2
$\begingroup$

It seems to me that there is a difference in the treatment of "partial" elements in boolean-valued models in set theory vs topos theory: in set theory, one usually only considers "global" elements of boolean-valued models, but in topos theory one also considers "partial" elements. Peter Lumsdaine remarks here that the cumulative hierarchy constructed inside a topos is flabby, and apparently this is why there is no loss of generality in ignoring "partial" elements in boolean-valued models of set theory. This is very plausible to me, but I am not sure I really understand what is going on. I also would like to know if this is something special about boolean-valued models of set theory.

Let me define terms.

Fix a complete Heyting algebra $A$. An $A$-valued partial equivalence relation (PER) on a set $X$ is a map $e : X \times X \to A$ satisfying the following conditions:

  • For all pairs $(x_0, x_1)$ of elements of $X$, $e (x_0, x_1) = e (x_1, x_0)$.
  • For all triples $(x_0, x_1, x_2)$ of elements of $X$, $e (x_0, x_1) \land e (x_1, x_2) \le e (x_0, x_2)$.

Note that it follows that $e (x_0, x_1) \le e (x_0, x_0) \land e (x_1, x_1)$. We should think of $e (x, x)$ as being the "extent" to which $x$ is "defined"; a "global" element is $x$ such that $e (x, x) = \top$.

Given such $(X, e)$, say $X$ has restriction with respect to $e$ if the following condition is satisfied:

  • For all $x \in X$ and $a \in A$, if $a \le e (x, x)$, then there is some $x' \in X$ such that $a = e (x', x')$ and $e (x', x') \le e (x', x)$.

Say $X$ has amalgamation with respect to $e$ if the following condition is satisfied:

  • For all subsets $X' \subseteq X$, if for every pair $(x_0, x_1)$ of elements of $X'$ we have $e (x_0, x_0) \land e (x_1, x_1) \le e (x_0, x_1)$, then there is some $x \in X$ such that $\bigvee_{x' \in X'} e (x', x') \le e (x, x)$ and, for all $x' \in X'$, $e(x', x') \le e (x', x)$.

Say $X$ is flabby with respect to $e$ if the following condition is satisfied:

  • For all $x \in X$ and $a \in A$, if $e (x, x) \le a$, then there is some $x' \in X$ such that $a = e (x', x')$ and $e (x, x) \le e (x, x')$.

Now fix a first-order signature $\Sigma$. I will assume that $\Sigma$ is one-sorted and has no function symbols, but I hope it is clear how everything can be done for general first-order signatures. An $A$-valued $\Sigma$-structure $M$ consists of the following data:

  • A set $\left| M \right|$.
  • An $A$-valued PER on $\left| M \right|$, which we will write infix as $=_M$.
  • For each $n$-ary relation symbol $\phi$, a map $\phi_M : \left| M \right|^n \to A$ satisfying the following conditions:
    • For all $n$-tuples $(x_0, \ldots, x_{n-1})$ of elements of $\left| M \right|$, $$\phi_M (x_0, \ldots, x_{n-1}) \le (x_0 =_M x_0) \land \cdots \land (x_{n-1} =_M x_{n-1})$$
    • For all pairs of $n$-tuples $((x_{0, 0}, \ldots, x_{0, n-1}), (x_{1, 0}, \ldots, x_{1, n-1}))$ of elements of $\left| M \right|$, $$(x_{0, 0} =_M x_{1, 0}) \land \cdots \land (x_{0, n-1} =_M x_{1, n-1}) \land \phi_M (x_{0, 0}, \ldots, x_{0, n-1}) \le \phi_M (x_{1, 0}, \ldots, x_{1, n-1})$$

