Spahn continuum hypothesis (changes)

Showing changes from revision #3 to #4: Added | Removed | Changed

For context see the topos Set?.

Definition

The Letcontinuum hypothesisEE asserts be that an there is no strict inequality of cardinal elementary numbers topos? with subobject classifier? Ω\Omega and natural-numbers object? nn.

||<α<|Ω ||\mathbb{N}|\lt \alpha\lt |\Omega^\mathbb{N}|

The continuum hypothesis asserts that there is no sequence of monomorphisms

where the leftest symbol dnotes the cardinality of the natural-numbers object? \mathbb{N} in Set? and the rightest symbol denotes its power object?.

nbΩ nn \hookrightarrow b\hookrightarrow \Omega^n

which are not isomorphisms.

In the classical case this statement reads: The continuum hypothesis asserts that there is no strict inequality of cardinal numbers?

||<α<|Ω ||\mathbb{N}|\lt \alpha\lt |\Omega^\mathbb{N}|

where the leftest symbol dnotes the cardinality of the natural-numbers object? \mathbb{N} in Set? and the rightest symbol denotes its power object?.

Theorem

There exists a boolean topos in which the axiom of choice holds and the continuum hypothesis fails.

Definition

(Cohen topos?)

The topos in which the theorem holds is called Cohen topos; it is the topos of sheaves with respect to the dense topology? (also called ¬¬\neg\neg-toology) on the Cohen poset. In this topos will exist a monomorphism B2 B\hookrightarrow 2^\mathbb{N}

The cohen topos will be constructed from the topos Set? of sets. for this recall that the subobject classifier of SetSet is 2:={0,1}2:=\{0,1\}.

Definition

(Cohen topos?)

Let \mathbb{N} be the set of natural numbers; i.e. the natural-numbers object in SetSet. Let BB be a set with strictly larger cardinality |B|>|||B|\gt |\mathbb{N}|; e.g. B:=2 2 B:=2^{2^\mathbb{N}} will do because of the ‘’diagonal argument’’.

Then the Cohen poset PP is defined to be the set of morphisms

p:F p2p:F_p\to 2

where F pB×F_p\subseteq B\times \mathbb{N} is a subset the order relation on PP is defined by

qpiffF qF pandq| F p=pq\le p\; iff\; F_q\supseteq F_p\;and\;q|_{F_p}=p

where the rightest condition means that qq restricted to F pF_p shall coincide with pp.

We think of PP as a sequence of approximations to the function F:B×F:B\times\mathbb{N} being the transpose? of the putative monomorphism

f:B2 f:B\to 2^\mathbb{N}

and the smaller elements considered as the better approximations. The very rough intuition is that pqp\to q\to \dots (if ppp\ge p\ge \dots) forms a codircted diagram? of monomorphism with domains of increasing size whose colimit is ff and that by free cocompletion? (here: forming (pre)sheaves) we obtain a topos in which this colimit exists.

Lemma

The dense? Lawvere-Tierney topology? on Psh(P)Psh(P) is subcanonical. In other words: For any pPp\in P we have y(p)=hom(,p)Sh(p,¬¬)y(p)=hom(-,p)\in\Sh(p,\neg\neg)

Lemma

Let k B×:{PSet ptoB×k_{B\times\mathbb{N}}:\begin{cases}P\to Set\\p\toB\times\mathbb{N}\end{cases} denote the functor constant on B×B\times\mathbb{N}. Let

A:{PSet p{(b,n)|p(b,n)=0}B×A:\begin{cases} P\to Set \\ p\mapsto \{(b,n)|p(b,n)=0\}\subseteq B\times \mathbb{N} \end{cases}

Then we have ¬¬A=A\neg\neg A=A in Sub(k B×)Sub(k_{B\times\mathbb{N}}); i.e. AA is a closed subobject with respect to the dense topology ¬¬\neg\neg in the algebra of subobjects? of k B×k_{B\times\mathbb{N}}.

Lemma

Let Ω\Omega denote the subobject classifier? of Psh(P)Psh(P). Let Ω ¬¬\Omega_{\neg\neg} denote the subobject classifier of Sh(P,¬¬)Sh(P,\neg\neg). Recall that Ω ¬¬\Omega_{\neg\neg} is the equalizer Ω ¬¬=eq(id Ω,¬¬)\Omega_{\neg\neg}=eq(id_\Omega,\neg\neg).

The characteristic morphism? χ a\chi_a of the subobject a:Ak B×=k B×k a:A\hookrightarrow k_{B\times\mathbb{N}}=k_B\times\k_\mathbb{N} factors through some f:k B×Ω ¬¬f:k_{B\times\mathbb{N}}\to \Omega_{\neg\neg}.

Then the adjoint g:k BΩ ¬¬ k g:k_B\to \Omega_{\neg\neg}^{k_{\mathbb{N}}} of ff is a monomorphism.

Corollary

The associated-sheaf functor sends gg to a monomorphism in the Cohen topos.

References

  • André Joyal, Ieke Moerdijk, sheaves in geometry and logic, VI.2, VI.3

  • M.C. Fitting, “Intuitionistic logic, model theory and forcing” , North-Holland (1969)

Last revised on June 19, 2012 at 17:13:39. See the history of this page for a list of all contributions to it.