Approaches To Non-standard Analysis
There are two very different approaches to non-standard analysis: the semantic or model-theoretic approach and the syntactic approach. Both these approaches apply to other areas of mathematics beyond analysis, including number theory, algebra and topology.
Robinson's original formulation of non-standard analysis falls into the category of the semantic approach. As developed by him in his papers, it is based on studying models (in particular saturated models) of a theory. Since Robinson's work first appeared, a simpler semantic approach (due to Elias Zakon) has been developed using purely set-theoretic objects called superstructures. In this approach a model of a theory is replaced by an object called a superstructure V(S) over a set S. Starting from a superstructure V(S) one constructs another object *V(S) using the ultrapower construction together with a mapping V(S) → *V(S) which satisfies the transfer principle. The map * relates formal properties of V(S) and *V(S). Moreover it is possible to consider a simpler form of saturation called countable saturation. This simplified approach is also more suitable for use by mathematicians who are not specialists in model theory or logic.
The syntactic approach requires much less logic and model theory to understand and use. This approach was developed in the mid-1970s by the mathematician Edward Nelson. Nelson introduced an entirely axiomatic formulation of non-standard analysis that he called Internal Set Theory (IST). IST is an extension of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZF) in that alongside the basic binary membership relation, it introduces a new unary predicate standard which can be applied to elements of the mathematical universe together with some axioms for reasoning with this new predicate.
Syntactic non-standard analysis requires a great deal of care in applying the principle of set formation (formally known as the axiom of comprehension) which mathematicians usually take for granted. As Nelson points out, a common fallacy in reasoning in IST is that of illegal set formation. For instance, there is no set in IST whose elements are precisely the standard integers (here standard is understood in the sense of the new predicate). To avoid illegal set formation, one must only use predicates of ZFC to define subsets.
Another example of the syntactic approach is the Alternative Set Theory introduced by Vopěnka, trying to find set-theory axioms more compatible with the non-standard analysis than the axioms of ZF.
Read more about this topic: Non-standard Analysis
Famous quotes containing the words approaches to, approaches and/or analysis:
“Someone approaches to say his life is ruined
and to fall down at your feet
and pound his head upon the sidewalk.”
—David Ignatow (b. 1914)
“These were not men, they were battlefields. And over them, like the sky, arched their sense of harmony, their sense of beauty and rest against which their misery and their struggles were an offence, to which their misery and their struggles were the only approaches they could make, of which their misery and their struggles were an integral part.”
—Rebecca West (18921983)
“A commodity appears at first sight an extremely obvious, trivial thing. But its analysis brings out that it is a very strange thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties.”
—Karl Marx (18181883)