Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

The Logic of Cardinality Comparison Without the Axiom of Choice

Published 8 Nov 2022 in math.LO | (2211.03976v2)

Abstract: We work in the setting of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory without assuming the Axiom of Choice. We consider sets with the Boolean operations together with the additional structure of comparing cardinality (in the Cantorian sense of injections). What principles does one need to add to the laws of Boolean algebra to reason not only about intersection, union, and complementation of sets, but also about the relative size of sets? We give a complete axiomatization. A particularly interesting case is when one restricts to the Dedekind-finite sets. In this case, one needs exactly the same principles as for reasoning about imprecise probability comparisons, the central principle being Generalized Finite Cancellation (which includes, as a special case, division-by-$m$). In the general case, the central principle is a restricted version of Generalized Finite Cancellation within Archimedean classes which we call Covered Generalized Finite Cancellation.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (23)
  1. The logic of Knightian games. Econ. Theory Bull., 2(2):161–182, 2014.
  2. Subjective multi-prior probability: A representation of a partial likelihood relation. Journal of Economic Theory, 151:476–492, 2014.
  3. Felix Bernstein. Untersuchungen aus der Mengenlehre. Math. Ann., 61(1):117–155, 1905.
  4. John P. Burgess. Axiomatizing the Logic of Comparative Probability. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 51(1):119 – 126, 2010.
  5. Division by three, 1994. https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0605779.
  6. Luis Fariñas del Cerro and Andreas Herzig. A modal analysis of possibility theory. In Rudolf Kruse and Pierre Siegel, editors, Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Uncertainty, pages 58–62, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1991. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  7. Richard Dedekind. Was sind und was sollen die Zahlen? Vieweg, Braunschweig, 1888.
  8. The logic of comparative cardinality. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 85(3):972–1005, 2020.
  9. Possibility theory and its applications: Where do we stand? Mathware and Soft Computing Magazine, 18, 01 2015.
  10. Peter Gärdenfors. Qualitative probability as an intensional logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 4(2):171–185, 1975.
  11. A note on cancellation axioms for comparative probability. Theory and Decision, 80(1):159–166, 2016.
  12. Preferential structures for comparative probabilistic reasoning. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 31(1), Feb. 2017.
  13. David Rios Insua. On the foundations of decision making under partial information. In John Geweke, editor, Decision Making Under Risk and Uncertainty: New Models and Empirical Findings, pages 93–100. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1992.
  14. Thomas J. Jech. On ordering of cardinalities. Bull. Acad. Polon. Sci. Sér. Sci. Math. Astronom. Phys., 14:293–296 (loose addendum), 1966.
  15. Thomas J. Jech. The axiom of choice. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 75. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam-London; American Elsevier Publishing Co., Inc., New York, 1973.
  16. Intuitive Probability on Finite Sets. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 30(2):408 – 419, 1959.
  17. Dana Scott. Measurement structures and linear inequalities. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1(2):233–247, 1964.
  18. Krister Segerberg. Qualitative probability in a modal setting. In J.E. Fenstad, editor, Proceedings of the Second Scandinavian Logic Symposium, volume 63 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, pages 341–352. Elsevier, 1971.
  19. Wacław Sierpiński. Sur l’égalité 2m = 2n pour les nombres cardinaux. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 3:1–6, 1922.
  20. Wacław Sierpiński. Sur l’implication (2⁢m⩽2⁢n)→(m⩽n)→2𝑚2𝑛𝑚𝑛(2m\leqslant 2n)\to(m\leqslant n)( 2 italic_m ⩽ 2 italic_n ) → ( italic_m ⩽ italic_n ) pour les nombres cardinaux. Fund. Math., 34:148–154, 1947.
  21. Motoo Takahashi. On incomparable cardinals. Comment. Math. Univ. St. Paul., 16:129–142, 1967/68.
  22. Alfred Tarski. Cancellation laws in the arithmetic of cardinals. Fund. Math., 36:77–92, 1949.
  23. Alfred Tarski. On the Existence of Large Sets of Dedekind Cardinals (Abstract 65T-432). Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 12:719, 1965.
Citations (1)

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 1 tweet with 2 likes about this paper.