V=L and maximize
The theory of fields is incomplete in that one cannot decide the sentence \((\exists x)(x^2=1+1)\). However nobody seems to be bothered by this; we just consider whatever field that we are interested in and do our work. I personally have never met anyone who was looking for an extra `natural' field axiom that would decide once and for all that \(2\) is a square. Contrast this with the situation of set theory: many people worry about the incompleteness of ZFC and want to know whether the Continuum Hypothesis is true in V, the universe of all sets. There is a desire to add axioms to ZFC in order to get a better description of V and to settle problems like CH once and for all. The reason for this desire seems to be the fact that most of mathematics can be developed inside set theory and that therefore it will not do to have all kinds of undecidable statements lurking about or worse: to have various kinds of real lines available. The author seems determined to disallow V=L as an extra axiom. In an earlier paper [``Does V equal L?, J. Symb. Log. 58, 15-41 (1993; Zbl 0781.03039)] she attacked it on methodological grounds: it entails that everything is or must be definable and that is seen as too restrictive by many. In the paper under review the author tries another line of attack: again the issue is the notion of being (too) restrictive. In this case the starting point then is the observation made above that most of mathematics can be developed in set theory. This implies that set theory should be as rich as possible; it should offer as many isomorphism types as possible. This then leads to formulating what it means for a theory \(T\) to be (too) restrictive: there is a theory \(T'\) that is inconsistent with \(T\) but allows \(T\) to be interpreted in it (so it has more isomorphism types to offer) while at the same time there is no consistent extension \(T\) of \(T\) that is in the same position as \(T'\) is with respect to \(T\). Thus, ZFC plus V=L is restrictive because ZFC plus \(0^\#\) is a good \(T'\). The author is honest enough to show that the criterion itself is not as sound as it may seem at first: certain theories of the form ZFC plus V=L[A] are not restrictive and ZFC plus `there is a measurable cardinal' is restrictive. The author welcomes the reader's reflections on this or any other line of thought on these matters. For the entire collection see [Zbl 0884.00035].
This page was built for publication: V=L and maximize
Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q4381415)
