WHAT IS A RESTRICTIVE THEORY?

TOBY MEADOWS
{"title":"WHAT IS A RESTRICTIVE THEORY?","authors":"TOBY MEADOWS","doi":"10.1017/s1755020322000181","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In providing a good foundation for mathematics, set theorists often aim to develop the strongest theories possible and avoid those theories that place undue restrictions on the capacity to possess strength. For example, adding a measurable cardinal to <span>\n<span>\n<img data-mimesubtype=\"png\" data-type=\"\" src=\"https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20230109184254371-0886:S1755020322000181:S1755020322000181_inline1.png\"/>\n<span data-mathjax-type=\"texmath\"><span>\n$ZFC$\n</span></span>\n</span>\n</span> is thought to give a stronger theory than adding <span>\n<span>\n<img data-mimesubtype=\"png\" data-type=\"\" src=\"https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20230109184254371-0886:S1755020322000181:S1755020322000181_inline2.png\"/>\n<span data-mathjax-type=\"texmath\"><span>\n$V=L$\n</span></span>\n</span>\n</span> and the latter is thought to be more restrictive than the former. The two main proponents of this style of account are Penelope Maddy and John Steel. In this paper, I’ll offer a third account that is intended to provide a simple analysis of restrictiveness based on the algebraic concept of retraction in the category of theories. I will also deliver some results and arguments that suggest some plausible alternative approaches to analyzing restrictiveness do not live up to their intuitive motivation.</p>","PeriodicalId":501566,"journal":{"name":"The Review of Symbolic Logic","volume":"9 1","pages":"1-42"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Review of Symbolic Logic","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1755020322000181","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In providing a good foundation for mathematics, set theorists often aim to develop the strongest theories possible and avoid those theories that place undue restrictions on the capacity to possess strength. For example, adding a measurable cardinal to Abstract Image $ZFC$ is thought to give a stronger theory than adding Abstract Image $V=L$ and the latter is thought to be more restrictive than the former. The two main proponents of this style of account are Penelope Maddy and John Steel. In this paper, I’ll offer a third account that is intended to provide a simple analysis of restrictiveness based on the algebraic concept of retraction in the category of theories. I will also deliver some results and arguments that suggest some plausible alternative approaches to analyzing restrictiveness do not live up to their intuitive motivation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
什么是限制性理论?
在为数学提供一个良好的基础时,集合理论家通常旨在发展尽可能强大的理论,并避免那些对拥有力量的能力施加不当限制的理论。例如,在$ZFC$中添加一个可测量的基数被认为比添加$V=L$提供更强的理论,而后者被认为比前者更具限制性。这种解释方式的两个主要支持者是佩内洛普·曼迪和约翰·斯蒂尔。在本文中,我将提供第三个帐户,旨在提供一个基于理论范畴内收回的代数概念的限制性的简单分析。我还将提供一些结果和论点,这些结果和论点表明,分析限制性的一些看似合理的替代方法并不符合它们的直觉动机。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
ANSELM’S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT AND GRADES OF BEING WHEN NO PRICE IS RIGHT ON THE STRUCTURE OF BOCHVAR ALGEBRAS THE TEMPORAL CONTINUUM ARROW’S THEOREM, ULTRAFILTERS, AND REVERSE MATHEMATICS
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1