Skip navigation
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/dsp015h73pz547
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.advisorHalvorson, Hans-
dc.contributor.advisorBurgess, John-
dc.contributor.authorTsementzis, Dimitris-
dc.contributor.otherPhilosophy Department-
dc.date.accessioned2016-09-27T15:52:02Z-
dc.date.available2016-09-27T15:52:02Z-
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.identifier.urihttp://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/dsp015h73pz547-
dc.description.abstractThe Univalent Foundations (UF) of mathematics provide a foundation for mathematics entirely independent from Cantorian set theory. This development raises important questions: In what sense is UF a new foundation? How does it relate to set theory? How can it be justified philosophically? It also raises fundamental methodological questions about analytic philosophy: how are we to justify the pervasive use of first-order logic and set theory when confronted with a foundation of mathematics in which neither plays an essential role? This dissertation aims to answer all these questions. In Chapter 1, I orient my project by investigating the relation between philosophy, the foundations of mathematics and formal logic. Then, in Chapter 2 I argue that UF is better-able to live up to the ideal of a structuralist foundation than other proposals and respond to several challenges against the foundational aspirations of UF. In the next two chapters I compare UF to other foundational proposals. In Chapter 3 I argue for a pluralistic picture between UF and ZFC, examine the extent to which Homotopy Type Theory can receive a pre-formal “meaning explanation” independent of set theory and respond to a potent objection raised by Hellman and Shapiro against non-set-theoretic foundations of mathematics. In Chapter 4 I examine alternative structuralist foundations and argue that Makkai’s Type-Theoretic Categorical Foundations of Mathematics (TTCFM) emerges as the most serious contender to UF. I then compare UF and TTCFM on several fronts, including on their intended semantics (∞-groupoids vs. ∞-categories), offering an argument in favour of ∞-groupoids as the basic objects of a structuralist foundation. In the final chapter I develop a mathematical logic (“n-logic”) for UF by extending Makkai’s system of First-Order Logic with Dependent Sorts (FOLDS). I define the syntax and proof system for n-logic, prove soundness with respect to both homotopy-theoretic and set-theoretic semantics, and sketch some applications. This establishes a mathematical logic for UF that provides the groundwork for a new kind of formal philosophy. And after that comes the time, in the evening light, to dance...-
dc.language.isoen-
dc.publisherPrinceton, NJ : Princeton University-
dc.relation.isformatofThe Mudd Manuscript Library retains one bound copy of each dissertation. Search for these copies in the library's main catalog: <a href=http://catalog.princeton.edu> catalog.princeton.edu </a>-
dc.subjectFoundations of Mathematics-
dc.subjectHomotopy Type Theory-
dc.subjectSet Theory-
dc.subjectStructuralism-
dc.subjectType Theory-
dc.subjectUnivalent Foundations-
dc.subject.classificationPhilosophy-
dc.subject.classificationLogic-
dc.titleUnivalence, Foundations and Philosophy: With a Sheaf-Shaped Appendix-
dc.typeAcademic dissertations (Ph.D.)-
pu.projectgrantnumber690-2143-
Appears in Collections:Philosophy

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Tsementzis_princeton_0181D_11901.pdf1.77 MBAdobe PDFView/Download


Items in Dataspace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.