From 1931 until late in his life (at least 1970) Godel called for the pursuit of new axioms for mathematics to settle both undecided number-theoretical propositions (of the form obtained in his incompleteness results) and undecided set-theoretical propositions (in particular CH). As to the nature of these, Godel made a variety of suggestions, but most frequently he emphasized the route of introducing ever higher axioms of in nity. In particular, he speculated (in his 1946 Princeton remarks) that there might be (...) a uniform (though non-decidable) rationale for the choice of the latter. Despite the intense exploration of the \higher in nite" in the last 30-odd years, no single rationale of that character has emerged. Moreover, CH still remains undecided by such axioms, though they have been demonstrated to have many other interesting set-theoretical consequences. (shrink)

In the absence of Woodin cardinals, fine structural inner models for mild large cardinal hypotheses admit forcing extensions where bounded forcing axioms hold and yet the reals are projectively well-ordered.

Gyrogroup theory and its applications is introduced and explored, exposing the fascinating interplay between Thomas precession of special relativity theory and hyperbolic geometry. The abstract Thomas precession, called Thomas gyration, gives rise to grouplike objects called gyrogroups [A, A. Ungar, Am. J. Phys.59, 824 (1991)] the underlying axions of which are presented. The prefix gyro extensively used in terms like gyrogroups, gyroassociative and gyrocommutative laws, gyroautomorphisms, and gyrosemidirect products, stems from their underlying abstract Thomas gyration. Thomas gyration is tailor made (...) for hyperbolic geometry. In a similar way that commutative groups underlie vector spaces, gyrocommutative gyrogroups underlie gyrovector spaces. Gyrovector spaces, in turn, provide a most natural setting for hyperbolic geometry in full analogy with vector spaces that provide the setting for Euclidean geometry. As such, their applicability to relativistic physics and its spacetime geometry is obvious. (shrink)

We present a range of mathematical theorems whose proofs require unexpectedly strong logical methods, which in some cases go well beyond the usual axioms for mathematics.

Kanger [4] gives a set of twelve axioms for the classical propositional Calculus which, together with modus ponens and substitution, have the following nice properties: (0.1) Each axiom contains $\supset$ , and no axiom contains more than two different connectives. (0.2) Deletions of certain of the axioms yield the intuitionistic, minimal, and classical refutability1 subsystems of propositional calculus. (0.3) Each of these four systems of axioms has the separation property: that if a theorem is provable in such a system, then (...) it is provable using only the axioms of that system for $\supset$ , and for the other connectives, if any, actually occurring in that theorem. (0.4) All twelve axioms are independent. It is easily seen that two of Kanger's axioms can be shortened, and that two others can be replaced by a single axiom which is the same length as one of the two which it replaces, without disturbing properties (0.1)-(0.3). These alterations have advantages of simplicity and elegance, but bring property (0.4) into question, in that similarities among some of the axioms in the altered system make demonstrations of independence considerably more difficult. It is the purpose of this paper to show that independence is nonetheless provable for the simplified system, and in another system which also satisfies (0.1)-(0.3), in which f (falsehood) is taken to be primitive instead of ∼ (negation). Nonnormal truth-tables2 are used to obtain the independence of one of the axioms. (shrink)

We prove rigidity results for large classes of corona algebras, assuming the Proper Forcing Axiom. In particular, we prove that a conjecture of Coskey and Farah holds for all separable [Formula: see text]-algebras with the metric approximation property and an increasing approximate identity of projections.

On the basis of a wide range of historical examples various features of axioms are discussed in relation to their use in mathematical practice. A very general framework for this discussion is provided, and it is argued that axioms can play many roles in mathematics and that viewing them as self-evident truths does not do justice to the ways in which mathematicians employ axioms. Possible origins of axioms and criteria for choosing axioms are also examined. The distinctions introduced aim at (...) clarifying discussions in philosophy of mathematics and contributing towards a more refined view of mathematical practice. (shrink)

No detailed description available for "From Axiom to Dialogue".

We suggest a new approach for addressing the problem of establishing an axiomatic foundation for large cardinals. An axiom asserting the existence of a large cardinal can naturally be viewed as a strong Axiom of Infinity. However, it has not been clear on the basis of our knowledge of ω itself, or of generally agreed upon intuitions about the true nature of the mathematical universe, what the right strengthening of the Axiom of Infinity is—which large cardinals ought to be derivable? (...) It was shown in the 1960s by Lawvere that the existence of an infinite set is equivalent to the existence of a certain kind of structure-preserving transformation from V to itself, not isomorphic to the identity. We use Lawvere's transformation, rather than ω, as a starting point for a reasonably natural sequence of strengthenings and refinements, leading to a proposed strong Axiom of Infinity. A first refinement was discussed in later work by Trnková—Blass, showing that if the preservation properties of Lawvere's tranformation are strengthened to the point of requiring it to be an exact functor , such a transformation is provably equivalent to the existence of a measurable cardinal. We propose to push the preservation properties as far as possible, short of inconsistency. The resulting transformation V→V is strong enough to account for virtually all large cardinals, but is at the same time a natural generalization of an assertion about transformations V→V known to be equivalent to the Axiom of Infinity. (shrink)

In [8] it is proved that all the intermediate logics axiomatizable by formulas in one variable, except four of them, are not strongly complete. We considerably improve this result by showing that all the intermediate logics axiomatizable by formulas in one variable, except eight of them, are not strongly ω-complete. Thus, a definitive classification of such logics with respect to the notions of canonicity, strong completeness, ω-canonicity and strong ω-completeness is given.

We study the general problem of strengthening the logic of a given matrix with a set of axioms, using the idea of rexpansion. We obtain two characterization methods: a very general but not very effective one, and then an effective method which only applies under certain restrictions on the given semantics and the shape of the axioms. We show that this second method covers a myriad of examples in the literature. Finally, we illustrate how to obtain analytic multiple-conclusion calculi for (...) the resulting logics. (shrink)