For parameters , set-theoretic absoluteness means agreement of the two membership first-order structures:This must hold for every such parameter tuple. Equivalently, formula relativization to a class produces two formulas and whose truth values agree on tuples from . Agreement for parameters only in is not part of the definition. For a proper class in set theory, this notation is understood separately for each fixed first-order formula, rather than as an unrestricted truth predicate for the entire universe.
A syntactically bounded formula in set theory is built from the atomic first-order formulas and using Boolean operations and bounded quantifiers and . These abbreviate and , with different from the bounding variable .
The superscript in the question allows provable equivalence: a ZF-equivalent bounded formula is any first-order formula for which some syntactically bounded formula in set theory satisfiesThus is the class of first-order formulas equivalent over ZF to a syntactic first-order formula. If a convention uses just for syntactically bounded set-theoretic first-order formulas, it is the smaller syntactic class; the subsequent set-theoretic absoluteness proof works for both conventions.
The Von Neumann hierarchy is the following transfinite recursion on the ordinals:Here denotes the full power set. The levels are increasing transitive sets, and the construction is continuous at limit ordinals. Transfinite induction proves these properties: transitivity at a successor follows because a member of a subset of already belongs to ; at a limit it follows from the set union of increasing transitive sets. In ZF, Axiom of foundation and Axiom schema of replacement ensure that every set belongs to some . In terms of the rank of a set, exactly when .
First prove set-theoretic absoluteness for syntactically bounded formulas in set theory by induction on their construction. Atomic equality and membership use the actual equality and membership relations in both transitive classes. Boolean operations preserve agreement.
For the bounded existential step, take and suppose . Its witness is an actual member of . Since is a transitive class, ; the induction hypothesis then gives . The converse uses the same witness in . The bounded universal step follows similarly because both structures quantify over exactly the actual members of , or follows by negation from the existential step. HenceNo ZF axioms are needed for this syntactic statement beyond the ambient meaning of a transitive class. For a ZF-equivalent bounded formula , choose a bounded equivalent . The assumption that both structures model ZF gives and . Combining these with the displayed equivalence proves the asserted set-theoretic absoluteness of .
The essential fact is absoluteness of cardinalhood in limit ranks. Let be limit ordinals and . Being an ordinal is absolute between these transitive sets, so a non-ordinal is a cardinal number in neither structure. For an ordinal , we have .
If is not an ambient cardinal number, there is an ordinal and a bijection . With Kuratowski ordered pairs, its graph has rank of a set at most . Since is a limit ordinal, , so . The assertion that is such a bijection is a bounded formula in set theory and is therefore evaluated correctly by each rank. Conversely, any internal bijection witnessing failure of cardinal number status is an actual one by the same set-theoretic absoluteness. ConsequentlyUnlike arbitrary transitive models, these rank-initial structures contain every sufficiently low-rank witness. That witness availability is what upgrades the usual downward absoluteness of cardinalhood to agreement in both directions.
Use the standard convention that a strongly inaccessible cardinal is uncountable, regular and strong limit. The printed explanatory definition omits uncountability: literally it also admits , for which no finite cardinal is a worldly cardinal. Thus that omission makes the requested conclusion false under the literal abbreviated definition. The proof below applies to the usual, intended strongly inaccessible cardinal convention .
First for every . At successor stages this follows from the strong limit cardinal property, and at limits from the regular cardinal property. Consequently . In particular, for Axiom schema of replacement, a domain has size less than , so its functional image has fewer than elements, so the supremum of the rank of a set over its elements is below by regular cardinal structure. All other axioms, including axiom of choice, have their witnesses at bounded ranks below ; uncountability supplies axiom of infinity.
Enumerate the first-order formulas as . For each finite collection, reflection inside the set structure gives a closed unbounded subset of of agreeing ranks. To see why the witness bounds stay below , there are fewer than parameter tuples at each , and the supremum of their least witness ranks remains below by regular cardinal structure. Closing under these bounds and taking increasing countable limits gives the usual reflection theorem for definable hierarchies argument. The countable intersection of these closed unbounded subsets is still closed unbounded because is regular and uncountable. At each resulting ,The infinite cardinal numbers below also form a closed unbounded subset: they are unbounded because for infinite , and a supremum of increasing cardinal numbers is a cardinal number. Intersect the two closed unbounded subsets. Every member of the intersection is a worldly cardinal, and an unbounded subset of a regular cardinal has size . HenceIn fact this proves the stronger worldly cardinals below an inaccessible cardinal result that these worldly cardinals contain a closed unbounded subset of .
Articles by others on the same topic
There are currently no matching articles.