Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Relating Quine's NF to Feferman's EM

  • Published:
Studia Logica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We show that, if non-uniform impredicative stratified comprehension is assumed, Feferman's theories of explicit mathematics are consistent with a strong power type axiom. This result answers a problem, raised by Jäger. The proof relies upon an interpretation into Quine's set theory NF with urelements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cantini, A., and P. Minari, ‘Uniform inseparability in explicit mathematics’, preprint (to appear, The Journal of Symbolic Logic).

  2. Chang, C., and H. J. Keisler, Model Theory, North Holland, Amsterdam 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Feferman, S., ‘Constructive Theories of functions and classes’, in M. Boffa, D. van Dalen and K. Mc Aloon (eds.), Logic Colloquium'78, North Holland, Amsterdam 1979, 159–225.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Feferman, S., ‘Some formal systems for the unlimited theory of structures and categories, unpublished notes’, (cf. abstract, in The Journal of Symbolic Logic 39, 1974, 374–375).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Glass, T., ‘Understanding uniformity in Feferman's explicit mathematics’, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 75 (1995), 89–106.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Glass, T., ‘On power set in explicit mathematics’, Journal of Symbolic Logic 61 (1996), 468–489.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Holmes, M. R., ‘Systems of combinatory logic related to Quine's New Foundations’, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 53 (1991), 103–133.

    Google Scholar 

  8. JÄger, G., ‘Power types in explicit mathematics’, Journal of Symbolic Logic 62 (1997), 1142–1146.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Jensen, R. B., ‘On the consistency of a slight (?) modification of Quine's New Foundations’, in D. Davidson and J. Hintikka (eds.), Words and Objections: Essays on the work of W. V. O. Quine, Reidel, Dordrecht 1969, 278–291.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Quine, W. V. O., ‘On ordered pairs’, The Journal of Symbolic Logic 10 (1945), 95–96.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Rosser, J. B., Logic for Mathematicians, Mc Graw-Hill, New York 1953.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Specker, E., ‘Typical ambiguity’, in E. Nagel, P. Suppes and A. Tarski (eds.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. Proceedings of the 1960 International Congress, Stanford University Press, Stanford 1962, 116–123.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Filosofia, Università di Firenze, via Bolognese 52, I-50139, Firenze, Italy

    Andrea Cantini

Authors
  1. Andrea Cantini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cantini, A. Relating Quine's NF to Feferman's EM. Studia Logica 62, 141–162 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026495301622

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026495301622

Search

Navigation