Inspired by Cantor's Theorem (CT), orthodoxy takes infinities to come in different sizes. The orthodox view has had enormous influence in mathematics, philosophy, and science. We will defend the contrary view---Countablism---according to which, necessarily, every infinite collection (set or plurality) is countable. We first argue that the potentialist or modal strategy for treating Russell's Paradox, first proposed by Parsons (2000) and developed by Linnebo (2010, 2013) and Linnebo and Shapiro (2019), should also be applied to CT, in a way that (...) vindicates Countabilism. Our discussion dovetails with recent independently developed treatments of CT in Meadows (2015), Pruss (2020), and Scambler (2021), aimed at establishing the mathematical viability, and therefore epistemic possibility, of Countabilism. Unlike these authors, our goal isn't to vindicate the mathematical underpinnings of Countabilism. Rather, we aim to argue that, given that Countabilism is mathematically viable, Countabilism should moreover be regarded as true. After clarifying the modal content of Countabilism, we canvas some of Countabilism's many positive implications, including that Countabilism provides the best account of the pervasive independence phenomena in set theory, and that Countabilism has the power to defuse several persistent puzzles and paradoxes found in physics and metaphysics. We conclude that in light of its theoretical and explanatory advantages, Countabilism is more likely true than not. (shrink)

This paper presents and defends an argument that the continuum hypothesis is false, based on considerations about objective chance and an old theorem due to Banach and Kuratowski. More specifically, I argue that the probabilistic inductive methods standardly used in science presuppose that every proposition about the outcome of a chancy process has a certain chance between 0 and 1. I also argue in favour of the standard view that chances are countably additive. Since it is possible to randomly pick (...) out a point on a continuum, for instance using a roulette wheel or by flipping a countable infinity of fair coins, it follows, given the axioms of ZFC, that there are many different cardinalities between countable infinity and the cardinality of the continuum. (shrink)

The interaction between large cardinals, determinacy of two-person perfect information games, and inner model theory has been a singularly powerful driving force in modern set theory during the last three decades. For the outsider the intellectual excitement is often tempered by the somewhat daunting technicalities, and the seeming length of study needed to understand the flow of ideas. The purpose of this article is to try and give a short, albeit rather rough, guide to the broad lines of development.

We show that for all natural numbers n, the theory “ZF + DC $_{\aleph_n}$ + $\aleph_{\omega}$ is a Rowbottom cardinal carrying a Rowbottom filter” has the same consistency strength as the theory “ZFC + There exists a measurable cardinal”. In addition, we show that the theory “ZF + $\aleph_{\omega_1}$ is an ω 2-Rowbottom cardinal carrying an ω 2-Rowbottom filter and ω 1 is regular” has the same consistency strength as the theory “ZFC + There exist ω 1 measurable cardinals”. We (...) also discuss some generalizations of these results. (shrink)

In this article, as implied by the title, I intend to argue for the unattainability of Cantor’s Absolute at least in terms of the proof-theoretical means of set-theory and of the theory of large cardinals. For this reason a significant part of the article is a critical review of the progress of set-theory and of mathematical foundations toward resolving problems which to the one or the other degree are associated with the concept of infinity especially the one beyond that of (...) the natural intuition of natural numbers. Naturally the review includes the foundation and development of the theory of large cardinals, especially after Cohen’s revolutionary introduction of the forcing method, insofar as it paved the way toward a transcendence of the delimitative character of Gödel’s constructible universe L and further toward ever stronger infinity assumptions. Given that Cantor in his theory of transfinite numbers defined the mathematical absolute in ontological rather than concrete mathematical terms, I proceed in the last section to a philosophical discussion with certain prompts from phenomenology regarding the transposability of the formal conception of the infinite to the level of subjective constitution and argue in these terms on the infeasibility of acceding to an ‘absolute’ infinite cardinality. Of course the argumentation is strongly based on a view of the set-theoretical universe V of von Neumann’s cumulative hierarchy as a formal representative of the essential traits one would seek from a model of Cantor’s Absolute. It is also based on the conclusions reached from the whole discussion within the context of formal-theoretical structures as such. (shrink)

Jech and Shelah in J Symb Log, 55, 822–830 (1990) studied full reflection below ${\aleph_\omega}$ , and produced a model in which the extent of full reflection is maximal in a certain sense. We produce a model in which full reflection is maximised in a different direction.

A question of Woodin asks if $\kappa$ is strongly compact and GCH holds for all cardinals $\delta < \kappa$ , then must GCH hold everywhere. We get a negative answer to Woodin's question in the context of the negation of the Axiom of Choice.

