Absoluteness of cardinalhood in limit ranks Created 2026-10-05 Updated 2026-10-06
For limit ordinals , the structures and agree on whether any shared set is a cardinal number. They agree on being an ordinal. If is not a cardinal number, a bijection from some onto has rank of a set at most , hence belongs to . Its defining properties are bounded formulas in set theory. Both structures therefore see the same failure witness. This full agreement is stronger than downward absoluteness of cardinalhood between arbitrary transitive models.
Forcing name rank 2026-10-06
The ordinal assigned recursively by . It measures dependency on subnames and justifies generic evaluation by recursion. The ordinary rank of a set also accounts for the coding of the ordered pairs and the forcing conditions; it need not equal this dependency rank of a set.
If , for an infinite cardinal number , satisfies Axiom schema of replacement for every external functional class, then an external cofinal function from an ordinal below cannot exist: its range would have rank of a set and would have to belong to . Similarly, a surjection with is impossible. Infinity therefore makes an uncountable regular cardinal and a strong limit cardinal. Full semantics for second-order logic, allowing arbitrary external functional relations, is essential.
Kuratowski ordered pair 2026-10-05
This representation of an ordered pair by sets satisfies exactly when and . Its intersection recovers , and its union recovers ; if the latter is a singleton then . Its rank of a set is , which bounds the ranks of function graphs in absoluteness of cardinalhood in limit ranks.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2008 ii Paper 3 16G Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-09-24
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2010 ii Paper 3 16G Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-09-24
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2011 ii Paper 4 16H Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-09-24
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2014 iii Paper 19 1 iii Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-06
The axiom of infinity excludes and all smaller stages, so the cardinal is uncountable. Full semantics for second-order logic is decisive: every externally specified functional relation whose ordered pairs lie in is an allowed class parameter, even if the relation itself is not an element of .
If , choose an external cofinal function . Its graph is an allowed class parameter: each input, output and ordered pair has rank of a set below the infinite cardinal , which is a limit ordinal. The domain belongs to . The second-order form of Axiom schema of replacement would give its range as an element of . But a cofinal subset of has rank of a set and cannot belong to . Therefore .
If for a cardinal , choice supplies an external surjection . The domain belongs to and the ordered pairs of its graph have ranks below . Applying Axiom schema of replacement to this external functional class would put its range, the ordinal , in , again impossible. Hence for every .
ConsequentlyThese are exactly the defining conditions for a strongly inaccessible cardinal. This full second-order replacement rank obstruction would not follow from Henkin semantics, where the available class relations may exclude the external functions just used.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2015 ii Paper 4 13I Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-10-06
The Axiom of foundation states that every nonempty set has a member with . The principle of epsilon induction states that a formula satisfying holds for every set .
Assume Axiom of foundation and suppose a progressive formula has a counterexample . In the transitive closure of , use axiom schema of separation to collect the counterexamples into a nonempty set . Foundation supplies having no member in . Since the closure is transitive, every member of satisfies , contradicting progressiveness. Conversely, if a nonempty set had no foundation-minimal member, every would have a member . The formula is then progressive: if every member of lies outside , cannot belong to . Epsilon induction would make empty, a contradiction. This proves equivalence in the presence of the other Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory.
To obtain the cumulative hierarchy, perform epsilon induction on the assertion that belongs to some . If this holds for each member , Axiom schema of replacement collects their least such ordinals into a set. Choose an ordinal above them all. Then and . Thus every set occurs in the hierarchy. Use the rank of a set convention , equivalently the least with .
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2015 ii Paper 4 13I ii Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-10-06
Use the Kuratowski ordered pair . Its rank of a set is . Every pair in the Cartesian product has finite rank, but those ranks are unbounded in . Therefore .
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2015 ii Paper 4 13I i Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-10-06
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2017 iii Paper 121 1 iii Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-05
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 .
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2017 iii Paper 121 1 vi Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-05
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 .
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2017 iii Paper 121 1 v Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-05
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.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2017 iii Paper 121 2 iv Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-05
A suitable relative condensation lemma fixes the base pointwise. Let be a nonzero limit ordinal, and let be an elementary substructure withThen the Mostowski collapse theorem gives an isomorphism onto a transitive set, andFor the collapse to apply, the restricted membership relation is well-founded because it is actual membership. It is extensional: if two members of differ, an element distinguishing them in can be chosen in by elementary substructure structure. Since is transitive and all its members are in , transfinite induction on their rank of a set shows that fixes every member of , and then .
By the preceding relative constructible level recognition, . Elementary substructure agreement transfers this to , and the collapse isomorphism transfers it to . Thus and for a nonzero limit ordinal .
For the bound, let . The relative constructible hierarchy has ordinal height : at a successor the definable power set adds exactly the previous ordinal height as a new ordinal, and at limits take unions. The order type of is at most , so ; strict increase of ordinal addition in the right argument gives . The requirement is essential to this version: merely having need not make the collapse fix the base.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2018 iii Paper 121 1 v a Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-05
We construct the two transitive models together, taking care that the later collapse really retains the earlier model. First, a worldly cardinal is greater than : ZFC in contains the full power set , and the axiom of choice there gives a bijection between it and an ordinal . That power set is externally uncountable by Cantor theorem, so . Infinity rules out the finite cardinals and before this argument is applied.
By the Downward Lowenheim-Skolem theorem, choose a countable elementary substructure . Its inherited membership is a well-founded relation, and elementarity transfers extensionality from . Apply the Mostowski collapse theorem to obtain a countable transitive model of ZFC. Because is a countable transitive set, it is a hereditarily countable set and its rank of a set is below . In particular, .
Now take the Skolem hull in of the seedCall it . The seed has external cardinality and lies inside . The hull is an elementary substructure of with : closure under countably many finitary Skolem functions gives the upper bound, and gives the lower bound. Let be its Mostowski collapse theorem map. Then is a transitive model of ZFC.
The transitive collapse fixes transitive subsets lemma gives for every , since is transitive. Since also , the collapse sends that element to itself. Thus , and transitivity of yields the required inclusion:This is the construction of nested transitive models from a worldly cardinal; the next two parts verify its size and ordinal requirements.