[FOM] Mac lane set theory

[Thomas Forster]

Adam Epstein has just prompted me to look at section 9 of Mathias' ``On 
the strength of Mac lane Set theory'' in this connection.  It is online at
www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~ardm

       tf



On Sun, 20 Dec 2009, 
joeshipman at aol.com wrote:

> Can anyone provide an example of a statement of "ordinary mathematics"
> which can be proved in Zermelo set theory but not MacLane set theory?
> I can understand that one might imagine the subject matter of ordinary
> mathematics to be contained in a finitely iterated powerset of the
> integers, but why would one then choose MacLane over Zermelo?
>
> -- JS
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Forster <T.Forster at dpmms.cam.ac.uk>
>
> There is a body of opinion out there (i suspect not represented on FOM
> but...) that holds that Ordinary Mathematics can be captured by Mac
> lane
> set theory (the fragment of Zermelo set theory with Delta-0 separation
> instead of full separation)....  I suspect the thought is merely that
> mathematics is to be
> identified with the nth order theory of the reals/complexes for n
> arbitrarily large, but it might be more interesting than that
>
> _______________________________________________
> FOM mailing list
> FOM at cs.nyu.edu
> http://www.cs.nyu.edu/mailman/listinfo/fom
>


****The server at DPMMS will not be maintained over Christmas.*****
**If you want to be certain of reaching me over this period cc ****
**all emails to thomasforster2000 at yahoo.co.uk or use my UK mobile**

URL:  www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~tf; DPMMS ph: +44-1223-337981;
UEA ph:  +44-1603-593588 mobile in UK +44-7887-701-562;
(Currently in the UK but mobile in NZ +64-210580093.
Canterbury office fone: +64-3-3642987 x 8152)