We establish two theorems concerning strongly compact cardinals and universal indestructibility for degrees of supercompactness. In the first theorem, we show that universal indestructibility for degrees of supercompactness in the presence of a strongly compact cardinal is consistent with the existence of a proper class of measurable cardinals. In the second theorem, we show that universal indestructibility for degrees of supercompactness is consistent in the presence of two non-supercompact strongly compact cardinals, each of which exhibits a significant amount of indestructibility (...) for its strong compactness. (shrink)

The purpose of this article is to explain why I believe that the Continuum Hypothesis (CH) is not a definite mathematical problem. My reason for that is that the concept of arbitrary set essential to its formulation is vague or underdetermined and there is no way to sharpen it without violating what it is supposed to be about. In addition, there is considerable circumstantial evidence to support the view that CH is not definite.

We prove three theorems concerning Laver indestructibility, strong compactness, and measurability. We then state some related open questions.

Suppose λ > κ is measurable. We show that if κ is either indestructibly supercompact or indestructibly strong, then A = {δ < κ | δ is measurable, yet δ is neither δ + strongly compact nor a limit of measurable cardinals} must be unbounded in κ. The large cardinal hypothesis on λ is necessary, as we further demonstrate by constructing via forcing two models in which ${A = \emptyset}$ . The first of these contains a supercompact cardinal κ and (...) is such that no cardinal δ > κ is measurable, κ’s supercompactness is indestructible under κ-directed closed, (κ +, ∞)-distributive forcing, and every measurable cardinal δ < κ is δ + strongly compact. The second of these contains a strong cardinal κ and is such that no cardinal δ > κ is measurable, κ’s strongness is indestructible under < κ-strategically closed, (κ +, ∞)-distributive forcing, and level by level inequivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness holds. The model from the first of our forcing constructions is used to show that it is consistent, relative to a supercompact cardinal, for the least cardinal κ which is both strong and has its strongness indestructible under κ-directed closed, (κ +, ∞)-distributive forcing to be the same as the least supercompact cardinal, which has its supercompactness indestructible under κ-directed closed, (κ +, ∞)-distributive forcing. It further follows as a corollary of the first of our forcing constructions that it is possible to build a model containing a supercompact cardinal κ in which no cardinal δ > κ is measurable, κ is indestructibly supercompact, and every measurable cardinal δ < κ which is not a limit of measurable cardinals is δ + strongly compact. (shrink)

We show that it is consistent, relative to n ∈ ω supercompact cardinals, for the strongly compact and measurable Woodin cardinals to coincide precisely. In particular, it is consistent for the first n strongly compact cardinals to be the first n measurable Woodin cardinals, with no cardinal above the n th strongly compact cardinal being measurable. In addition, we show that it is consistent, relative to a proper class of supercompact cardinals, for the strongly compact cardinals and the cardinals which (...) are both strong cardinals and Woodin cardinals to coincide precisely. We also show how the techniques employed can be used to prove additional theorems about possible relationships between Woodin cardinals and strongly compact cardinals. (shrink)

Combining techniques of the first author and Shelah with ideas of Magidor, we show how to get a model in which, for fixed but arbitrary finite n, the first n strongly compact cardinals κ 1 ,..., κ n are so that κ i for i = 1,..., n is both the i th measurable cardinal and κ + i supercompact. This generalizes an unpublished theorem of Magidor and answers a question of Apter and Shelah.

This is an article whose intended scope is to deal with the question of infinity in formal mathematics, mainly in the context of the theory of large cardinals as it has developed over time since Cantor’s introduction of the theory of transfinite numbers in the late nineteenth century. A special focus has been given to this theory’s interrelation with the forcing theory, introduced by P. Cohen in his lectures of 1963 and further extended and deepened since then, which leads to (...) a development and further refinement of the theory of large cardinals ultimately touching, especially in view of the discussion in the last section, on the metatheoretical nature of infinity. The whole undertaking, which takes into account major stages of the research in large cardinals theory, tries to present a defensible argumentation against an ontology of infinity actually rooted in the notion of subjectivity within the world. This means that rather than talking of a general ontology of infinity in the ideal platonic or in the aristotelian sense of potentiality, even in the alternative sense of an ontology of the event in A. Badiou’s sense, one can argue from a subjective point of view about the impossibility of defining cardinalities greater than the first uncountable one \ that would correspond to a distinct existence in real world terms or would be supported by a mathematical intuition in terms of reciprocity with experience. The argumentation from the particular standpoint includes also certain comments on the delimitative character of Gödel’s constructive universe L and the influence of the constructive approach in narrowing the breadth of an ‘ontology’ of infinity. (shrink)

We construct models containing exactly one supercompact cardinal in which level by level inequivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness holds. In each model, above the supercompact cardinal, there are finitely many strongly compact cardinals, and the strongly compact and measurable cardinals precisely coincide.

