reflection out of $V$. Also everything true in $V$ reflects to $V_\alpha$. We can also have this on a club of $\beta$, so that also things can reflect below $\alpha$ simultaenously. $\endgroup$ – Monroe Eskew Dec 18 '18 at 14:47
  • $\begingroup$ See mathoverflow.net/a/103779/1946 for more discussion. Also, this theory arises in many other questions on MO. See mathoverflow.net/search?q=user%3A1946+Feferman+theory. $\endgroup$ – Joel David Hamkins Dec 18 '18 at 14:48
  • $\begingroup$ @MonroeEskew do your comments apply to adding the reflection out schema on top of the referred theory in the post that has the limitation of size axiom? this has a mahlo cardinal as its model, (see link in the head post), so is this also mild in your opinion? $\endgroup$ – Zuhair Al-Johar Dec 18 '18 at 18:20

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.