In set theory, a maximality principle is a principle that asserts some maximality property of the universe of sets or some part thereof. Set theorists have formulated a variety of maximality principles in order to settle statements left undecided by current standard set theory. In addition, philosophers of mathematics have explored maximality principles whilst attempting to prove categoricity theorems for set theory or providing criteria for selecting foundational theories. This article reviews recent work concerned with the formulation, investigation and justification (...) of maximality principles. (shrink)

A theoretical development is carried to establish fundamental results about rank-initial embeddings and automorphisms of countable non-standard models of set theory, with a keen eye for their sets of fixed points. These results are then combined into a “geometric technique” used to prove several results about countable non-standard models of set theory. In particular, back-and-forth constructions are carried out to establish various generalizations and refinements of Friedman’s theorem on the existence of rank-initial embeddings between countable non-standard models of the fragment (...) \ + \-Separation of \; and Gaifman’s technique of iterated ultrapowers is employed to show that any countable model of \ can be elementarily rank-end-extended to models with well-behaved automorphisms whose sets of fixed points equal the original model. These theoretical developments are then utilized to prove various results relating self-embeddings, automorphisms, their sets of fixed points, strong rank-cuts, and set theories of different strengths. Two examples: The notion of “strong rank-cut” is characterized in terms of the theory \, and in terms of fixed-point sets of self-embeddings. (shrink)

Both second-order logic and set theory can be used as a foundation for mathematics, that is, as a formal language in which propositions of mathematics can be expressed and proved. We take it upon ourselves in this paper to compare the two approaches, second-order logic on one hand and set theory on the other hand, evaluating their merits and weaknesses. We argue that we should think of first-order set theory as a very high-order logic.

Bayesian epistemology has struggled with the problem of regularity: how to deal with events that in classical probability have zero probability. While the cases most discussed in the literature, such as infinite sequences of coin tosses or continuous spinners, do not actually come up in scientific practice, there are cases that do come up in science. I shall argue that these cases can be resolved without leaving the realm of classical probability, by choosing a probability measure that preserves “enough” regularity. (...) This approach also provides a resolution to the McGrew, McGrew and Vestrum normalization problem for the fine-tuning argument. (shrink)

We consider the quantifier hierarchy of Takahashi [1972] and show how it gives rise to reflection theorems for some large cardinals in ZF, a new natural subtheory of Zermelo's set theory, a potentially useful new reduction of the consistency problem for Quine's NF, and a sharpening of another reduction of this problem due to Boffa.

We consider second-order propositional modal logic (SOPML), an extension of the basic modal language with propositional quantifiers introduced by Kit Fine in 1970. We determine the precise expressive power of SOPML by giving analogues of the Van Benthem–Rosen theorem and the Goldblatt Thomason theorem. Furthermore, we show that the basic modal language is the bisimulation invariant fragment of SOPML, and we characterize the bounded fragment of first-order logic as being the intersection of first-order logic and SOPML.