The set-theoretic multiverse
Satisfaction is not absolute
- J. D. Hamkins and R. Yang, “Satisfaction is not absolute,” , pp. 1-34. (manuscript under review)
Citation arχiv
@ARTICLE{HamkinsYang:SatisfactionIsNotAbsolute, author = {Joel David Hamkins and Ruizhi Yang}, title = {Satisfaction is not absolute}, journal = {}, year = {}, volume = {}, number = {}, pages = {1--34}, month = {}, note = {manuscript under review}, abstract = {}, keywords = {}, source = {}, eprint = {1312.0670}, url = {jdh.hamkins.org/satisfaction-is-not-absolute}, doi = {}, }
$\newcommand\N{\mathbb{N}}\newcommand\satisfies{\models}$
Abstract. We prove that the satisfaction relation $\mathcal{N}\satisfies\varphi[\vec a]$ of first-order logic is not absolute between models of set theory having the structure $\mathcal{N}$ and the formulas $\varphi$ all in common. Two models of set theory can have the same natural numbers, for example, and the same standard model of arithmetic $\langle\N,{+},{\cdot},0,1,{\lt}\rangle$, yet disagree on their theories of arithmetic truth; two models of set theory can have the same natural numbers and the same arithmetic truths, yet disagree on their truths-about-truth, at any desired level of the iterated truth-predicate hierarchy; two models of set theory can have the same natural numbers and the same reals, yet disagree on projective truth; two models of set theory can have the same $\langle H_{\omega_2},{\in}\rangle$ or the same rank-initial segment $\langle V_\delta,{\in}\rangle$, yet disagree on which assertions are true in these structures.
On the basis of these mathematical results, we argue that a philosophical commitment to the determinateness of the theory of truth for a structure cannot be seen as a consequence solely of the determinateness of the structure in which that truth resides. The determinate nature of arithmetic truth, for example, is not a consequence of the determinate nature of the arithmetic structure $\N=\{ 0,1,2,\ldots\}$ itself, but rather, we argue, is an additional higher-order commitment requiring its own analysis and justification.
Many mathematicians and philosophers regard the natural numbers $0,1,2,\ldots\,$, along with their usual arithmetic structure, as having a privileged mathematical existence, a Platonic realm in which assertions have definite, absolute truth values, independently of our ability to prove or discover them. Although there are some arithmetic assertions that we can neither prove nor refute—such as the consistency of the background theory in which we undertake our proofs—the view is that nevertheless there is a fact of the matter about whether any such arithmetic statement is true or false in the intended interpretation. The definite nature of arithmetic truth is often seen as a consequence of the definiteness of the structure of arithmetic $\langle\N,{+},{\cdot},0,1,{\lt}\rangle$ itself, for if the natural numbers exist in a clear and distinct totality in a way that is unambiguous and absolute, then (on this view) the first-order theory of truth residing in that structure—arithmetic truth—is similarly clear and distinct.Feferman provides an instance of this perspective when he writes (Feferman 2013, Comments for EFI Workshop, p. 6-7) :
In my view, the conception [of the bare structure of the natural numbers] is completely clear, and thence all arithmetical statements are definite.
It is Feferman’s `thence’ to which we call attention. Martin makes a similar point (Martin, 2012, Completeness or incompleteness of basic mathematical concepts):
What I am suggesting is that the real reason for confidence in first-order completeness is our confidence in the full determinateness of the concept of the natural numbers.
Many mathematicians and philosophers seem to share this perspective. The truth of an arithmetic statement, to be sure, does seem to depend entirely on the structure $\langle\N,{+},{\cdot},0,1,{\lt}\rangle$, with all quantifiers restricted to $\N$ and using only those arithmetic operations and relations, and so if that structure has a definite nature, then it would seem that the truth of the statement should be similarly definite.
