Patrick Suppes Axiomatic Set Theory Pdf
Lupita Calvi
I've read 'Axiomatic Set Theory' by Patrick Suppes, and one thing I've noticed throughout is that he seems to be obsessed with definitions, and he tries to allow for urelements. Is this standard for ZFC?
I thought in general when we say 'set' in ZFC we really mean 'pure set', and so avoid having to worry about individuals. In addition I've never seen such a fuss over definitions in any other mathematical book I've read, is this something I should get used to in Set Theory?
The Zermelo set theory of 1908 included urelements. It was soon realized that in the context of this and closely related axiomatic set theories, the urelements were not needed because they can easily be modeled in a set theory without urelements. Thus standard expositions of the canonical axiomatic set theories ZF and ZFC do not mention urelements (For an exception, see Suppes).
Keep in mind that Suppe's book was written in the late 1950s (from his lecture notes), so the style and nomenclature are indeed a bit archaic and at times even perhaps chaotic. The book is considered to be quite difficult, and many universities only use it at the graduate level. As per my current understanding, the heavy emphasis on definitions and terminology which you alluded to are indeed commonplace in the ZFC formulation, but not so much in the von Neumann construction (which the author mentions in passing). I have been working with "Axiomatic Set Theory" for years and still have not really completed it, so you are not the only one who finds it hard going. As to whether you really need it depends on your goal, I suppose. Mine is topology, and in this regard I think Suppes' approach, difficult though it seems, represents a a good adjunct.
One of the most pressingproblems of mathematics over the last hundred years has been the question: What is a number? One of the most impressive answers has been the axiomatic development of set theory. The question raised is: "Exactly what assumptions, beyond those of elementary logic, are required as a basis for modern mathematics?" Answering this question by means of the Zermelo-Fraenkel system, Professor Suppes' coverage is the best treatment of axiomatic set theory for the mathematics student on the upper undergraduate or graduate level.
The opening chapter covers the basic paradoxes and the history of set theory and provides a motivation for the study. The second and third chapters cover the basic definitions and axioms and the theory of relations and functions. Beginning with the fourth chapter, equipollence, finite sets and cardinal numbers are dealt with. Chapter five continues the development with finite ordinals and denumerable sets. Chapter six, on rational numbers and real numbers, has been arranged so that it can be omitted without loss of continuity. In chapter seven, transfinite induction and ordinal arithmetic are introduced and the system of axioms is revised. The final chapter deals with the axiom of choice. Throughout, emphasis is on axioms and theorems; proofs are informal. Exercises supplement the text. Much coverage is given to intuitive ideas as well as to comparative development of other systems of set theory. Although a degree of mathematical sophistication is necessary, especially for the final two chapters, no previous work in mathematical logic or set theory is required.
For the student of mathematics, set theory is necessary for the proper understanding of the foundations of mathematics. Professor Suppes in Axiomatic Set Theory provides a very clear and well-developed approach. For those with more than a classroom interest in set theory, the historical references and the coverage of the rationale behind the axioms will provide a strong background to the major developments in the field. 1960 edition.
Patrick Suppes, the Lucie Stern Professor of Philosophy, Emeritus, and a member of the departments of Statistics and Psychology and of the Graduate School of Education, died peacefully at his home on the Stanford campus on Nov. 17 at the age of 92.
In particular, although Suppes, like his older Harvard contemporary W. V. Quine, drew deeply on the tradition of American pragmatism and empiricism, Suppes combined his logico-mathematical efforts with detailed attention to the empirical sciences in a way that was both entirely novel and extremely fruitful.
Suppes applied the profits from this enterprise as a leading donor to educational activities at Stanford that he was especially committed to supporting and encouraging. These include the endowment of the Patrick Suppes Family Professorship in the School of Humanities and Sciences (1990), the endowment of the Patrick Suppes Center for the History and Philosophy of Science (2004) and the building of Nora Suppes Hall as an annex to the Center for the Study of Language and Information (2005).
After his official retirement from Stanford in 1992, Suppes continued to pursue his interests and activities with undiminished energy and enthusiasm. He offered advanced seminars on an astonishing range of topics, often co-taught with other eminent Stanford faculty, with the last one offered in spring quarter of 2014.
