Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Reflection principle

In set theory, the reflection principle asserts that the set-theoretic universe ''V'' is reflected in its initial segments ''V''_α for certain ordinals α. Formally, the Lévy–Montague reflection principle is a theorem of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice (ZFC) stating that for any finite set of formulas {φ₁, …, φ_n} in the language of set theory, there exists a club class ''C'' of ordinals such that for every α in ''C'', ''V'' ⊨ φ_i(a₁,…,a_m) if and only if ''V''_α ⊨ φ_i(a₁,…,a_m) for all ''i'', where the ''a''_j are sets in ''V''_α.^[1] This principle, formulated by Azriel Lévy and Richard Montague around 1960, encapsulates the essence of ZFC: together with extensionality, separation, and foundation, it is equivalent to the full axioms of ZF set theory (without choice).^[1] Reflection principles motivate stronger axioms in set theory, such as those implying the existence of large cardinals, and have applications in proof theory and arithmetic.

Historical Development and Motivation

Origins in Paradoxes and Early Set Theory

Georg Cantor, the founder of set theory, encountered foundational paradoxes in his work on transfinite cardinals during the 1890s, which profoundly influenced the development of reflection principles. His diagonal argument, advanced in 1891, not only proved the uncountability of the real numbers but also revealed structural limitations in assuming a complete enumeration of sets, fostering early intuitions about the hierarchical and self-similar nature of the set-theoretic universe.^[2] These insights culminated in what is known as Cantor's paradox, articulated in his 1899 correspondence with Richard Dedekind, where he demonstrated that no set can contain all cardinalities, as the power set of any purported "set of all sets" would exceed it in size.^[3] This contradiction implied that the universal collection V of all sets cannot be a proper set, marking V as an "improper" totality and highlighting the need for principles to reflect properties across its stages without global inconsistencies.^[4] Ernst Zermelo's efforts to axiomatize set theory addressed these paradoxes, particularly Russell's paradox of 1901, by providing a controlled framework. In his 1908 paper, Zermelo introduced a system of axioms that restricted comprehension to avoid self-referential issues, emphasizing a well-ordered hierarchy of sets built from emptyset through separation and replacement-like operations.^[5] This axiomatization served as a precursor to reflection ideas by ensuring that sets are generated cumulatively, preventing the kind of universal pathologies Cantor had uncovered, and laying groundwork for viewing the universe as an infinite progression rather than a single totality.^[6] Zermelo revisited these themes in 1930, proposing a more dynamic model of the set-theoretic universe through his concept of boundary numbers (Grenzzahlen) and domains (Mengenbereiche). In this framework, he described the cumulative hierarchy as a sequence of models indexed by ordinals, where each stage approximates the full universe while reflecting its essential properties.^[7] Zermelo argued that to circumvent global definability problems and paradoxes, set theory requires informal reflection mechanisms, ensuring that no single stage fully captures the whole but that properties "reflect" downward to avoid attributing improper uniformity to V.^[8] Kurt Gödel extended these historical concerns in his work on the foundations of mathematics, emphasizing the indefinability of the true universe V within any formal system. He posited that V's inexhaustible nature—stemming from Cantor's paradoxes and Zermelo's hierarchies—renders it impossible to fully characterize. This perspective underscored the philosophical shift toward viewing set theory not as a closed domain but as an open-ended edifice.

