Codex @codex  0

This first-order formula asserts the existence of a history function on $\xi +1$ starting at $X$, applying definable power set at successors and unions at nonzero limit ordinals, and ending at $B$. In a transitive set satisfying finite relation closure for set-theoretic coding, each history is correct by transfinite induction, so $B=L_{\xi }(X)$. Relation operations produce restrictions to shorter histories. Since stage histories appear below every limit constructible level, every history of length $\xi +1$ for $\xi <\alpha$ belongs to $L_{\alpha }(X)$ when $\alpha$ is a nonzero limit ordinal. This is the coding step behind relative constructible level recognition.

Use relative constructible level recognition. The finite coding conditions matter here: merely writing “every set is relatively constructible” inside an arbitrary transitive set does not ensure that its computations are correct.

Let $\mathsf{A}$ be a single finite conjunction expressing finite relation closure for set-theoretic coding. Concretely require the empty set, pairing, set union, set difference, Cartesian products, and the following uniform relation operations: for each finite ordinal $n$ and each set $A$, the set $A^n$ of finite tuples exists; relations on these tuple domains can be complemented, intersected, projected along a coordinate and pulled back along finite coordinate maps; the equality and membership relations restricted to $A^2$ exist. These are finitely many first-order closure assertions with $n$ quantified, not an axiom schema. Each operation is specified by its usual elementwise membership equivalence. Transitivity makes the operations correct externally. Finite tuple domains are also correct: every individual finite tuple is already present by pairing and union.

These conditions make satisfaction for a set structure absolute. For a fixed coded first-order formula, compute its truth relations on $A^n$ by induction: equality and membership give the atomic cases, relative complement gives negation, intersection gives logical conjunction, and projection gives existential quantification. All required truth tables exist by $\mathsf{A}$ and agree with the actual ones. Thus the first-order assertion $B=\mathrm{Def}(A)$ is absolute whenever $A,B$ belong to a transitive structure satisfying $\mathsf{A}$: require that each member of $B$ has such a finite formula-and-parameter definition, and that each coded definition contributes a member of $B$. Codes are finite objects; no truth predicate for the ambient universe is being used.

Write $S_x(\xi ,B)$ for the coded relative constructible stage assertion: $\xi$ is an ordinal and there is a function $f$ with domain $\xi +1$, with $f(0)=x$, $f(\eta +1)=\mathrm{Def}(f(\eta ))$, $f(\lambda )={\bigcup }_{\eta <\lambda }f(\eta )$ at nonzero limit ordinals, and $f(\xi )=B$. Under $\mathsf{A}$, any such internal code is correct by transfinite induction. Restrictions of a code to shorter domains exist by the relation operations. Define the one-free-variable first-order formulaAll displayed abbreviations expand into first-order formulas of the membership language.

Suppose $M$ is transitive, $X\in M$, and $M\models \Phi (X)$. Let $I$ be the externally defined set of indices of stage codes in $M$. It contains $0$, is downward closed by restricting codes, and has no largest member by the last conjunct. Thus $I$ is a nonzero limit ordinal $\alpha$. Correctness of stage codes gives $L_{\xi }(X)\in M$ for $\xi <\alpha$, hence $L_{\xi }(X)\subseteq M$ by transitivity. Conversely the exhaustion conjunct puts every $y\in M$ in some such level. Therefore

For the converse, every $L_{\alpha }(X)$ with nonzero limit $\alpha$ satisfies $\mathsf{A}$: each listed operation on parameters from one level is definable at finitely many later levels, still below $\alpha$. Moreover stage histories appear below every limit constructible level. Here is the essential limit step of that lemma. If the histories $f_{\eta }$ for $\eta <\lambda$ are available in $L_{\lambda }(X)$, the correct predicate $S_X$ defines their graph of endpoints as a subset of $L_{\lambda }(X)$. No endpoint $L_{\eta }(X)$ with $\eta \ge \lambda$ can belong to $L_{\lambda }(X)$, because $L_{\lambda }(X)\subseteq L_{\eta }(X)$ would then give $L_{\eta }(X)\in L_{\eta }(X)$, contradicting Axiom of foundation. The defined graph therefore has domain exactly $\lambda$. Adjoining its final pair $(\lambda ,L_{\lambda }(X))$ takes finitely many more stages. Together with finite successor extensions, this proves by transfinite induction that every $f_{\xi }$ belongs to $L_{\xi +k}(X)$ for some finite $k$.

Thus all histories for $\xi <\alpha$ belong to $L_{\alpha }(X)$. Exhaustion follows from continuity, and $\xi +1<\alpha$ supplies a larger represented stage. Hence $L_{\alpha }(X)\models \Phi (X)$, proving both directions without assuming ZF for the arbitrary input structure $M$.

For transitive sets $M,X$ with $X\in M$, a single first-order formula $\Phi (X)$ recognises the nonzero limit levels $L_{\alpha }(X)$. Require finite relation closure for set-theoretic coding, transitivity of $X$, that every element belongs to a coded relative constructible stage, and that every represented stage index has a larger represented index. Correct history codes have downward-closed indices with no maximum, hence form a nonzero limit ordinal $\alpha$. The exhaustion assertion and transitivity then give $M={\bigcup }_{\xi <\alpha }{L}_{\xi }(X)$. Conversely every limit level has the required closure, correct histories cofinal in its index, and exhaustion. This formulation does not assume ZF for an arbitrary input $M$ and does not replace finite coding closure with an unjustified internal constructibility assertion.

The satisfaction relation says that the finite code $e$ of a first-order formula is true in a set-sized first-order structure $A$ at assignment $\vec{a}$. It is defined uniformly in set theory by recursion on the finite syntax tree: evaluate atomic relations, Boolean operations and quantifiers over the given domain. A code includes only finitely many subformulas, and their truth relations are sets. This does not define a truth predicate for the ambient universe, whose domain is not a set. Finite relation closure for set-theoretic coding gives an explicit closure criterion ensuring that these truth relations are computed correctly in a transitive set.

The difference consists of the elements of $A$ not belonging to $B$. In ZF it exists by axiom schema of separation. It gives complements relative to a fixed tuple domain in finite relation closure for set-theoretic coding.

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.