Nevertheless, in this article we should like to tease apart these two ontological commitments, arguing that the definiteness of truth for a given mathematical structure, such as the natural numbers, the reals or higher-order structures such as $H_{\omega_2}$ or $V_\delta$, does not follow from the definite nature of the underlying structure in which that truth resides. Rather, we argue that the commitment to a theory of truth for a structure is a higher-order ontological commitment, going strictly beyond the commitment to a definite nature for the underlying structure itself.We make our argument in part by proving that different models of set theory can have a structure identically in common, even the natural numbers, yet disagree on the theory of truth for that structure.
Theorem.
- Two models of set theory can have the same structure of arithmetic $$\langle\N,{+},{\cdot},0,1,{\lt}\rangle^{M_1}=\langle\N,{+},{\cdot},0,1,{\lt}\rangle^{M_2},$$yet disagree on the theory of arithmetic truth.
- Two models of set theory can have the same natural numbers and a computable linear order in common, yet disagree about whether it is a well-order.
- Two models of set theory that have the same natural numbers and the same reals, yet disagree on projective truth.
- Two models of set theory can have a transitive rank initial segment in common $$\langle V_\delta,{\in}\rangle^{M_1}=\langle V_\delta,{\in}\rangle^{M_2},$$yet disagree about whether it is a model of ZFC.
The proofs use only elementary classical methods, and might be considered to be a part of the folklore of the subject of models of arithmetic. The paper includes many further examples of the phenomenon, and concludes with a philosophical discussion of the issue of definiteness, concerning the question of whether one may deduce definiteness-of-truth from definiteness-of-objects and definiteness-of-structure.- J. D. Hamkins and R. Yang, “Satisfaction is not absolute,” , pp. 1-34. (manuscript under review)
Superstrong and other large cardinals are never Laver indestructible
- J. Bagaria, J. D. Hamkins, K. Tsaprounis, and T. Usuba, “Superstrong and other large cardinals are never Laver indestructible,” to appear in Archive for Mathematical Logic (special issue in honor of Richard Laver).
Citation arχiv
@ARTICLE{BagariaHamkinsTsaprounisUsuba:SuperstrongAndOtherLargeCardinalsAreNeverLaverIndestructible, author = {Joan Bagaria and Joel David Hamkins and Konstantinos Tsaprounis and Toshimichi Usuba}, title = {Superstrong and other large cardinals are never {Laver} indestructible}, journal = {to appear in Archive for Mathematical Logic (special issue in honor of Richard Laver)}, year = {}, volume = {}, number = {}, pages = {}, month = {}, note = {}, abstract = {}, keywords = {}, eprint = {1307.3486}, url = {jdh.hamkins.org/superstrong-never-indestructible/}, comment = {jdh.hamkins.org/superstrong-never-indestructible/}, source = {}, }
Abstract. Superstrong cardinals are never Laver indestructible. Similarly, almost huge cardinals, huge cardinals, superhuge cardinals, rank-into-rank cardinals, extendible cardinals, $1$-extendible cardinals, $0$-extendible cardinals, weakly superstrong cardinals, uplifting cardinals, pseudo-uplifting cardinals, superstrongly unfoldable cardinals, $\Sigma_n$-reflecting cardinals, $\Sigma_n$-correct cardinals and $\Sigma_n$-extendible cardinals (all for $n\geq 3$) are never Laver indestructible. In fact, all these large cardinal properties are superdestructible: if $\kappa$ exhibits any of them, with corresponding target $\theta$, then in any forcing extension arising from nontrivial strategically ${\lt}\kappa$-closed forcing $\mathbb{Q}\in V_\theta$, the cardinal $\kappa$ will exhibit none of the large cardinal properties with target $\theta$ or larger.
The large cardinal indestructibility phenomenon, occurring when certain preparatory forcing makes a given large cardinal become necessarily preserved by any subsequent forcing from a large class of forcing notions, is pervasive in the large cardinal hierarchy. The phenomenon arose in Laver’s seminal result that any supercompact cardinal $\kappa$ can be made indestructible by ${\lt}\kappa$-directed closed forcing. It continued with the Gitik-Shelah treatment of strong cardinals; the universal indestructibility of Apter and myself, which produced simultaneous indestructibility for all weakly compact, measurable, strongly compact, supercompact cardinals and others; the lottery preparation, which applies generally to diverse large cardinals; work of Apter, Gitik and Sargsyan on indestructibility and the large-cardinal identity crises; the indestructibility of strongly unfoldable cardinals; the indestructibility of Vopenka’s principle; and diverse other treatments of large cardinal indestructibility. Based on these results, one might be tempted to the general conclusion that all the usual large cardinals can be made indestructible.