Philosophical and Intuitive Foundations

The reflection principle in set theory draws a profound analogy to Gödel's incompleteness theorems, which demonstrate that no consistent formal system capable of expressing basic arithmetic can fully capture all truths about the natural numbers within itself. Just as arithmetic cannot be completely axiomatized without leaving some truths unprovable, the universe of all sets, denoted V, resists full axiomatization in any finitary theory, prompting reflection principles as a mechanism to approximate global truths through local validations in smaller substructures. This approach mitigates incompleteness by ensuring that soundness statements—asserting the truth of provable sentences—can be incorporated as new axioms, thereby extending the theory without contradiction.^[9]^[10] At its core, the intuitive principle underlying reflection posits that for any property definable in the language of set theory, its truth in the entire universe V is mirrored in sufficiently many elementary substructures, such as the initial segments V_α of the cumulative hierarchy. This ensures a kind of structural continuity, where V resembles its approximations in a way that prevents any first-order formula from uniquely characterizing the whole universe without also applying to these segments. Such resemblance underscores the iterative conception of sets, where the hierarchy builds ordinally without a definitive endpoint, making reflection a natural safeguard against over-idealized global assertions.^[11] Philosophically, reflection principles emerge as a "natural" axiom bridging finitary reasoning—rooted in concrete, constructive proofs—and the transfinite hierarchies of set theory, aligning with Georg Kreisel's 1960s advocacy for informal rigour as a method to rigorously analyze intuitive concepts like set membership and validity. Kreisel viewed reflection as essential for deriving precise axioms from informal notions, such as reflecting truths of the cumulative hierarchy to yield the axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, thereby resolving debates on foundational realism versus relativism in mid-20th-century analytic philosophy. This perspective positions reflection not as an ad hoc addition but as an embodiment of the ineffable richness of V, ensuring that no single formula can distinguish the universe from its set-sized approximations without invoking higher-order limitations.^[12]^[11]

Reflection in ZFC Set Theory

Formal Statement of the Lévy-Montague Principle

The Lévy–Montague reflection principle, provable as a theorem in Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice (ZFC), asserts that the universe of sets V is approximated by its initial segments in the cumulative hierarchy. Specifically, for any finite collection of formulas \phi_1(\mathbf{x}), \dots, \phi_n(\mathbf{x}) in the language of set theory (where \mathbf{x} = x_1, \dots, x_m) and any sets a_1, \dots, a_m \in V, there exists a limit ordinal \alpha such that V_\alpha \models \phi_i[a_1, \dots, a_m] \iff V \models \phi_i[a_1, \dots, a_m] for each i = 1, \dots, n, with all a_j \in V_\alpha.^[13] This biconditional ensures that truth for these formulas is preserved between the level V_\alpha and the entire universe V. A weaker, global version of the principle states that for any formula \phi(\mathbf{x}) and any a_1, \dots, a_m \in V, if V \models \phi[a_1, \dots, a_m], then there exists an ordinal \alpha such that V_\alpha \models \phi[a_1, \dots, a_m].^[14] This one-directional reflection captures the idea that every true statement in V is realized at some stage of the hierarchy. The principle applies within the cumulative hierarchy V = \bigcup_{\alpha \in \mathrm{Ord}} V_\alpha, where V_0 = \emptyset, V_{\beta+1} = \mathcal{P}(V_\beta), and V_\lambda = \bigcup_{\beta < \lambda} V_\beta for limit ordinals \lambda; its proof relies on ZFC's axioms of infinity (ensuring the existence of infinite ordinals) and replacement (facilitating the construction of higher levels).^[13] The principle provides reflecting models V_\alpha for limit ordinals \alpha, including uncountable ones, via ZFC alone. Countable elementary submodels are also guaranteed by the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem applied to transitive collapses of Skolem hulls.

