On the relative strengths of fragments of collection

Let $\mathbf{M}$ be the basic set theory that consists of the axioms of extensionality, emptyset, pair, union, powerset, infinity, transitive containment, $\Delta_0$-separation and set foundation. This paper studies the relative strength of set theories obtained by adding fragments of the set-theoretic collection scheme to $\mathbf{M}$. We focus on two common parameterisations of collection: $\Pi_n$-collection, which is the usual collection scheme restricted to $\Pi_n$-formulae, and strong $\Pi_n$-collection, which is equivalent to $\Pi_n$-collection plus $\Sigma_{n+1}$-separation. The main result of this paper shows that for all $n \geq 1$, (1) $\mathbf{M}+\Pi_{n+1}\textrm{-collection}+\Sigma_{n+2}\textrm{-induction on } \omega$ proves the consistency of Zermelo Set Theory plus $\Pi_{n}$-collection, (2) the theory $\mathbf{M}+\Pi_{n+1}\textrm{-collection}$ is $\Pi_{n+3}$-conservative over the theory $\mathbf{M}+\textrm{strong }\Pi_n \textrm{-collection}$. It is also shown that (2) holds for $n=0$ when the Axiom of Choice is included in the base theory. The final section indicates how the proofs of (1) and (2) can be modified to obtain analogues of these results for theories obtained by adding fragments of collection to a base theory (Kripke-Platek Set Theory with Infinity and $V=L$) that does not include the powerset axiom.Comment: 22 page

CZF does not have the Existence Property

Constructive theories usually have interesting metamathematical properties where explicit witnesses can be extracted from proofs of existential sentences. For relational theories, probably the most natural of these is the existence property, EP, sometimes referred to as the set existence property. This states that whenever (\exists x)\phi(x) is provable, there is a formula \chi(x) such that (\exists ! x)\phi(x) \wedge \chi(x) is provable. It has been known since the 80's that EP holds for some intuitionistic set theories and yet fails for IZF. Despite this, it has remained open until now whether EP holds for the most well known constructive set theory, CZF. In this paper we show that EP fails for CZF

On interpretations of bounded arithmetic and bounded set theory

In a recent paper, Kaye and Wong proved the following result, which they considered to belong to the folklore of mathematical logic. THEOREM: The first-order theories of Peano arithmetic and ZF with the axiom of infinity negated are bi-interpretable: that is, they are mutually interpretable with interpretations that are inverse to each other. In this note, I describe a theory of sets that stands in the same relation to the bounded arithmetic IDelta0 + exp. Because of the weakness of this theory of sets, I cannot straightforwardly adapt Kaye and Wong's interpretation of arithmetic in set theory. Instead, I am forced to produce a different interpretation.Comment: 12 pages; section on omega-models removed due to error; references added and typos correcte

Systems of combinatory logic related to Quine's ‘New Foundations’

AbstractSystems TRC and TRCU of illative combinatory logic are introduced and shown to be equivalent in consistency strength and expressive power to Quine's set theory ‘New Foundations’ (NF) and the fragment NFU + Infinity of NF described by Jensen, respectively. Jensen demonstrated the consistency of NFU + Infinity relative to ZFC; the question of the consistency of NF remains open. TRC and TRCU are presented here as classical first-order theories, although they can be presented as equational theories; they are not constructive