In this article, my co-authors and I temper that temptation by proving that certain kinds of large cardinals cannot be made nontrivially indestructible. Superstrong cardinals, we prove, are never Laver indestructible. Consequently, neither are almost huge cardinals, huge cardinals, superhuge cardinals, rank-into-rank cardinals, extendible cardinals and $1$-extendible cardinals, to name a few. Even the $0$-extendible cardinals are never indestructible, and neither are weakly superstrong cardinals, uplifting cardinals, pseudo-uplifting cardinals, strongly uplifting cardinals, superstrongly unfoldable cardinals, $\Sigma_n$-reflecting cardinals, $\Sigma_n$-correct cardinals and $\Sigma_n$-extendible cardinals, when $n\geq 3$. In fact, all these large cardinal properties are superdestructible, in the sense that if $\kappa$ exhibits any of them, with corresponding target $\theta$, then in any forcing extension arising from nontrivial strategically ${\lt}\kappa$-closed forcing $\mathbb{Q}\in V_\theta$, the cardinal $\kappa$ will exhibit none of the large cardinal properties with target $\theta$ or larger. Many quite ordinary forcing notions, which one might otherwise have expected to fall under the scope of an indestructibility result, will definitely ruin all these large cardinal properties. For example, adding a Cohen subset to any cardinal $\kappa$ will definitely prevent it from being superstrong—as well as preventing it from being uplifting, $\Sigma_3$-correct, $\Sigma_3$-extendible and so on with all the large cardinal properties mentioned above—in the forcing extension.
Main Theorem.
- Superstrong cardinals are never Laver indestructible.
- Consequently, almost huge, huge, superhuge and rank-into-rank cardinals are never Laver indestructible.
- Similarly, extendible cardinals, $1$-extendible and even $0$-extendible cardinals are never Laver indestructible.
- Uplifting cardinals, pseudo-uplifting cardinals, weakly superstrong cardinals, superstrongly unfoldable cardinals and strongly uplifting cardinals are never Laver indestructible.
- $\Sigma_n$-reflecting and indeed $\Sigma_n$-correct cardinals, for each finite $n\geq 3$, are never Laver indestructible.
- Indeed—the strongest result here, because it is the weakest notion—$\Sigma_3$-extendible cardinals are never Laver indestructible.
In fact, each of these large cardinal properties is superdestructible. Namely, if $\kappa$ exhibits any of them, with corresponding target $\theta$, then in any forcing extension arising from nontrivial strategically ${\lt}\kappa$-closed forcing $\mathbb{Q}\in V_\theta$, the cardinal $\kappa$ will exhibit none of the mentioned large cardinal properties with target $\theta$ or larger.
The proof makes use of a detailed analysis of the complexity of the definition of the ground model in the forcing extension. These results are, to my knowledge, the first applications of the ideas of set-theoretic geology not making direct references to set-theoretically geological concerns.
Theorem 10 in the article answers (the main case of) a question I had posed on MathOverflow, namely, Can a model of set theory be realized as a Cohen-subset forcing extension in two different ways, with different grounds and different cardinals? I had been specifically interested there to know whether a cardinal $\kappa$ necessarily becomes definable after adding a Cohen subset to it, and theorem 10 shows indeed that it does: after adding a Cohen subset to a cardinal, it becomes $\Sigma_3$-definable in the extension, and this fact can be seen as explaining the main theorem above.
Related MO question | CUNY talk
- J. Bagaria, J. D. Hamkins, K. Tsaprounis, and T. Usuba, “Superstrong and other large cardinals are never Laver indestructible,” to appear in Archive for Mathematical Logic (special issue in honor of Richard Laver).