Proof and Key Properties

The proof of the Lévy-Montague reflection principle in ZFC proceeds by transfinite induction on the syntactic complexity of the set-theoretic formulas, establishing that for any formula \phi(\mathbf{x}), the class of limit ordinals \alpha such that V_\alpha reflects \phi (meaning V \models \phi(a) if and only if V_\alpha \models \phi(a) for all \mathbf{a} \in V_\alpha) forms a closed unbounded (club) class in the ordinals.^[1] For atomic formulas, the reflecting class is all ordinals, as relativization preserves equality and membership. For Boolean combinations, the reflecting class is the intersection (or the same class) of those for the components, which remains club. For existential quantifiers \phi(\mathbf{x}) = \exists y \, \psi(\mathbf{x}, y), one uses the axiom of replacement to define, for each \mathbf{x}, the least rank where a witness y appears in the cumulative hierarchy, and then the supremum function F(\beta) = \sup \{ G(\mathbf{x}) \mid \mathbf{x} \in V_\beta \} over initial segments; the reflecting class is then the intersection of the class for \psi with the limit ordinals closed under F, ensuring witnesses remain internal to V_\alpha while preserving absoluteness of satisfaction under replacement.^[1] This inductive construction relies on the absoluteness of the truth definition for bounded quantifiers and the replacement schema to bound ranks of witnesses, yielding a club class by the closure properties of limit ordinals and unboundedness from the axiom of infinity.^[1] For a finite collection of formulas \{\phi_1, \dots, \phi_k\} comprising a finite fragment of ZFC, the set of ordinals \alpha where V_\alpha reflects all \phi_i simultaneously is the finite intersection of the individual club classes, which is itself club; thus, there are stationarily many such \alpha, and in particular, arbitrarily large ones.^[1] Mostowski collapse is not directly invoked in this core argument but supports the transitive nature of the V_\alpha models, as the cumulative hierarchy is well-founded by the axiom of foundation. Compactness enters indirectly via the finite axiomatizability of fragments, ensuring the reflection holds for any consistent finite subsystem without assuming global consistency.^[1] A key property of the principle is that it implies the existence of arbitrarily large ordinals \alpha such that V_\alpha satisfies any given finite fragment of ZFC, demonstrating that no single formula or finite set fully characterizes the universe V. As a corollary, ZFC proves the existence of transitive models of any finite subsystem of itself, namely the V_\alpha for sufficiently large \alpha in the corresponding club; this links to Skolem hulls, where the countable Skolem hull of V (or initial segments) yields countable elementary submodels reflecting finite fragments, facilitating downward Löwenheim-Skolem arguments within ZFC.^[1] For a fixed formula \phi, the reflection map associating to each ordinal \alpha the initial segment \{\beta < \alpha \mid V_\beta \text{ reflects } \phi\} yields a club set, as the full class of reflecting ordinals is club and closed under limits below \alpha.^[1]

Stronger Reflection Principles as Axioms

Implications for Large Cardinals

Stronger reflection principles, extending beyond the version provable in ZFC, function as axioms that assert the existence of large cardinals and form a hierarchy ordered by consistency strength, starting from principles equivalent to inaccessible cardinals and ascending to those comparable to supercompact cardinals.^[15] The global reflection principle states that for every formula φ in the language of set theory and parameters from V, there exists an inaccessible cardinal κ such that V_κ reflects φ. This principle is equivalent to the existence of inaccessible cardinals.^[15] Azriel Lévy in the 1960s and Paul Bernays in the 1930s developed enhanced reflection principles. Lévy's formulation, involving reflection of certain definable properties to initial segments, is equivalent to the existence of inaccessible cardinals. Bernays' stronger principle, incorporating class reflection for stationary sets of ordinals, implies the existence of Mahlo cardinals, characterized by the stationarity of the set of regular cardinals below them, thereby reflecting the regularity property across stationary subsets.^[15] The reflection scheme asserting that for every formula there is a reflecting ordinal provides models for ZFC up to certain strengths.^[16] Stronger variants, such as structural reflection principles applied to elementary embeddings, yield n-huge cardinals, where for n ≥ 1, a cardinal κ is n-huge if there is an elementary embedding j: V → M with critical point κ such that the n-th iterate satisfies j^n(κ) ⊆ M, reflecting properties across iterated extensions. These principles escalate in strength, with certain forms equivalent to huge cardinals and beyond, up to supercompact equivalents in the large cardinal hierarchy.^[15]^[17]

