Inside the constructible universe, every hereditarily countable set appears in a countable level of the constructible hierarchy. Take a countable elementary substructure of a sufficiently large containing its transitive closure pointwise. The condensation lemma for the constructible universe identifies the collapse with for countable , and the collapse fixes the original set. Conversely, a countable-indexed level is countable inside the constructible universe.
Hereditarily countable set Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-09-29
A set is hereditarily countable when its transitive closure is countable. These sets form the transitive set and all have rank below .
Hereditarily small set 2026-10-06
For an infinite cardinal number , consists of the sets for which , where is transitive closure. The entire transitive membership ancestry is bounded, not only the size of . These collections are transitive sets. At the elements are the hereditarily countable sets.
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 2009 ii Paper 4 16G Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-09-24
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2013 iii Paper 19 1 iv Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-07
The structure of hereditarily small sets is transitive. If , all its sets are hereditarily finite, so it cannot satisfy Infinity. Therefore the assumed model has .
Let be a cardinal. The ordinal belongs to , and every actual subset of also belongs to : its transitive closure has size at most . The Power set axiom inside therefore produces the actual , since all subsets relevant to the internal definition are present. This power set itself belongs to , soThus is a strong limit. Its regularity was assumed, and we have proved uncountability. Hence is strongly inaccessible.
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 2016 iii Paper 121 4 a Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-06
The Von Neumann hierarchy and the constructible hierarchy are defined by transfinite recursion:The union clauses apply to nonzero limit ordinals. The definable power set consists of subsets definable over by a first-order formula with finitely many parameters from . Definability over that structure is essential; it is not unrestricted definability in the ambient universe. The full constructible universe is .
For an infinite cardinal number , the hereditarily small set collection iswhere is transitive closure. Using instead gives the same size criterion for infinite . This bounds the whole membership ancestry, not just .
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2016 iii Paper 121 4 d Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-06
A witness to failure of the Axiom of power set is . Every subset belongs to , since its transitive closure has cardinality at most . If some were the internal power set of , transitivity and bounded subsethood would force to contain every ambient subset of , and only those subsets. Thus it would be the full .
By the Cantor theorem,Its transitive closure contains all its members, so . This contradicts . ThereforeThe power-set failure in hereditarily small sets needs no assumption about the Continuum hypothesis.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2017 ii Paper 4 15H Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-10-05
Use the convention that the transitive closure of is the least transitive set containing as a subset. Define and . For each natural number , a finite sequence of length with these properties exists by induction, and is unique because each next entry is the uniquely determined union of the previous entry. Thus the relation sending to its last entry is a definable function-class, not just a putative recursive specification. The Axiom schema of replacement applied to gives the set of all . The Axiom of union then givesIf and , then , so this set is transitive. It contains , and any transitive set containing contains all by induction; hence it is least. The convention requiring itself as an element instead uses .
The Axiom of foundation says every nonempty set has an element with . Epsilon induction says that for every formula ,To derive induction from Foundation, if fails, form by axiom schema of separation the nonempty set of counterexamples in . A Foundation-minimal counterexample has every member satisfying , by transitivity, contradicting the inductive hypothesis. Conversely, if a nonempty set has no Foundation-minimal member, every has a member in . The formula is then progressive: if all members of are outside , must also be outside . Epsilon induction makes empty, a contradiction. Thus the two principles are equivalent given the other axioms.
The epsilon-recursion theorem states that for a definable class operation assigning a unique set to each set-indexed function, there is a unique definable function-class such that for every set . A version with explicit in the argument is equivalent. Foundation gives well-foundedness and Replacement makes each restriction set-sized. Its ordinal restriction gives transfinite recursion and constructs the printed .
Here “countable” means at most countable, including finite sets and the empty set. By transfinite induction each is transitive, each of its elements is countable, and . At a successor this follows because a member of is a countable subset of ; at a limit use the increasing union. Let be the first uncountable ordinal. Every countable subset of lies in some with , since countably many countable ordinal bounds have a countable supremum. It therefore belongs to . ConsequentlyThere is no earlier stabilization: for every countable ordinal , induction gives , so , while excludes by its rank. Thus is the first such stage. The fixed set is the set of hereditarily countable sets.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2018 iii Paper 121 2 iii Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-05
Let be the ordinal height of a model of set theory. First . Indeed, if were countable, the internal axiom of choice would give, for every , a bijection in between and some ordinal below . Such a bijection is also valid externally, making externally countable. In particular every internal rank , , would be countable. Every element of lies in one of these internal ranks, sowould be a countable union of countable sets, a contradiction. This is why an uncountable transitive set model has uncountable ordinal height.
For , absoluteness of constructible levels gives , and that level is an element of . The reason is that satisfaction in a fixed set structure uses the same domain and finite formulas in both universes, so successor definitions agree; transfinite recursion then also makes limit stages agree. Transitivity consequently givesIt remains to locate a countability witness. Given an ambient countable ordinal , choose an injection . Since , it belongs to the constructible universe. Its transitive closure, together with itself, is countable. Choose a countable elementary substructure of a sufficiently large limit level containing this closure pointwise. The condensation lemma for the constructible universe identifies the collapse with for some countable . The collapse fixes , since all its hereditary members were included. Thus .
The ordinal itself is in , since . Being an injection between these fixed sets is a bounded formula in set theory, so recognizes as a countability witness. This proves countable-ordinal correctness under constructibility:The use of condensation supplies a witness below the height of ; merely knowing that belongs somewhere to would not be sufficient.