This is a critical analysis of the first part of Go¨del’s 1951 Gibbs lecture on certain philosophical consequences of the incompleteness theorems. Go¨del’s discussion is framed in terms of a distinction between objective mathematics and subjective mathematics, according to which the former consists of the truths of mathematics in an absolute sense, and the latter consists of all humanly demonstrable truths. The question is whether these coincide; if they do, no formal axiomatic system (or Turing machine) can comprehend the mathematizing (...) potentialities of human thought, and, if not, there are absolutely unsolvable mathematical problems of diophantine form. (shrink)

The article deals with the question of in which sense the notion of explanation can be applied to Kurt Gödel’s philosophy of mathematics. Gödel, as a mathematical realist, claims that in mathematics we are dealing with facts that have an objective character. One of these facts is the solvability of all well-formulated mathematical problems—and this fact requires a clarification. The assumptions on which Gödel’s position is based are: metaphysical realism: there is a mathematical universe, it is objective and independent of (...) us; epistemological optimism: we are equipped with sufficient cognitive power to gain insight into the universe. Gödel’s concept of a solution to a mathematical problem is much broader than of a mathematical proof—it is rather about finding reliable axioms that lead to a solution of the problem. I analyse the problem presented in the article, taking as an example the continuum hypothesis. (shrink)

Azriel Levy did fundamental work in set theory when it was transmuting into a modern, sophisticated field of mathematics, a formative period of over a decade straddling Cohen’s 1963 founding of forcing. The terms “Levy collapse”, “Levy hierarchy”, and “Levy absoluteness” will live on in set theory, and his technique of relative constructibility and connections established between forcing and definability will continue to be basic to the subject. What follows is a detailed account and analysis of Levy’s work and contributions (...) to set theory. (shrink)

It is known that if $\kappa < \lambda$ are such that κ is indestructibly supercompact and λ is 2λ supercompact, then level by level equivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness fails. We prove a theorem which points towards this result being best possible. Specifically, we show that relative to the existence of a supercompact cardinal, there is a model for level by level equivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness containing a supercompact cardinal κ in which κ’s strong compactness is indestructible (...) under κ-directed closed forcing. (shrink)

We construct a model for the level by level equivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness in which below the least supercompact cardinal κ, there is a stationary set of cardinals on which SCH fails. In this model, the structure of the class of supercompact cardinals can be arbitrary.

Although the case for the judgment-dependence of many other domains has been pored over, surprisingly little attention has been paid to mathematics and logic. This paper presents two dilemmas for a judgment-dependent account of these areas. First, the extensionality-substantiality dilemma: in each case, either the judgment-dependent account is extensionally inadequate or it cannot meet the substantiality condition (roughly: non-vacuous specification). Second, the extensionality-extremality dilemma: in each case, either the judgment-dependent account is extensionally inadequate or it cannot meet the extremality condition (...) (roughly: absence of independent explanation). The paper concludes with a moral concerning the judgment-dependence of a posteriori areas of discourse that emerges from consideration of these two a priori cases. (shrink)

A question of Woodin asks if κ is strongly compact and GCH holds below κ, then must GCH hold everywhere? One variant of this question asks if κ is strongly compact and GCH fails at every regular cardinal δ < κ, then must GCH fail at some regular cardinal δ ≥ κ? Another variant asks if it is possible for GCH to fail at every limit cardinal less than or equal to a strongly compact cardinal κ. We get a negative (...) answer to the first of these questions and positive answers to the second of these questions for a supercompact cardinal κ in the context of the absence of the full Axiom of Choice. (shrink)

We show that the theories “ZFC \ There is a supercompact cardinal” and “ZFC \ There is a supercompact cardinal \ Level by level inequivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness holds” are equiconsistent.

Artykuł dotyczy zagadnienia, w jakim sensie można stosować kategorię wyjaśnienia do interpretacji filozofii matematyki Kurta Gödla. Gödel – jako realista matematyczny – twierdzi bowiem, że w wypadku matematyki mamy do czynienia z niezależnymi od nas faktami. Jednym z owych faktów jest właśnie rozwiązywalność wszystkich dobrze postawionych problemów matematycznych – i ten fakt domaga się wyjaśnienia. Kluczem do zrozumienia stanowiska Gödla jest identyfikacja założeń, na których się opiera: metafizyczny realizm: istnieje uniwersum matematyczne, ma ono charakter obiektywny, niezależny od nas; optymizm epistemologiczny: (...) jesteśmy wyposażeni w wystarczająco dobre środki poznawcze, aby uzyskać wgląd w owo uniwersum. Pojęcie rozwiązania problemu matematycznego Gödel rozumie znacznie szerzej niż jako podanie matematycznego dowodu – chodzi raczej o znalezienie wiarogodnych aksjomatów, prowadzących do rozwiązania. Stawiany w artykule problem analizuję na przykładzie hipotezy kontinuum. (shrink)