basic constructions:
strong axioms
further
The ordinal numbers admit two inequalities: a strict one $\lt$ and a non-strict one $\le$. When the ordinals are defined in material set theory in the von Neumann style as “the set of all smaller ordinals”, these relations are identified with $\in$ (set membership?) and $\subseteq$ (containment). And when ordinals are defined in a structural theory as certain well-ordered sets, the relation $\le$ refers to inclusion as an initial subset? (a simulation) while $A\lt B$ refers to such an inclusion as the strict slice $\{ y | y \lt x \}$ of some element $x$ of $B$.
In classical mathematics, $\lt$ and $\le$ are definable in terms of each other’s negation: $A\lt B$ if and only if $\neg(B\le A)$, and similarly $A\le B$ if and only if $\neg(B\lt A)$. However, in constructive mathematics this is no longer true (although $\leq$ can still be defined from $\lt$ in a more round-about way). This phenomenon occurs for other ordered structures as well; for instance, for the real numbers. (For the most commonly used notions of real number, $\le$ is definable as the negation of $\gt$, but not conversely.) In general, there are certain laws we may expect such a pair of inequalities to satisfy, such as:
For the constructive ordinal numbers, these are all satisfied except for the last one. In fact, it’s easy to see that if $x\le y\lt z$ implies $x\lt z$ for all $x,y,z$, then excluded middle holds: consider $z = 2 = \{0,1\}$ and $y = 1 = \{0\}$ and $x = \{0 | P\}$ for some proposition $P$.
However, Paul Taylor (Taylor) realized that this last property can be recovered by essentially “restricting to the subclass of ordinals $z$ for which it holds hereditarily”. These are the plump ordinals.
An ordinal $A$ is plump if
It is not obvious that this definition is sound (i.e. non-circular), but it can be shown to be so based on a well-founded relation (other than $A$ itself). It does, however, require the existence of power sets, so it is not obviously sensible in predicative mathematics which denies the existence of those.
$0 = \varnothing$ is trivially plump.
Since $0$ is plump, $1 = \mathcal{P}0 = \{0\}$ is also plump.
More generally, any subset of $1$ (which may be thought of as a truth value) is a plump ordinal.
But $2 = \{0,1\}$ (the set of classical truth values) with $0 \lt 1$ is plump if and only if excluded middle holds.
In contrast, $\Omega = \mathcal{P}1$ (the set of all truth values) with $0 \lt 1$ (as the only instance of ${\lt}$) is plump. So $\Omega$ is the plump version of $2$, equal to $2$ iff excluded middle holds.
The plump version of $3$ may be quite large; it consists of all lower sets (downwards-closed collections) of truth values. So it includes $0$, $1$, and $\Omega$, the other truth values between $0$ and $1$, the downset ${\downarrow}p$ (the lower set generated by $p$) of any given truth value $p$ (not just $1 = {\downarrow}0$ and $\Omega = {\downarrow}1$), the lower set generated by two not-necessarily-comparable truth values $p$ and $q$, etc. But if excluded middle holds, then it's just $\{0,1,2\}$.
Generalizing most of these examples, if $\alpha$ is a plump ordinal, then the successor $\alpha^+$, consisting of all lower sets of $\alpha$, is also a plump ordinal. This is bigger than $\alpha + 1 = \alpha \cup \{\alpha\}$, in that if $0 \lt \alpha$ and $\alpha^+ = \alpha + 1$, then excluded middle holds.
Any downwards-closed subset of a plump ordinal is also a plump ordinal.
Paul Taylor, Intuitionistic sets and ordinals, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 61:705-744, 1996, available here
See also Section 6.7 of Paul Taylor, Practical Foundations of Mathematics, here.
Last revised on September 23, 2023 at 03:18:47. See the history of this page for a list of all contributions to it.