An actual first-order formulation of ZFC?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mpitluk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Zfc
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the search for a first-order axiomatization of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the Axiom of Choice (ZFC). Participants note that ZFC is typically expressed in higher-order logics, while first-order formulations exist and can be found in top search results, including Wikipedia. The first-order version requires an infinite number of axioms, as it utilizes axiom schemas to define sets based on unary predicates. In contrast, first-order Neumann-Bernays-Gödel (NBG) set theory is mentioned as an equivalent theory that only requires finitely many axioms. The conversation emphasizes the distinction between first-order and higher-order formulations of set theory.
mpitluk
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Can someone point me to a first-order axiomatization of ZFC?

As I've mostly seen ZFC expressed in higher-order logics.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ZFC is a first order theory, where have you been seeing second order formulations? I'm sure every one of the top Google results for "ZFC axioms" will give you a first order formulation. In particular, Wikipedia.
 
mpitluk said:
Can someone point me to a first-order axiomatization of ZFC?

As I've mostly seen ZFC expressed in higher-order logics.
The higher-order axioms are replaced with axiom schema. e.g. the axiom schema of subsets is collection of statements
{x in A | P(x)} is a set,​
one for every unary predicate P in the language of first-order set theory.First-order ZFC requires infinitely many axioms to specify. First-order NBG, however, is an 'equivalent' set theory in an important sense, but only requires finitely many axioms.
 
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
Back
Top