Tarski–Grothendieck set theory
system of set theory
Tarski–Grothendieck set theory (TG, named after mathematicians Alfred Tarski and Alexander Grothendieck) is an axiomatic set theory. It is a non-conservative extension of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory (ZFC) and is distinguished from other axiomatic set theories by the inclusion of Tarski's axiom, which states that for each set there is a "Tarski universe" it belongs to (see below). Tarski's axiom implies the existence of inaccessible cardinals, providing a richer ontology than ZFC. For example, adding this axiom supports category theory.
The Mizar system and Metamath use Tarski–Grothendieck set theory for formal verification of proofs.
Axioms
Tarski–Grothendieck set theory starts with conventional Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory and then adds “Tarski's axiom”. We will use the axioms, definitions, and notation of Mizar to describe it. Mizar's basic objects and processes are fully formal; they are described informally below. First, let us assume that:
Given any set
A
{\displaystyle A}
, the singleton
{
A
}
{\displaystyle \{A\}}
exists.
Given any two sets, their unordered and ordered pairs exist.
Given any set of sets, its union exists.
“Tarski–Grothendieck set theory” enters the record as system of set theory. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Tarski, Grothendieck and theory can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Tarski–Grothendieck set theory” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Tarski, Grothendieck and theory provides the most credible route into that argument.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 21, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q3984085. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Tarski–Grothendieck set theory”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Tarski–Grothendieck set theory primary sources, Tarski–Grothendieck set theory archive and Tarski research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Tarski–Grothendieck set theory”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Tarski–Grothendieck set theory” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.