A multiverse perspective on the axiom of constructiblity
- J. D. Hamkins, “A multiverse perspective on the axiom of constructibility, in Infinity and Truth.” , 2013, vol. 25.
Citation arχiv
@INBOOK{Hamkins2013:MultiverseOnVeqL, author = {Joel David Hamkins}, editor = {}, title = {A multiverse perspective on the axiom of constructibility, in Infinity and Truth}, chapter = {}, pages = {}, publisher = {}, year = {2013}, volume = {25}, number = {}, series = {IMS Lecture Note Series, NUS}, type = {}, address = {}, edition = {}, month = {}, note = {}, abstract = {}, keywords = {}, url = {arxiv.org/abs/1210.6541}, eprint = {1210.6541}, doi = {}, }
This article expands on an argument that I made during my talk at the Asian Initiative for Infinity: Workshop on Infinity and Truth, held July 25–29, 2011 at the Institute for Mathematical Sciences, National University of Singapore, and will be included in a proceedings volume that is being prepared for that conference.
Abstract. I argue that the commonly held $V\neq L$ via maximize position, which rejects the axiom of constructibility $V=L$ on the basis that it is restrictive, implicitly takes a stand in the pluralist debate in the philosophy of set theory by presuming an absolute background concept of ordinal. The argument appears to lose its force, in contrast, on an upwardly extensible concept of set, in light of the various facts showing that models of set theory generally have extensions to models of $V=L$ inside larger set-theoretic universes.
In section two, I provide a few new criticisms of Maddy’s proposed concept of `restrictive’ theories, pointing out that her concept of fairly interpreted in is not a transitive relation: there is a first theory that is fairly interpreted in a second, which is fairly interpreted in a third, but the first is not fairly interpreted in the third. The same example (and one can easily construct many similar natural examples) shows that neither the maximizes over relation, nor the properly maximizes over relation, nor the strongly maximizes over relation is transitive. In addition, the theory ZFC + `there are unboundedly many inaccessible cardinals’ comes out as formally restrictive, since it is strongly maximized by the theory ZF + `there is a measurable cardinal, with no worldly cardinals above it’.
To support the main philosophical thesis of the article, I survey a series of mathemtical results, which reveal various senses in which the axiom of constructibility $V=L$ is compatible with strength in set theory, particularly if one has in mind the possibility of moving from one universe of set theory to a much larger one. Among them are the following, which I prove or sketch in the article:
Observation. The constructible universe $L$ and $V$ agree on the consistency of any constructible theory. They have models of the same constructible theories.
Theorem. The constructible universe $L$ and $V$ have transitive models of exactly the same constructible theories in the language of set theory.
Corollary. (Levy-Shoenfield absoluteness theorem) In particular, $L$ and $V$ satisfy the same $\Sigma_1$ sentences, with parameters hereditarily countable in $L$. Indeed, $L_{\omega_1^L}$ and $V$ satisfy the same such sentences.
Theorem. Every countable transitive set is a countable transitive set in the well-founded part of an $\omega$-model of V=L.
Theorem. If there are arbitrarily large $\lambda<\omega_1^L$ with $L_\lambda\models\text{ZFC}$, then every countable transitive set $M$ is a countable transitive set inside a structure $M^+$ that is a pointwise-definable model of ZFC + V=L, and $M^+$ is well founded as high in the countable ordinals as desired.
Theorem. (Barwise) Every countable model of ZF has an end-extension to a model of ZFC + V=L.
Theorem. (Hamkins, see here) Every countable model of set theory $\langle M,{\in^M}\rangle$, including every transitive model, is isomorphic to a submodel of its own constructible universe $\langle L^M,{\in^M}\rangle$. In other words, there is an embedding $j:M\to L^M$, which is elementary for quantifier-free assertions.
Another way to say this is that every countable model of set theory is a submodel of a model isomorphic to $L^M$. If we lived inside $M$, then by adding new sets and elements, our universe could be transformed into a copy of the constructible universe $L^M$.