Given such an $M$, we can interpret any first-order logical formula in $A$. More precisely, a formula-in-context with $n$ free variables is interpreted as a map $\left| M \right|^n \to A$. The interpretation is defined inductively. I omit the details of how to interpret the basic relations and connectives, except to note that logical consistency dictates that $$\psi_M (x_0, \ldots, x_{n-1}) \le (x_0 =_M x_0) \land \cdots \land (x_{n-1} =_M x_{n-1})$$ for all formulae-in-context $\psi$ with $n$ free variables, so we do have to be a bit careful. (I think $\Rightarrow$ is the only connective where the "obvious definition" falls foul of this rule.) Quantifiers are handled as follows:

  • Given the interpretation $\psi_M : \left| M \right|^{n+1} \to A$ of a formula-in-context $\psi$ with $n + 1$ free variables, the interpretation of $\exists y . \psi$ is the map $(\exists y . \psi)_M : \left| M \right|^n \to A$ defined by $$(\exists y . \psi)_M (\vec{x}, \vec{z}) = \bigvee_{y \in \left| M \right|} \psi_M (\vec{x}, y, \vec{z})$$

  • Given the interpretation $\psi_M : \left| M \right|^{n+1} \to A$ of a formula-in-context $\psi$ with $n + 1$ free variables, the interpretation of $\forall y . \psi$ is the map $(\forall y . \psi)_M : \left| M \right|^n \to A$ defined by $$(\forall y . \psi)_M (\vec{x}, \vec{z}) = (\vec{x} =_M \vec{x}) \land (\vec{z} =_M \vec{z}) \land \bigwedge_{y \in \left| M \right|} ((y =_M y) \Rightarrow \psi_M (\vec{x}, y, \vec{z}))$$

(Incidentally, this is the only place where we use the hypothesis that $A$ is complete, and upon closer inspection we see that less will suffice.)

There is an obvious notion of substructure of $M$. Given a substructure $M'$, say $M'$ is an elementary substructure of $M$ if it has the following property:

  • For every formula-in-context $\psi$ with $n$ free variables and every $n$-tuple $(x_0, \ldots, x_{n-1})$ of elements of $\left| M' \right|$, $$\psi_{M'} (x_0, \ldots, x_{n-1}) = \psi_M (x_0, \ldots, x_{n-1})$$

Question 1. Is every $A$-valued $\Sigma$-structure isomorphic to an elementary substructure $M'$ of some $M$ where $\left| M \right|$ has restriction and amalgamation with respect to $=_M$, and where every element of $\left| M \right|$ can be obtained by (iterated) restriction and amalgamation of elements of $\left| M' \right|$?

(In other words, given a structure that is missing some "partial" elements, is it logically harmless to add them in?)

Given $M$, let $M'$ be the substructure where $$\left| M' \right| = \left\{ x \in \left| M \right| : (x =_M x) = \top \right\}$$ It is straightforward to find an example where $M'$ is not an elementary substructure of $M$: just arrange for $\left| M' \right|$ to be empty while $\left| M \right|$ has an element $x$ such that $x =_M x$ is not $\bot$; then the interpretations of $\exists x . x = x$ will differ. This can happen even if $\left| M \right|$ has restriction and amalgamation with respect to $=_M$.

Now suppose $\Sigma$ is the signature of set theory and $M$ is a model of set theory (such as, but not limited to, ZF).

Question 2. Assuming $\left| M \right|$ has restriction and amalgamation with respect to $=_M$, is $\left| M \right|$ flabby with respect to $=_M$?

Question 3. Assuming $\left| M \right|$ is flabby with respect to $=_M$, is $M'$ an elementary substructure of $M$?

(In other words, is it logically harmless to ignore "partial" elements?)

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Are you familiar with triposes? $\endgroup$ Mar 13, 2021 at 18:51
  • $\begingroup$ I know the definition. The tripos-to-topos construction is how I'm convincing myself that this is equivalent to the obvious definition of "$\Sigma$-structure in $\textbf{Sh} (A)$". $\endgroup$
    – Zhen Lin
    Mar 13, 2021 at 22:41

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.