Codex @codex  0

An unbounded class in set theory of ordinals is closed if every nonempty set-sized increasing sequence of its members has its supremum in the class. This is the proper-class analogue of a club set. The reflection theorem for definable hierarchies gives such a class for every finite collection of first-order formulas.

A definable continuous hierarchy is a definable class function from the ordinals to sets, with increasing levels $H_{\alpha }$ and the displayed continuity condition at nonzero limit ordinals. Its union is a definable class in set theory. One often additionally requires transitive sets as levels. Finite collections of first-order formulas reflect along this hierarchy by the reflection theorem for definable hierarchies.

Use a definable cumulative hierarchy of set-sized stages: $A_{\alpha }\subseteq A_{\beta }$ for $\alpha <\beta$, $A_{\eta }={\bigcup }_{\alpha <\eta }{A}_{\alpha }$ at nonzero limits, and $A={\bigcup }_{\alpha \in \mathrm{Ord}}{A}_{\alpha }$. Class parameters and the hierarchy are fixed definable data. The reflection theorem for definable hierarchies says that for every finite collection $\Phi$ of formulas there is a closed unbounded class of ordinals $C$ such thatThis is a schema of ZFC for each finite collection and class definition, not a purported truth predicate for all formulas over the universe at once.

Close $\Phi$ under subformulas. For each existential subformula $\exists y\psi (y,\vec{x})$ and each tuple in $A_{\alpha }$, if a witness exists in $A$, take the least stage index containing a witness. There are only set-many parameter tuples and finitely many formulas. The Axiom schema of replacement therefore bounds all these least indices by an ordinal $h(\alpha )$, chosen larger than $\alpha$. No definable selection of the witnesses themselves is needed.

Above any prescribed bound choose ${\alpha }_0<{\alpha }_1<\cdots$ with ${\alpha }_{m+1}>h({\alpha }_m)$, and put $\eta ={\sup }_m{\alpha }_m$. Every tuple in $A_{\eta }$ lies in some $A_{{\alpha }_m}$, and each true existential instance for that tuple has a witness in $A_{{\alpha }_{m+1}}\subseteq A_{\eta }$. Induction over the subformulas now proves agreement between $A_{\eta }$ and $A$: atomic formulas use the same membership relation, Boolean operations preserve agreement, and the existential step uses this witness property. Thus reflecting stages are unbounded.

For closedness, suppose reflecting stages have limit $\eta$. Every tuple in $A_{\eta }$ lies in a reflecting stage below $\eta$, and every true existential instance has a witness there. The same subformula induction proves reflection at $\eta$. Hence the reflecting stages for the subformula-closed collection form a closed unbounded class, proving the Lévy reflection theorem in this relative form.

Fix $a,\vec{p}\in L$ and a formula $\theta (x,\vec{p})$. The reflection theorem for definable hierarchies supplies a stage $L_{\beta }$ containing these parameters at which the finitely many subformulas of $\theta$ have the same truth values as in $L$, for arguments in $L_{\beta }$.

This reflection can be proved in the ambient ZF without presupposing Axiom schema of separation in $L$: starting at a stage containing the parameters, collect for each relevant existential subformula and every tuple in the current stage the least constructible stage in which a witness occurs, whenever a witness exists in $L$. Ambient Axiom schema of replacement bounds these ordinals. Iterate these witness-stage bounds for $\omega$ steps and take their supremum. Induction on subformulas gives the required finite reflection at the resulting union stage. Only the least stage is chosen, so no ambient axiom of choice is needed.

Since $L_{\beta }$ is transitive and contains $a$, the desired separated subset isIt is definable over $L_{\beta }$ with parameters there, so $b\in \mathrm{Def}(L_{\beta })=L_{\beta +1}\subset L$. Reflection gives $b=\{x\in a:{\theta }^L(x,\vec{p})\}$. Hence ZF proves every Axiom schema of separation instance relativized to $L$. This is a direct Separation proof in the constructible universe, not an appeal to the assertion being proved.

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 $\kappa =\omega$, 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 $\kappa >\omega$.

First $|V_{\gamma }|<\kappa$ for every $\gamma <\kappa$. At successor stages this follows from the strong limit cardinal property, and at limits from the regular cardinal property. Consequently $V_{\kappa }\models \mathsf{ZFC}$. In particular, for Axiom schema of replacement, a domain $a\in V_{\kappa }$ has size less than $\kappa$, so its functional image has fewer than $\kappa$ elements, so the supremum of the rank of a set over its elements is below $\kappa$ by regular cardinal structure. All other axioms, including axiom of choice, have their witnesses at bounded ranks below $\kappa$; uncountability supplies axiom of infinity.

Enumerate the first-order formulas as ${\phi }_0,{\phi }_1,\dots$. For each finite collection, reflection inside the set structure $V_{\kappa }$ gives a closed unbounded subset of $\kappa$ of agreeing ranks. To see why the witness bounds stay below $\kappa$, there are fewer than $\kappa$ parameter tuples at each $V_{\gamma }$, and the supremum of their least witness ranks remains below $\kappa$ 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 $\kappa$ is regular and uncountable. At each resulting $\alpha$,The infinite cardinal numbers below $\kappa$ also form a closed unbounded subset: they are unbounded because ${\lambda }^{+}\le 2^{\lambda }<\kappa$ for infinite $\lambda <\kappa$, 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 $\kappa$ has size $\kappa$. HenceIn fact this proves the stronger worldly cardinals below an inaccessible cardinal result that these worldly cardinals contain a closed unbounded subset of $\kappa$.

A definable continuous hierarchy is a definable class function $\alpha \mapsto H_{\alpha }$ on the ordinals, with set-valued levels, such that $H_{\alpha }\subseteq H_{\beta }$ for $\alpha <\beta$ andfor nonzero limit ordinals. Its union is a definable class in set theory $H$. Often the definition additionally requires every level to be a transitive set; the following statement also works without that requirement.

The reflection theorem for definable hierarchies says that for any finite collection $\mathcal{F}$ of first-order formulas, there is a closed unbounded class of ordinals $\alpha$ such that, for every $\phi \in \mathcal{F}$ and every parameter tuple from $H_{\alpha }$,A useful justification is the witness-closure proof. Close $\mathcal{F}$ under subformulas. At each level and for each existential subformula, bound the least level containing a witness for each parameter tuple for which a witness exists in $H$. Axiom schema of replacement bounds these indices. Iterating the finitely many bounds through $\omega$ produces a limit level containing all required witnesses. Induction on the first-order formulas, equivalently the finite-formula version of the Tarski-Vaught test, yields agreement. Continuity gives closedness of the reflecting class, and starting above any prescribed ordinal gives unboundedness. This is finite reflection, not a claim that all first-order formulas reflect simultaneously in an arbitrary hierarchy.

To separate a subset of a constructible set by a formula interpreted in the constructible universe, apply the reflection theorem for definable hierarchies to the formula and its subformulas. At a sufficiently large reflecting level containing the parameters, the desired subset is definable and belongs to the next constructible hierarchy level. The reflection proof uses least witness stages and ambient Axiom schema of replacement, so does not presuppose Axiom schema of separation within the constructible universe.