No label defined (Q4822367)

This paper discusses motivation for studying quasi-sets in a way that is aimed at a ``wider mathematical audience''. Motivation arises from the `indiscernible' elements used in quantum theory. Such elements contravene the Leibnizian Principle of Identity, according to which two elements are the same when they share all properties. Traditional set theory and semantics are founded on this notion that all individuals can be identified by some individuating property. But of course this cannot be the case with indiscernible elements, and hence the author quotes from Dalla Chiara: ``Generally one cannot say that a quantum intensional notion uniquely determines a corresponding extension.'' (p. 78) Thus it is argued that a new language and a new `set' theory should be developed for microphysics. Next, some ``standard ways of dealing with indistinguishibility'' are discussed, including the use of equivalence relations or ``symmetry conditions''. Such methods are rejected as ``a mathematical trick'' in that first one distinguishes the individuals then treats them ``as if'' they are indistinguishable (p. 80). Instead, the author argues for indiscernibles to be primitive notions to the new `set' theory. He takes for example the case of a two-particle quantum system, represented by a tensor product of two Hilbert spaces associated with the components. He argues from properties of observable operators in this composite space with respect to pure component state-vectors, that indiscernibility really is ``built in'' to the quantum theory (p. 85). The last section argues for quasi-sets as appropriate to describe ``collections of truly indistinguishable objects''. Quasi-set theory is to be an extension of traditional set theory. In addition to the normal elements (\(M\)-atoms) of Zermelo-Frankel set theory, primitive indiscernible elements (\(m\)-atoms) are added. (p. 86) ``Pure'' quasi-sets are aggregates containing only the \(m\)-atoms, and ``\dots axioms provide the grounds for saying that nothing in the theory can distinguish the elements of such an \(x\) from one another''. (p. 87) Quasi-cardinality is discussed -- we are told that ``it can be proved that no order relation can be defined on a quasi-set of indistinguishable \(m\)-atoms''. However a limited sense of set cardinality is available so ``\dots we may consistently \dots reason as if there are three entities in our quasi-set \(x\) but it is not possible to discern it's elements as individuals.'' (p. 88) A weak extensionality axiom apparently allows the distinction between ordinality and cardinality. No set of axioms for the new theory is presented nor even sketched, nor are algebraic features of the theory or semantic or logical concepts that might be derived from it. The reader is referred to other papers in the extensive bibliography.