Role in Bernays Class Theory

In Bernays' axiomatization of set theory from 1937 to 1940, proper classes are treated as primitive alongside sets, with axioms including global choice and impredicative comprehension schemas that allow quantification over all classes to define new classes.^[18] This framework, later formalized as von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel (NBG) set theory, incorporates reflection principles to ensure that properties expressible with class parameters hold in set-sized models, leveraging the global nature of class comprehension to extend ZFC's reflective capabilities beyond pure sets.^[19] In NBG, the reflection principle for class formulas—stating that for any formula ϕ with class quantifiers and parameters, there exists a transitive set u such that the power set of u reflects the truth of ϕ restricted to u—implies the existence of inaccessible cardinals within the universe of sets V.^[20] Specifically, Π_m-Bernays reflection for finite m yields a hierarchy of cardinals stronger than inaccessibles, as each level corresponds to Π_m^1-indescribable cardinals, ensuring fixed points of the inaccessible function and thus a proper class of such cardinals under iterated reflection.^[21] In Morse–Kelley (MK) class theory, which extends NBG by allowing impredicative class comprehension with full second-order quantification, strong reflection axioms for first- and second-order formulas are provable as theorems, establishing the consistency of ZFC and the existence of models satisfying it.^[22] However, augmenting MK with a global class reflection principle—that every class-definable property of V holds in some V_α for α a limit ordinal—proves the existence of many inaccessible cardinals, as the reflection iterates to produce a chain of elementary submodels unbounded in the ordinals.^[21] A key implication of such class reflection in Bernays-style theories is that it equates to the universe V being indescribable, meaning V reflects all Π_1^m sentences with class parameters down to set-sized initial segments, akin to the global analog of indescribable cardinals.^[23] This connection highlights limitations, as Kunen's 1971 inconsistency theorem demonstrates that stronger forms of reflection, such as those implying nontrivial elementary embeddings j: V → V, lead to contradictions in ZFC extended with global choice.^[23]

Other Extensions and Variants

In Ackermann set theory, the core axiom schema functions as a reflection principle, often referred to as Ackermann's reflection, which asserts that for any definable class of sets, there exists a set that reflects its properties in a manner akin to the wholeness axiom. This schema ensures that no first-order formula can fully define the universe of sets V or the class of all ordinals, thereby embodying Cantor's notion of the unknowability of the Absolute. Unlike ZFC, it avoids the full axiom of replacement by restricting comprehension to definable subclasses, yet it proves equivalent to ZF set theory.^[15]^[24] Ackermann's reflection aligns with structural properties but does not imply large cardinals beyond those of ZF.^[15] Lévy extended reflection principles to handle axiom schemas by formulating them as infinite conjunctions, ensuring that the entire schema reflects into transitive sets. Specifically, for any axiom schema \Sigma of ZFC, the principle states that there exists a transitive set M such that M satisfies the infinite conjunction of all instances of \Sigma, capturing the full logical strength of the schema in a single model. This variant, part of Lévy's schemata of strong infinity, has consistency strength strictly above ZFC but relative to ZFC plus the existence of a strongly inaccessible cardinal, as the reflection requires models closed under the schema's operations up to inaccessible heights.^[25] Post-2000 developments have explored indescribability hierarchies as generalized forms of reflection, where \Pi_n^m-indescribable cardinals \kappa satisfy that for any \Pi_n^m sentence \phi true in V_\kappa, there exists \alpha < \kappa such that \phi holds in V_\alpha. These hierarchies extend the basic Lévy-Montague reflection by restricting to specific syntactic classes of formulas, yielding a fine-grained ladder of large cardinals between weakly compacts and subtler strengths like totally indescribable cardinals. Recent work equates certain structural reflection principles to these hierarchies, showing their equivalence to embeddings preserving infinitary formulas up to level n and quantifier complexity m.^[15] Marginally, Koepke's investigations around 2010 into reflection principles within set theories incorporating urelements highlight adaptations for non-well-founded or urelement-extended universes, though these remain peripheral to mainstream extensions due to their limited impact on core set-theoretic hierarchies.^[26]

