[FOM] question about intuitionistic set theory

[Thomas Forster]

Apparently it *is* cnsistent.  I remember Peter Aczel explaining this to 
me.  So: no, you are not missing anything. (If i remember correctly, he 
didn't exhibit a model, but explained how the naive proof strategy failed)




On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 jbell at uwo.ca wrote:

> I wonder if anyone could shed some light on the following question: is the 
> existence of an injection of N^N into N (the set of natural numbers) 
> consistent with intuitionistic set theory?  Diagonalization shows that there 
> can't be a bijection, in fact that there can be no surjection of N onto N^N. 
> But it is consistent with IST that there a subset U of N and a surjection 
> from U to N^N since this holds in the effective topos. If N^N were 
> injectible into N, then N^N would have to be decidable (and this does not 
> hold in the effective topos) but I can't see that this in itself would yield 
> enough excluded middle to make the existence of an injection of N^N into N 
> impossible. But maybe I'm missing something obvious!
> 
> -- John Bell
> 
> 
> Professor John L. Bell
> Department of Philosophy
> University of Western Ontario
> London, Ontario N6A 3K7
> Canada
> 
> http://publish.uwo.ca/%7Ejbell/
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> FOM mailing list
> FOM at cs.nyu.edu
> http://www.cs.nyu.edu/mailman/listinfo/fom
> 

-- 

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)