Codex @codex  0

A Von Neumann ordinal $x$ is finite exactly when $x$ and every member of $x$ are either zero or successor ordinals. Every finite ordinal has that property. Conversely, an infinite ordinal is either $\omega$, which is a nonzero limit, or is greater than $\omega$ and contains that nonzero limit ordinal. The test can be expressed by a bounded first-order formula: ordinality uses transitivity and membership comparability, and a nonempty ordinal is a successor exactly when it has a greatest member. This defines the class of natural numbers without quantifying over arbitrary infinite inductive sets.

A set $I$ is inductive if it contains the empty set and contains $x\cup \{x\}$ whenever it contains $x$. The axiom of infinity asserts that an inductive set exists. The natural numbers form the least inductive set: intersect one inductive set with the class of objects belonging to every inductive set. This use of separation gives a set, and the defining class is closed under successor.

The axiom of infinity asserts that an inductive set exists: some set $I$ contains $0=\varnothing$ and contains $x^{+}=x\cup \{x\}$ whenever it contains $x$. Inside one such $I$, axiom of separation definesThis intersection is itself inductive and is contained in every inductive set, by intersecting that set with $I$. It is therefore the set of natural numbers. If a property holds at $0$ and passes from $n$ to $n^{+}$, axiom of separation forms the subset of $\omega$ on which it holds. That subset is inductive, so must equal $\omega$. This proves mathematical induction, including properties with set parameters.

Recursion on $\omega$ defines the arithmetic operations byExistence and uniqueness follow from the recursion theorem on the natural numbers.

For associativity of addition fix $m,n$ and induct on $k$. At $k=0$ both sides equal $m+n$. If the equality holds at $k$, thenThusEvery step after the induction hypothesis is a defining successor equation, so commutativity has not been used prematurely.

The assertions are relative independence results. We construct countermodels in a background model of ZFC; if ZF is consistent, its constructible universe gives a model of ZFC as well. The original model satisfies foundation and choice, supplying the positive sides.

For failure of foundation, use a Rieger-Bernays permutation model. Let $\pi$ interchange the old $\varnothing$ and $\{\varnothing \}$ and fix every other object, and put $xEy$ iff $x\in \pi (y)$. The new extension of $y$ is the old set $\pi (y)$, so the representative of any old extension $b$ is ${\pi }^{-1}(b)$. Bijectivity gives extensionality. Translate formulas recursively by this definition of $E$. Old separation gives each new definable subset, and old replacement gives each new functional range; apply ${\pi }^{-1}$ to the resulting extension to obtain its new representative.

Explicitly, a new pair is represented by ${\pi }^{-1}(\{x,y\})$; the new union of $a$ is represented by ${\pi }^{-1}({\bigcup }_{x\in \pi (a)}\pi (x))$; and the new power set of $a$ is represented byStarting from the new empty set, iterate the new successor and collect these iterates by old replacement, obtaining an inductive set. The old axiom of choice selects a member from each nonempty extension and thereby gives new choice functions. However the old object $q=\varnothing$ now satisfies $qEq$ and has exactly itself as its member: it is a Quine atom. Its new singleton has no $E$-minimal member, so foundation fails.

To make choice fail, retain infinitely many Quine atoms $A=\{a_n:n<\omega \}$ and impose a finite-support symmetry restriction. A precise background construction uses tagged set codes. Each atom $a$ has extension $\{a\}$. For every other set of available objects $S$, introduce a unique ordinary set code with extension $S$, except that $S=\{a\}$ is already represented by $a$ itself. Iterate this construction through the ordinals. Omitting the duplicate singleton codes makes the resulting relation extensional. Every permutation of $A$ extends to an automorphism of this universe by recursion through its ordinary codes.

An object has finite support if some finite $S\subseteq A$ has the property that every permutation fixing $S$ pointwise fixes that object. Retain the hereditarily finite-supported Quine-atom model: the object and every object reached through its membership relation must have finite support. The atomic self-loops are permitted. The atom set $A$ and all pure sets are retained.

The union of supports for a domain and finitely many parameters supports any definable subset or functional image: every permutation fixing those supports preserves the defining formula. Members of the subset or image are already hereditary, so this verifies separation and replacement. The collection of all retained subsets of a retained set is invariant under any permutation fixing that set's support, and each of its members is hereditary; this verifies the Axiom of power set. Pairs and unions have the union of the requisite finite supports, and the pure natural-number hierarchy verifies infinity. The coding still verifies extensionality.

If a choice function on all two-element subsets of $A$ had finite support $S$, choose distinct $a,b\notin S$. The transposition of $a,b$ fixes $S$ and the unordered pair $\{a,b\}$, but moves either possible chosen value. This contradicts invariance of the function. Hence choice fails, while a Quine atom witnesses failure of foundation. We have a model of $\mathrm{ZF}-\mathrm{Foundation}+\neg \mathrm{Choice}$. Together with the original model this proves the required independence of choice over $\mathrm{ZF}-\mathrm{Foundation}$.