Applications to Arithmetic and Logic

Reflection Principles for Peano Arithmetic

In first-order Peano Arithmetic (PA), reflection principles adapt the intuitive notion from set theory—where properties of the entire universe are mirrored in smaller substructures—to ensure that provable statements hold in finite models derived from finite fragments of the theory. Unlike set-theoretic reflection, which relies on the cumulative hierarchy of sets, arithmetic reflection leverages the recursive axiomatizability of PA and the completeness of first-order logic to link provability to realizability in concrete, finite structures.^[27] A foundational result in this area is that every sentence provable in PA holds true in some finite model. Specifically, since any proof in PA employs only finitely many instances of the induction schema and other axioms, there exists a finite subset S of PA's axioms such that PA ⊢ φ if and only if S ⊢ φ; the consistent finite theory S admits a finite model M, as it is satisfied by a sufficiently large finite initial segment of the natural numbers, and thus M ⊧ φ. This result underscores that PA's theorems are not merely abstract consequences but are verifiable in bounded, computational settings, providing a form of finitary justification for arithmetic reasoning. The strong reflection principle extends this idea to finite collections of axioms directly: for any finite set S of PA axioms, there exists a finite model N such that N realizes the truths provable from S, meaning N satisfies all sentences derivable from S. This follows from the same finitary consistency argument, where PA itself proves the consistency of such S (i.e., PA ⊢ Con(S)), ensuring the existence of N via a satisfaction relation definable in arithmetic. Formally, the core statement of reflection in PA can be expressed as: if PA ⊢ φ, then there exists a finite model M with M ⊧ φ; this ties directly to the properties of finite axiomatic fragments, as the proof length bounds the size of the required model.^[27] These reflection principles for PA are provable within weaker systems such as Primitive Recursive Arithmetic (PRA), which suffices to establish the existence of finite models for finite fragments through primitive recursive searches for satisfying assignments.^[28] However, adopting stronger uniform reflection schemes—such as the full schema Pr_{PA}("φ") → φ over all formulas—leads to significant consistency implications, including the consistency of PA itself, by Gödel's second incompleteness theorem.

Model Reflection and Soundness

In second-order arithmetic, model reflection manifests as the property that every consistent theory admits models in which arithmetic sentences are evaluated with respect to the standard natural numbers \mathbb{N}, thereby reflecting their true semantic value. Full second-order semantics ensures that the domain of individuals is always the standard \omega, so any model ( \mathbb{N}, \mathcal{P} ) of a consistent theory T extending the axioms of second-order arithmetic interprets first-order arithmetic sentences standardly, independent of the collection \mathcal{P} of second-order objects. Consequently, if T \vdash \phi for an arithmetic sentence \phi, then \phi holds in \mathbb{N}, as the model's satisfaction relation for arithmetic aligns precisely with standard truth. This model-theoretic setup implies the soundness of Peano arithmetic (PA) relative to the consistency of stronger theories. Specifically, reflection principles in second-order arithmetic, which formalize the adequacy of proofs via satisfaction predicates, entail that PA proves no false theorems about \mathbb{N}. Georg Kreisel's foundational work on partial truth predicates, introduced to unwind non-finitist proofs into finitist terms, provides the key mechanism: these predicates define truth for bounded classes of formulas (e.g., \Sigma_n) within arithmetic, allowing reflection schemas to capture partial soundness. By embedding PA into second-order arithmetic and leveraging model reflection, Kreisel demonstrated that the existence of such models implies PA's global soundness, as any purported false theorem would contradict the standard interpretation in the model.^[29] A central formalization of this is the reflection scheme for PA: for each arithmetic formula \phi(x_1, \dots, x_k), PA reflects \phi if PA \vdash \forall \vec{x} \, (\phi(\vec{x}) \to \mathrm{True}_{\mathbb{N}}(\ulcorner \phi \urcorner, \vec{x})), where \mathrm{True}_{\mathbb{N}} denotes truth in the standard model. Since PA lacks a full truth predicate, this is realized via partial predicates in extensions like second-order arithmetic, leading to iterated consistency statements: reflecting \Sigma_1 formulas yields \mathrm{Con(PA)}, while higher iterations generate transfinite sequences of consistency assertions aligned with PA's proof-theoretic strength. This scheme underscores how model reflection bridges provability and truth, ensuring that provable implications hold semantically in \mathbb{N}. In proof theory, reflection for \Sigma_n formulas in PA is provably equivalent to the existence of ordinal notations up to the corresponding proof-theoretic ordinal, tying model reflection to ordinal analysis. For instance, uniform \Sigma_1-reflection corresponds to notations below \omega^\omega, while full reflection over PA reaches \varepsilon_0, the least ordinal closed under exponentiation. This equivalence arises because iterated reflection principles generate cut-free proofs analyzable via ordinal assignments, with \Sigma_n-reflection strengthening induction schemas like I\Sigma_{n+1} and providing a measure of the theory's consistency strength. Such connections highlight the role of model reflection in calibrating the semantic soundness of arithmetic systems through transfinite hierarchies.^[30]