(Plus, the article contains some nice diagrams.)
Related Singapore links:
- The Multiverse view in set theory
- A question for the mathematics oracle
- J. D. Hamkins, “A multiverse perspective on the axiom of constructibility, in Infinity and Truth.” , 2013, vol. 25.
A question for the mathematics oracle
At the Workshop on Infinity and Truth in Singapore last year, we had a special session in which the speakers were asked to imagine that they had been granted an audience with an all-knowing mathematical oracle, given the opportunity to ask a single yes-or-no question, to be truthfully answered. These questions will be gathered together and published in the conference volume. Here is my account.
A question for the mathematics oracle
Joel David Hamkins, The City University of New York
Granted an audience with an all-knowing mathematics oracle, we may ask a single yes-or-no question, to be truthfully answered……
I might mischievously ask the question my six-year-old daughter Hypatia often puts to our visitors: “Answer yes or no. Will you answer `no’?” They stammer, caught in the liar paradox, as she giggles. But my actual question is:
Are we correct in thinking we have an absolute concept of the finite?
An absolute concept of the finite underlies many mathematician’s understanding of the nature of mathematical truth. Most mathematicians, for example, believe that we have an absolute concept of the finite, which determines the natural numbers as a unique mathematical structure—$0,1,2,$ and so on—in which arithmetic assertions have definitive truth values. We can prove after all that the second-order Peano axioms characterize $\langle\mathbb{N},S,0\rangle$ as the unique inductive structure, determined up to isomorphism by the fact that $0$ is not a successor, the successor function $S$ is one-to-one and every set containing $0$ and closed under $S$ is the whole of $\mathbb{N}$. And to be finite means simply to be equinumerous with a proper initial segment of this structure. Doesn’t this categoricity proof therefore settle the matter?
I don’t think so. The categoricity proof, which takes place in set theory, seems to my way of thinking merely to push the absoluteness question for finiteness off to the absoluteness question for sets instead. And surely this is a murkier realm, where already mathematicians do not universally agree that we have a single absolute background concept of set. We know by forcing and other means how to construct alternative set concepts, which seem fully as legitimate and set-theoretic as the set concepts from which they are derived. Thus, we have a plurality of set concepts, and our confidence in a unique absolute set-theoretic background is weakened. How then can we sensibly base our confidence in an absolute concept of the finite on set theory? Perhaps this absoluteness is altogether illusory.
My worries are put to rest if the oracle should answer positively. A negative answer, meanwhile, would raise alarms. A negative answer could indicate, on the one hand, that our understanding of the finite is simply incoherent, a catastrophe, where our cherished mathematical theories are all inconsistent. But, more likely in my view, a negative answer could also mean that there is an undiscovered plurality of concepts of the finite. I imagine technical developments arising that would provide us with tools to modify the arithmetic of a model of set theory, for example, with the same power and flexibility that forcing currently allows us to modify higher-order features, while not providing us with any reason to prefer one arithmetic to another (unlike our current methods with non-standard models). The discovery of such tools would be an amazing development in mathematics and lead to radical changes in our conception of mathematical truth.
Let’s have some fun—please post your question for the oracle in the comment fields below.
A question for the math oracle (pdf) | My talk at the Workshop
Moving up and down in the generic multiverse
- J. D. Hamkins and B. Löwe, “Moving up and down in the generic multiverse,” Logic and its Applications, ICLA 2013 LNCS, vol. 7750, pp. 139-147, 2013.