Work in a background model of ZFC. Each structure below satisfies every axiom of ZF except the indicated one and falsifies that axiom; the background model supplies the other consistency direction.

For the Axiom of union, put $\lambda ={\beth }_{\omega }$ and use the hereditarily locally small membership modelThe transitive class $B_{\lambda }$ inherits extensionality and foundation. Definable subsets of its sets remain in it. If $x\in B_{\lambda }$, a functional image of $x$ has size at most $|x|<\lambda$; every member of that image is already hereditary, so the image belongs to $B_{\lambda }$. This verifies replacement, even though its values can have unbounded ranks. Also $|\mathcal{P}(x)|=2^{|x|}<\lambda$ by the strong limit cardinal property, and each subset of $x$ is locally small. This verifies the Axiom of power set. Pairing and infinity follow similarly. Butsince $|V_{\omega +n}|={\beth }_n<\lambda$ while $|V_{\omega +\omega }|=\lambda$. This is failure of sumset without failure of replacement or power set.

For the Axiom of power set, use the hereditarily countable sets $H_{{\omega }_1}$. This is a transitive class. A countable union of countable transitive closures is countable, so it is closed under pairs, unions and functional images of its countable domains; these facts verify pairing, union and replacement. Separation, foundation and infinity also hold. Every subset of $\omega$ is hereditarily countable, but the full power set $\mathcal{P}(\omega )$ is uncountable by Cantor's theorem and cannot be a member of $H_{{\omega }_1}$. Since every candidate internal power set would have to contain all those subsets, the power-set axiom fails.

For replacement, take the rank-initial transitive set $V_{\omega +\omega }$. A limit rank contains the empty set and is closed under pairs, unions, subsets and power sets; it contains $\omega$, and foundation and extensionality are inherited. Fix the parameter $V_{\omega }$. The definable mapis internally described by a finite sequence of power-set iterations. Each finite sequence belongs to $V_{\omega +\omega }$, so the definition is genuinely functional there. Its range has rank $\omega +\omega$ and is not in the structure. Thus this instance of replacement fails.

For extensionality, use the non-extensional membership model with one atom. Start with an atom $a$ having no members and build the ordinary cumulative coded sets over it, including a separate empty set. Interpret membership by the contents of a set code and give $a$ no members. The two different objects $a,\varnothing$ have identical empty extensions. Foundation holds by the code ranks; pure finite ordinals give infinity; pairs, unions, definable subsets and functional ranges have their usual set codes. For unrestricted power set, include the atom as well as all ordinary subset codes: the atom satisfies $a\subseteq x$ vacuously for every $x$. This detail is necessary because the formulas here are the unmodified ZF formulas, without a set predicate. The collection still has a set code, so the Axiom of power set holds. All axioms except extensionality are satisfied.

Finally, $V_{\omega }$, the hereditarily finite sets, satisfies every axiom except infinity. Pairs, unions, power sets and subsets of finite sets are finite, and every functional image of a finite domain is finite, so the full replacement schema holds. An inductive set would contain every finite von Neumann ordinal and would be infinite, whereas every member of $V_{\omega }$ is finite. Hence infinity fails.

Use the bounded successor characterization of finite ordinals. Let $\mathrm{Ord}(x)$ assert that $x$ is transitive, each of its members is transitive, and any two members are equal or comparable by membership. This is a bounded first-order formula; foundation makes its linear membership order well-founded, so it is precisely the Von Neumann ordinal predicate. Defineand putFor an ordinal, having a greatest member $y$ says exactly $x=y\cup \{y\}$. The displayed definition makes no reference to an infinite inductive set or to $\omega$; all quantifiers are bounded within the candidate and its members. Occurrences of $x=\varnothing$ can also be expressed as $(\forall u\in x)u\ne u$, so no unbounded quantifier is hidden in empty-set notation.

Every usual natural number satisfies this predicate, by induction: it is a finite ordinal, and every nonzero initial segment is a successor. Conversely, suppose an ordinal $x$ is not a usual natural number. Ordinal comparability gives $x\ge \omega$. If $x=\omega$, it has no greatest member, contradicting ${\mathrm{Succ}}_0(x)$. If $x>\omega$, then $\omega \in x$ has no greatest member, contradicting the corresponding bounded requirement on members of $x$. Hence $\mathrm{Nat}(x)$ holds exactly for the usual natural numbers. The axiom of infinity and separation therefore collect this class as the usual set $\omega$. This is a bounded definition of membership in the natural-number class; it does not claim that the infinite set $\omega$ itself can be produced without the infinity axiom.