References

[1]
[PDF] A Direct Proof of the Reflection Principle for Brownian Motion
We present here a short and direct proof requiring few prerequisites which is intended to make the reflection principle more accessible. Recall that a Standard ...
[2]
[PDF] Lecture 5: Brownian Motion
The Reflection Principle for Brownian motion, as formalized in Proposition 4, allows one to calculate the joint distribution of M(t) and W(t):. Corollary 3. (32).
[3]
[PDF] Hitting Times and the Reflection Principle
We will solve the first problem by embedding a random walk in our Brownian Motion. The second problem will be solved by a technique called the reflection ...
[4]
The Mathematical Development of Set Theory from Cantor to Cohen
... set its order type M and then to its cardinality M. In [1891] Cantor gave his famous diagonal argument, showing in e that for any set M the collection of ...
[5]
[PDF] SET THEORY FROM CANTOR TO COHEN
With this “free creation” of numbers, Cantor [1883: 550] propounded a basic principle that was to drive the analysis of sets: “It is always possible to bring ...
[6]
On the Origins of Cantor's Paradox: What Hilbert Left Unsaid at the ...
Mar 28, 2023 · This paper shows how Hilbert's understanding of “Cantor's paradox” influenced the views he expressed at the 1900 ICM.
[7]
Zermelo's axiomatization of set theory
Jul 2, 2013 · The four central axioms of Zermelo's system are the Axioms of Infinity and Power Set, which together show the existence of uncountable sets, ...Missing: precursor | Show results with:precursor
[8]
Zermelo and Set Theory | Bulletin of Symbolic Logic | Cambridge Core
Jan 15, 2014 · In this paper Zermelo's published mathematical work in set theory is described and analyzed in its historical context, with the hindsight ...<|separator|>
[9]
[PDF] zermelo-1930a.pdf
Zermelo in his remarkable 1930a offered his final axiomatization of set theory as well as a striking, synthetic view of a procession of natural models that.
[10]
Über Grenzzahlen und Mengenbereiche - EuDML
Zermelo, Ernest. "Über Grenzzahlen und Mengenbereiche." Fundamenta Mathematicae 16.1 (1930): 29-47. <http://eudml.org/doc/212506>.Missing: reflection | Show results with:reflection
[11]
Another Look at Reflection | Erkenntnis
Mar 10, 2021 · Reflection principles are of central interest in the development of axiomatic theories. Whereas they are independent statements they appear ...
[12]
[PDF] Another Look at Reflection
Dec 21, 2020 · Ever since Gödel's famous incompleteness results there has been an ongoing discus- sion about the status of reflection principles. On the one ...
[13]
[PDF] Richness and Reflection - PhilArchive
Sep 9, 2015 · A pervasive thought in contemporary Philosophy of Mathe- matics is that in order to justify reflection principles, one must hold Universism: ...
[14]
On the methodology of informal rigour: set theory, semantics ... - arXiv
Apr 30, 2021 · This paper provides a critical overview of Georg Kreisel's method of informal rigour, most famously presented in his 1967 paper `Informal rigour ...Missing: reflection | Show results with:reflection<|control11|><|separator|>
[15]
Section 3.8 (000F): Reflection principle—The Stacks project
3.8 Reflection principle Some of this material is in the chapter of [Kunen] called “Easy consistency proofs”. Let \phi (x_1, \ldots , x_ n) be a formula of set ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[16]
[PDF] arXiv:2107.01580v1 [math.LO] 4 Jul 2021
Jul 4, 2021 · Indeed, the Principle of Reflection of Montague and Lévy ([Lév60]), provable in ZF, asserts that every formula of the first-order language of ...