Beginning in the late 1990s he pursued a new program of research in psychology and neuroscience that involved studying brain waves with EEGs and modeling associative learning by resonances between harmonic oscillators. He founded the Suppes Brain Lab for developing this program at Stanford and obtained significant empirical results on linguistic learning in accordance with these models that were published in leading neurophysiological journals, including one of the last papers he published (together with his co-workers) in 2014.
This year also saw the publication of an axiomatic treatment of probability theory on which he had worked for many years, based on the qualitative concepts of comparative probability, independence and comparative uncertainty, in the Journal of Mathematical Psychology.
The result will be a forthcoming volume edited by Colleen Crangle, Adolfo Garca de la Sienra and Helen Longino, Foundations and Methods from Mathematics to Neuroscience: Essays Inspired by Patrick Suppes, an advance copy of which is to be laid in his casket.
Patrick Suppes, Lucie Stern Professor of Philosophy Emeritus, member of the Departments of Statistics and Psychology, and of the School of Education, died peacefully at his home on the Stanford campus on November 17 at the age of 92.
Born in Tulsa, Oklahoma on March 17, 1922, Suppes attended the University of Tulsa and the University of Oklahoma. In 1943 he was called to active duty in the Army Reserve and graduated as a 2nd Lieutenant with a B.S. in meteorology from the University of Chicago. In the years 1943-1946 he served as an army meteorologist in the Pacific theater, eventually attaining the rank of Captain. After the war he pursued a Ph.D. in Philosophy at Columbia University and graduated with a dissertation written under the eminent philosopher of science Ernest Nagel in 1950.
After his official retirement from Stanford in 1992 Suppes continued to pursue his interests and activities with undiminished energy and enthusiasm. He offered advanced seminars on an astonishing range of topics, often co-taught with other eminent Stanford faculty, with the last one offered in the Spring Quarter of 2014. Beginning in the late 1990s he pursued a new program of research in psychology and neuroscience that involved studying brain waves with EEGs and modeling associative learning by resonances between harmonic oscillators. He founded the Suppes Brain Lab for developing this program at Stanford and obtained significant empirical results on linguistic learning in accordance with these models that were published in leading neurophysiological journals, including one of the last papers he published (together with his co-workers) in 2014. This year also saw the publication of an axiomatic treatment of probability theory on which he had worked for many years, based on the qualitative concepts of comparative probability, independence, and comparative uncertainty, in the Journal of Mathematical Psychology.
Straightforward as the task may seem, there are however at leasttwo ways in which the concept of approximation can beunderstood. Suppose that \(T\) is a physical theory that is based onclassical geometry. Then an approximation to \(T\) can mean twodifferent things:
The most important thing to take into account is, given aparticular proposal for a discrete geometry, what the scientificand/or philosophical background is of the author(s) and, related tothat, what their intentions are. Are they logicians, mathematicians,computer scientists, physicists or philosophers (to list the five mostfrequently occurring cases)? Do they want to solve a mere technical, aphysical or a philosophical problem? Are they worried aboutfoundational aspects or is the object of their research to furtherdevelop existing theories? It is worthwhile to go into some moredetail for each of the five types of author(s) mentioned to illustratethese questions.
Logicians are often interested in displaying the underlying logicalstructure of a theory, physical or mathematical, and in exploringwhether or not there are alternatives, usually by changing theunderlying logical principles. One could imagine a geometry based noton classical logic, but, e.g., on intuitionistic logic, whereprinciples such as the excluded third, i.e., \(p\) or not-\(p\), forany statement \(p\), or double negation, i.e., if not-not-\(p\) then\(p\), no longer hold. Often the goal is to find a completeclassification of all possibilities. This approach implies that thelogician working on and developing discrete models, does notnecessarily believe that these models are correct or true in somesense. They merely help to understand better what classical geometryis.
From the historical perspective, it must be added that on and offsome physicist tried to find out what discrete counterparts ofexisting classical physical theories could look like. Usually thephilosophical underpinnings of such an attempt tend to be ratheridiosyncratic. In section 2 one suchexample will be presented. Typically such attempts did not create amajor stir, they quickly disappeared into the background, butnevertheless they do contain some interesting and relevant ideas.
c80f0f1006