Computer Science · MapleScholar Plus

Sets as Digital Blueprints: The Coding Conception in Modern Set Theory

The standard iterative conception of sets treats sets as timeless metaphysical collections formed at successive stages; the coding conception of set reinterprets sets as finite computational codes, illuminating constructive mathematics.

Author
Junhong Chen
Published
2026
Journal
arXiv (Cornell University)
Last updated
September 2026
Sets as Digital Blueprints: The Coding Conception in Modern Set Theory

Standard Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZFC) rests on the 'iterative conception': sets are formed in stages from the bottom up, accumulating into a vast transfinite cumulative hierarchy.

While intuitively appealing, the metaphysical realism of the iterative hierarchy creates thorny foundational paradoxes regarding the objective existence of uncountably infinite power sets and inaccessible cardinals.

This mathematical logic paper develops the 'coding conception of set,' wherein mathematical sets are understood not as abstract metaphysical containers, but as computational codes and informational data structures encoding relational graphs.

The coding conception provides a rigorous philosophical and algorithmic foundation for constructive mathematics, proof assistant development (like Lean and Coq), and category-theoretic computer science.

Reference

Chen, J. (2026). The Coding Conception of Set (Version 1). arXiv.

Title

The Coding Conception of Set

Abstract

We propose the Coding Conception of ordinals and sets, which takes Cantor's three generating principles as its sole foundation. Bounded sets of ordinals are generated synchronously with the ordinals themselves through a bijective encoding function that, at each stage, selects only the finitely many bounded sets actually required by the successor, limit, and restriction principles. This selective coding yields the first-order theory SCregSC^{reg}, which we establish is the metamathematically correct theory of the ordinals: it is bi-interpretable with ZFGC+ZFGC^+, yet makes no claim about the general concept of set. Extending the conception to full set theory via a monadic second-order ordinal theory with arithmetic and class comprehension produces two mutually inconsistent first-order set theories according to distinct maximality intuitions: a Type-A universe MCAMC_A, in which the power set of every ordinal is a set and the universe satisfies ZFCZFC; and a Type-B universe MCB+MC_B^+, in which sets are strictly more than ordinals and a ``largeness cardinal'' exists, beyond which power sets remain unencodable. We prove that this Power Set Dichotomy is unavoidable, even under potentialism, and conclude that ZFC−+ZFC^-+``every cardinal has a successor'' is the only philosophically uncontroversial common fragment of any true set theory; the status of the full power-set axiom remains the sole open philosophical choice point.

Cited 0 times · View on doi.org

Continue

Continue Exploring

Ask this paper your own questions, or keep browsing the verified research catalogue.