[17]
Set Theory - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Oct 8, 2014 · Set theory, as a separate mathematical discipline, begins in the work of Georg Cantor. One might say that set theory was born in late 1873, when ...
[18]
[PDF] INNER-MODEL REFLECTION PRINCIPLES - Andrés E. Caicedo
A stronger principle, the ground-model reflection principle, asserts that any such ϕ(a) true in V is also true in some nontrivial ground model of the universe ...
[19]
LARGE CARDINALS AS PRINCIPLES OF STRUCTURAL ...
Jan 23, 2023 · This kind of reflection, namely generalised forms of the Principle of Reflection of Lévy and Montague allowing for the reflection of second- ...
[20]
[PDF] Reflection principles and large cardinals - LACL
Lecture one. A reflection principle: a statement establishing for some kind of structure (e.g. a set of ordinals, a tree, a topological space .
[21]
Independence and Large Cardinals
Apr 20, 2010 · Kanamori, Akihiro, 2003, The Higher Infinite: Large Cardinals in Set Theory from their Beginnings (Springer Monographs in Mathematics), 2nd ...
[22]
[PDF] On strong forms of reflection in set theory
We argue that sharp-generated reflection is the strongest form of reflection which can be regarded as a natural generalization of the L้vy reflection theorem.
[23]
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2274692
[24]
(PDF) Bernays and Set Theory - ResearchGate
We discuss the work of Paul Bernays in set theory, mainly his axiomatization and his use of classes but also his higher-order reflection principles.
[25]
Bernays' Reflection Principle holding in ranks? - MathOverflow
Oct 21, 2017 · I wanted to see for which ranks Bernays' Reflection Principle holds; that is, for every class and every property (allowing quantification over ...Reflection principle vs universes - MathOverflowHow to characterize properties that behave well with Reflection ...More results from mathoverflow.netMissing: NBG MK
[26]
[PDF] 1 Global Reflection Principles - University of Bristol
Historically reflection principles in set theory have been associated with attempts to say that no one notion, idea, or statement can capture our whole view of ...
[27]
[PDF] Kelley-Morse set theory and choice principles for classes
Jan 13, 2015 · Corollary: Full reflection holds in models of KM! KM proves Con(ZFC) (and much more). The consistency strength of KM is greater than the ...Missing: MK | Show results with:MK
[28]
Indescribable Cardinals and Elementary Embeddings - jstor
Hence the same formula must be true in V. So we get by the reflection principle of ZF in V. P l"VK, I= 0(A)". i.e., V, V= +(A) in V[G]. LI1.2. To motivate the ...
[29]
Axiom schemata of strong infinity in axiomatic set theory.
- **Lévy's Reflection Principles**: Axiom schemas extending ZFC, using infinite conjunctions to reflect properties of the universe into smaller transitive models.
[30]
KM | Joel David Hamkins
I shall give a general introduction to urelement set theory and the role of the second-order reflection principle in second-order urelement set theory GBCU and ...
[31]
[PDF] ON THE INTERPRETATION OF NON-FINITIST PROOFS-PART I
KREISEL. 1. The purpose of the present paper is to formulate the problem of non-finitist proofs, and to solve it for certain extensions of the predicate ...Missing: partial | Show results with:partial
[32]
[PDF] Ordinal analysis without proofs - andrew.cmu.ed
Over a weak base theory, Σn and Πn are induction are equivalent: e.g. given a Σn formula ϕ(x) satisfying the hypotheses of the induction axiom, if there is ...