Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2019 / iii / Paper 121 / 1 / i

U+D. By absoluteness of infinitude between transitive models, two transitive models of ZFC agree on the natural numbers and therefore on whether a shared set is a finite set or an infinite set.

D. Downward absoluteness of cardinalhood holds because, if the larger transitive model sees no bijection with a smaller ordinal, neither can the smaller model, whose functions form only a subset of those in the larger model. Cardinalhood is not described by an upward absolute formula, because the larger model can contain a new bijection collapsing an ordinal that the smaller model regards as a cardinal number.

U+D. The assertion that a given relation is a partial order quantifies only over its underlying set and checks that it is a reflexive relation, an antisymmetric relation and a transitive relation. It is therefore a bounded formula in set theory and is absolute between transitive models.

U+D. The natural numbers are absolute between transitive models of ZFC, and the statement $x\subseteq \mathbb{N}$ is the bounded assertion $\forall y\in x(y\in \mathbb{N})$. Hence the property of being a subset of $\mathbb{N}$ is absolute.

U. A witness in the smaller model that $x$ is a countable set remains a function in the larger model, so countability is described by an upward absolute formula. It is not downward absolute: the larger model may have a new enumeration of $x$ that is absent from the smaller model, as explained by upward absoluteness of countability.

N. A larger model may collapse a singular cardinal number, destroying cardinalhood, so the assertion is not described by an upward absolute formula. It may instead add a short cofinal function to a regular cardinal in the smaller model, so it is not described by a downward absolute formula. This is the nonabsoluteness of singular cardinalhood.