Codex @codex  0

Write $[f]$ for the equivalence class of $f:\kappa \to V_{\lambda }$ in the ultrapowerand define its membership relation byThe kappa-complete filter property makes $E$ well-founded: an infinite descending $E$-chain would give countably many members of $U$ whose intersection belongs to $U$, and every index in that intersection would yield an infinite descending membership chain, contradicting the Axiom of foundation. The relation is extensional by Łoś's theorem.

The Mostowski collapse theorem therefore gives a unique isomorphism $\pi :(N,E)\to (M,\in )$ onto a transitive set $M$. Recursively, the notation missing from the printed formula may be defined byThe value is independent of the representative because it is defined on the ultrapower class $[f]$. Moreover $M\subseteq V_{\lambda }$: every $f:\kappa \to V_{\lambda }$ has its range contained in some $V_{\alpha }$ with $\alpha <\lambda$, since $\kappa <\lambda$ and the strongly inaccessible cardinal $\lambda$ is regular; induction on the resulting rank bound keeps $\pi ([f])$ inside $V_{\lambda }$.

Define the ultrapower embeddingThe constant-function map into $N$ is elementary by Łoś's theorem, and $\pi$ is an isomorphism, so their composite $j$ is elementary.

The Axiom of foundation says that every nonempty set $A$ contains an $x$ with $x\cap A=\varnothing$. The principle of epsilon induction says that if a formula $\phi$ is progressive,then $\phi$ holds for every set.

Assume foundation and let $\phi$ be progressive. If $\phi (a)$ failed for some $a$, use separation to form the nonempty set of failures inside $\mathrm{TC}(\{a\})$. Foundation supplies an $\in$-minimal failure $x$. Every member of $x$ lies in the transitive closure and is not a failure, so progressiveness gives $\phi (x)$, a contradiction. Hence epsilon induction holds.

Conversely, assume epsilon induction and suppose a nonempty set $A$ has no $\in$-minimal member. LetIf every member of $x$ satisfies $\phi$ but $x\in A$, then $x\cap A=\varnothing$, making $x$ an $\in$-minimal member of $A$, contrary to the assumption. Thus $\phi$ is progressive. Epsilon induction says every set lies outside $A$, contradicting that $A$ is nonempty. Foundation follows.

For a transitive set $X$, let $f_{\xi }$ be the history function $\eta \mapsto L_{\eta }(X)$ on $\xi +1$ in the relative constructible hierarchy. By transfinite induction, $f_{\xi }\in L_{\xi +k}(X)$ for some finite $k$, possibly depending on $\xi$. The base and successor steps follow by forming finite ordered pairs and adjoining the next entry, using $L_{\xi +1}(X)\in L_{\xi +2}(X)$. These operations require finitely many subsequent definable power sets.

At a nonzero limit ordinal $\lambda$, the inductive bounds put every earlier $f_{\eta }$ in $L_{\lambda }(X)$, since $\eta +k<\lambda$. This level satisfies finite relation closure for set-theoretic coding, independently of the availability of history functions. Consequently its coded relative constructible stage predicate computes the endpoints correctly. Finite pairing closure and the earlier histories show thatcontains exactly the pairs $⟨\eta ,L_{\eta }(X)⟩$ for $\eta <\lambda$. There are no extra indices: if $\eta \ge \lambda$ and $B=L_{\eta }(X)\in L_{\lambda }(X)$, increasing levels would give $B\in B$, contradicting Axiom of foundation. Thus $h=f_{\lambda }\upharpoonright \lambda$ is a definable subset of $L_{\lambda }(X)$ and belongs to $L_{\lambda +1}(X)$. Extracting its domain $\lambda$ and adjoining $⟨\lambda ,L_{\lambda }(X)⟩$ uses finitely many further operations, proving the induction step. Every nonzero limit $\alpha$ therefore contains all $f_{\xi }$ with $\xi <\alpha$, as required by relative constructible level recognition.