Showing changes from revision #40 to #41:
Added | Removed | Changed
The natural numbers are characterized by their induction principle (in second-order logic/in a higher universe/as an inductive type). If one only has a first order theory, then one cannot have an induction principle, and instead one has a entire category of models. Thus, the first order models of arithmetic typically found in classical logic and model theory do not define the natural numbers, and this is true even of first-order Peano arithmetic.
Given a additively cancellative commutative semiring , a term is left cancellative if for all and , implies .
A term is right cancellative if for all and , implies .
An term is cancellative if it is both left cancellative and right cancellative.
The multiplicative submonoid of cancellative elements in is the subset of all cancellative elements in
A Euclidean semiring is a additively cancellative commutative semiring for which there exists a function from the multiplicative submonoid of cancellative elements in to the natural numbers, often called a degree function, a function called the division function, and a function called the remainder function, such that for all and , and either or .
In categorical set theories? such as ETCS?, the set theory is usually a theory of sets and functions? in an abstract category, with elements? being defined as the global elements?, the morphisms? out of the terminal object?. However, this approach poses a few issues, namely that in ordinary mathematical practice, elements are not the same as functions out of the terminal object, although they are isomorphic to each other, and function evaluation of elements in categorical set theories are an abuse of notation.
There are other structural set theories?, such as SEAR, which explicitly put in the elements of a set as a primitive of the theory: this is equivalent to saying that the category is an concrete category rather than an abstract category. In such a presentation involving sets and functions, function evaluation? would be an external version of an evaluation map? defined on the concrete category, making the category into an evaluational category, and the axiom of function extensionality is defined directly on the elements, rather than the global element functions out of the terminal object. The presentation of such a concrete categorical set theory reads more like a traditional presentation of set theory in terms of sets and elements, rather than category theory.
In this presentation, we will be adapting Tom Leinster’s presentation of ETCS to the concrete setting. Some of these axioms might be redundant, but that was true of Tom Leinster’s original presentation.
Our theory has the following primitives:
Some things called sets;
For every set , these things called elements in , with elements in written as ;
For every set and , these things called functions from to , with functions from to written as ;
For every set and , an operation called function evaluation assigning every element and function an element ;
For every set , a function called the identity function of ;
For every set , , and , an operation called function composition assigning every function and a function ;
For every set and for every element , .
For every set , , and , and for every element , .