Journal Citation arχiv
@ARTICLE{HamkinsLoewe2013:MovingUpAndDownInTheGenericMultiverse, AUTHOR = {Joel David Hamkins and Benedikt L\"owe}, title = {Moving up and down in the generic multiverse}, journal = {Logic and its Applications, ICLA 2013 LNCS}, publisher={Springer Berlin Heidelberg}, editor={Lodaya, Kamal}, isbn={978-3-642-36038-1}, year = {2013}, volume = {7750}, number = {}, pages = {139--147}, doi={10.1007/978-3-642-36039-8_13}, month = {}, note = {}, url = {jdh.hamkins.org/up-and-down-in-the-generic-multiverse}, url = {arxiv.org/abs/1208.5061}, eprint = {1208.5061}, abstract = {}, keywords = {}, source = {}, }
In this extended abstract we investigate the modal logic of the generic multiverse, which is a bimodal logic with operators corresponding to the relations “is a forcing extension of”‘ and “is a ground model of”. The fragment of the first relation is the modal logic of forcing and was studied by us in earlier work. The fragment of the second relation is the modal logic of grounds and will be studied here for the first time. In addition, we discuss which combinations of modal logics are possible for the two fragments.
The main theorems are as follows:
Theorem. If ZFC is consistent, then there is a model of ZFC whose modal logic of forcing and modal logic of grounds are both S4.2.
Theorem. If the theory “$L_\delta\prec L+\delta$ is inaccessible” is consistent, then there is a model of set theory whose modal logic of forcing is S4.2 and whose modal logic of grounds is S5.
Theorem. If the theory “$L_\delta\prec L+\delta$ is inaccessible” is consistent, then there is a model of set theory whose modal logic of forcing is S5 and whose modal logic of grounds is S4.2.
Theorem. There is no model of set theory such that both its modal logic of forcing and its modal logic of grounds are S5.
The current article is a brief extended abstract (10 pages). A fuller account with more detailed proofs and further information will be provided in a subsequent articl
eprints: ar$\chi$iv | NI12059-SAS | Hamburg #450
- J. D. Hamkins and B. Löwe, “Moving up and down in the generic multiverse,” Logic and its Applications, ICLA 2013 LNCS, vol. 7750, pp. 139-147, 2013.
Structural connections between a forcing class and its modal logic
- J. D. Hamkins, G. Leibman, and B. Löwe, “Structural connections between a forcing class and its modal logic,” to appear in the Israel Journal of Mathematics, pp. 1-23.
Citation arχiv
@ARTICLE{HamkinsLeibmanLoewe:StructuralConnectionsForcingClassAndItsModalLogic, AUTHOR = {Joel David Hamkins and George Leibman and Benedikt L\"owe}, TITLE = {Structural connections between a forcing class and its modal logic}, JOURNAL = {to appear in the Israel Journal of Mathematics}, YEAR = {}, volume = {}, number = {}, pages = {1--23}, month = {}, note = {}, url = {arxiv.org/abs/1207.5841}, url = {jdh.hamkins.org/a-forcing-class-and-its-modal-logic}, eprint = {1207.5841}, abstract = {}, keywords = {}, source = {}, }
The modal logic of forcing arises when one considers a model of set theory in the context of all its forcing extensions, interpreting $\Box$ as “in all forcing extensions” and $\Diamond$ as “in some forcing extension”. In this modal language one may easily express sweeping general forcing principles, such as $\Diamond\Box\varphi\to\Box\Diamond\varphi$, the assertion that every possibly necessary statement is necessarily possible, which is valid for forcing, or $\Diamond\Box\varphi\to\varphi$, the assertion that every possibly necessary statement is true, which is the maximality principle, a forcing axiom independent of but equiconsistent with ZFC (see A simple maximality principle).
Every definable forcing class similarly gives rise to the corresponding forcing modalities, for which one considers extensions only by forcing notions in that class. In previous work, we proved that if ZFC is consistent, then the ZFC-provably valid principles of the class of all forcing are precisely the assertions of the modal theory S4.2 (see The modal logic of forcing). In this article, we prove that the provably valid principles of collapse forcing, Cohen forcing and other classes are in each case exactly S4.3; the provably valid principles of c.c.c. forcing, proper forcing, and others are each contained within S4.3 and do not contain S4.2; the provably valid principles of countably closed forcing, CH-preserving fo
- J. D. Hamkins, G. Leibman, and B. Löwe, “Structural connections between a forcing class and its modal logic,” to appear in the Israel Journal of Mathematics, pp. 1-23.