In this talk I present the main results from Anta (2021), namely, that the theoretical division between Boltzmannian and Gibbsian statistical mechanics should be understood as a separation in the epistemic capabilities of this physical discipline. In particular, while from the Boltzmannian framework one can generate powerful explanations of thermal processes by appealing to their microdynamics, from the Gibbsian framework one can predict observable values in a computationally effective way. Finally, I argue that this statistical mechanical schism contradicts the Hempelian (...) (1958) thesis that the predictive power of a scientific theory is directly proportional to its explanatory potential, and vice versa. (shrink)

In his recent book, Quine, New Foundations, and the Philosophy of Set Theory, Sean Morris attempts to rehabilitate Quine’s NF as a possible foundation for mathematics. I explain why he does not succeed.

Main results are:(i) Let M_st be standard model of ZFC. Then ~Con(ZFC+∃M_st), (ii) let k be an inaccessible cardinal then ~Con(ZFC+∃k),[10],11].

The iterative conception of set commonly is regarded as supporting the axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZF). This paper presents a modified version of the iterative conception of set and explores the consequences of that modified version for set theory. The modified conception maintains most of the features of the iterative conception of set, but allows for some non-wellfounded sets. It is suggested that this modified iterative conception of set supports the axioms of Quine's set theory NF.

The usual construction of models of NFU (New Foundations with urelements, introduced by Jensen) is due to Maurice Boffa. A Boffa model is obtained from a model of (a fragment of) Zermelo–Fraenkel with Choice (ZFC) with an automorphism which moves a rank: the domain of the Boffa model is a rank that is moved. “Most” elements of the domain of the Boffa model are urelements in terms of the interpreted NFU. The main result of this paper is that the restriction (...) of the membership relation of the original model of set theory with automorphism to the domain of the Boffa model is first-order definable in the language of NFU. In particular, all information about the extensions in the original model of the urelements of the model of NFU is definable in terms of NFU. A corollary (answering a question of Thomas Forster) is that the urelements in a Boffa model are not homogeneous. (shrink)

In this paper we view the first order set theory ZFC under the canonical frst order semantics and the second order set theory ZFC_2 under the Henkin semantics. Main results are: (i) Let M_st^ZFC be a standard model of ZFC, then ¬Con(ZFC + ∃M_st^ZFC ). (ii) Let M_stZFC_2 be a standard model of ZFC2 with Henkin semantics, then ¬Con(ZFC_2 +∃M_stZFC_2). (iii) Let k be inaccessible cardinal then ¬Con(ZFC + ∃κ). In order to obtain the statements (i) and (ii) examples of (...) the inconsistent countable set in a set theory ZFC + ∃M_stZFC and in a set theory ZFC2 + ∃M_st^ZFC_2 were derived. It is widely believed that ZFC + ∃M_stZFC and ZFC_2 + ∃M_st^ZFC_2 are consistent, i.e. ZFC and ZFC_2 have a standard models. Unfortunately this belief is wrong. Book. Advances in Mathematics and Computer Science Vol. 1 Chapter 3 There is No Standard Model of ZFC and ZFC2 ISBN-13 (15) 978-81-934224-1-0 See Part II of this paper DOI: 10.4236/apm.2019.99034 . (shrink)

In general little thought is given to the general question of how to implement mathematical objects in set theory. It is clear that—at various times in the past—people have gone to considerable lengths to devise implementations with nice properties. There is a litera- ture on the evolution of the Wiener-Kuratowski ordered pair, and a discussion by Quine of the merits of an ordered-pair implemen- tation that makes every set an ordered pair. The implementation of ordinals as Von Neumann ordinals is (...) so attractive that it is uni- versally used in all set theories which have enough replacement to prove Mostowski’s collapse lemma. I have frequently complained in the past about the widespread habit of referring to implementations of pairs (ordinals etc) as definitions of pairs (etc). My point here is a different one: generally little attention has been paid to the question of what makes an implementation a good implementation. In most cases of interest the merits of the candidates are uncontroversial. What I want to examine here is an example where there are com- peting implementations for ordered pairs, and—although it is clear to the cognoscenti and also (with a bit of arm-waving) plausible to the logician in the street that some of the impossible candidates are impossible, nobody has ever given a satisfactory explanation of why this is so. (shrink)