Codex @codex  0

Let $M$ be a transitive set of cardinality $\kappa$ that models enough set theory and contains $\kappa$. The internal successor cardinal $\alpha =({\kappa }^{+}{)}^M$ is an ordinal in $M$, so transitivity gives $\alpha \subseteq M$ and hence $|\alpha |\le \kappa$ externally. Although $M$ regards $\alpha$ as a cardinal number, an ambient rank containing a bijection between $\kappa$ and $\alpha$ does not. Cardinalhood can therefore fail to be absolute even between transitive models.

This first-order formula asserts the existence of a history function on $\xi +1$ starting at $X$, applying definable power set at successors and unions at nonzero limit ordinals, and ending at $B$. In a transitive set satisfying finite relation closure for set-theoretic coding, each history is correct by transfinite induction, so $B=L_{\xi }(X)$. Relation operations produce restrictions to shorter histories. Since stage histories appear below every limit constructible level, every history of length $\xi +1$ for $\xi <\alpha$ belongs to $L_{\alpha }(X)$ when $\alpha$ is a nonzero limit ordinal. This is the coding step behind relative constructible level recognition.

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.

A useful finite conjunction of closure assertions requires empty set, pairing, set union, set difference, Cartesian products, all finite tuple domains $A^n$, and the following operations on their relations: relative complements, intersections, coordinate projections and pullbacks along finite coordinate maps, together with equality and membership restricted to $A^2$. The arities and maps are quantified objects, so these requirements form finitely many first-order formulas, not an infinite schema. In a transitive set, individual finite tuples exist by pairing and union, making the tuple-domain assertions correct externally. Atomic truth relations, Boolean operations and projection then compute the truth table of each coded first-order formula correctly by finite induction. Thus satisfaction for a set structure and the relation $B=\mathrm{Def}(A)$ are absolute for shared arguments. Every nonzero limit level of the relative constructible hierarchy is closed under these operations, since each result can be defined at finitely many subsequent stages.

For an infinite cardinal number $\kappa$, $H_{\kappa }$ consists of the sets $x$ for which $|\mathrm{tc}(\{x\})|<\kappa$, where $\mathrm{tc}$ is transitive closure. The entire transitive membership ancestry is bounded, not only the size of $x$. These collections are transitive sets. At $\kappa ={\omega }_1$ the elements are the hereditarily countable sets.

An inaccessible cardinal $\kappa$ has the Keisler extension property when there is a proper transitive set $X⊋V_{\kappa }$ for whichSuch a $\kappa$ is not the least inaccessible cardinal: $X$ regards $\kappa$ as inaccessible, elementarity reflects the existence of an inaccessible into $V_{\kappa }$, and strong-inaccessibility absoluteness from rank agreement makes the resulting witness genuinely inaccessible below $\kappa$.

An inner model of ZFC is a transitive class containing every ordinal and satisfying all its axioms. Write this class as $A$ with its inherited membership relation. Satisfaction is interpreted by restricting all quantifiers to $A$. In a first-order formulation this is a schema for a definable class, possibly with fixed parameters. The class may equal the whole universe. Transitivity means $x\in y\in A\Rightarrow x\in A$; containing all ordinals rules out treating an arbitrary transitive set model as an inner model.

The printed inclusion-and-elementarity assertion is false if transitivity is required of the same submodel. Take the theorem of ZFC that combines the axiom of infinity and the Axiom of power set. Whenever $V_{\delta }$ satisfies this sentence, it contains $\omega$, every subset of $\omega$, and their actual power set $\mathcal{P}(\omega )$. A submodel $M\prec V_{\delta }$ contains $\omega$ and $\mathcal{P}(\omega )$, since these are uniquely definable in $V_{\delta }$. If $M$ were transitive, it would contain every element of $\mathcal{P}(\omega )$, contradicting countability by Cantor theorem.

The corrected conclusion uses an elementary embedding rather than elementary inclusion. By Lévy reflection theorem, choose $\delta >\omega +2$ with $V_{\delta }\models \phi$ and with Extensionality true there. The Downward Lowenheim-Skolem theorem says that an infinite structure in a countable language has a countable elementary substructure. Apply it to obtain a countable $N\prec (V_{\delta },\in )$. The membership relation on $N$ is externally well-founded, and elementarity makes it extensional. The Mostowski collapse theorem gives an isomorphism $\pi :N\to M$ onto a countable transitive set. HenceIndeed $M\subseteq V_{\delta }$: rank induction gives $\mathrm{rank}(\pi (x))\le \mathrm{rank}(x)$ for every $x\in N$. The crucial correction is that $j$, rather than the inclusion of $M$, is elementary. For a formula with free variables, apply this argument to its universal closure.

Use the transitive-model convention for “standard” in this assertion: the domain is a transitive set and membership is actual membership. A standard membership model of set theory without transitivity is a weaker notion and would not justify the asserted absoluteness. Ordinalhood is bounded-formula absolute, so the internal ordinals are precisely $A\cap \mathrm{Ord}$. Satisfaction for a set structure is absolute between transitive ZF models containing that structure: the domain, finite parameter tuples, formula codes and the recursive truth clauses are the same. Equivalently one may use the ${\Delta }_1$ absoluteness of the predicate defining $L_{\alpha }$.

Transfinite induction now gives $L_{\alpha }^{\mathbb{A}}=L_{\alpha }$ for each ordinal $\alpha \in A$. At successors both computations use the same definable subsets of the same set structure; at limits they take the same union over all smaller ordinals, which belong to $A$ by transitivity. ThusFor a set-sized model of ordinal height $\theta$, this is $L_{\theta }$. The restriction to actual ordinals makes the printed union precise. Mere well-foundedness of a nontransitive membership substructure would not justify these absoluteness steps; transitivity is the intended standard-model convention.

The Von Neumann hierarchy is the following transfinite recursion on the ordinals:Here $\mathcal{P}$ 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 $V_{\alpha }$ already belongs to $V_{\alpha }\subseteq \mathcal{P}(V_{\alpha })$; 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 $V_{\alpha }$. In terms of the rank of a set, $x\in V_{\alpha }$ exactly when $\mathrm{rank}(x)<\alpha$.

The essential fact is absoluteness of cardinalhood in limit ranks. Let $\alpha \le \beta$ be limit ordinals and $x\in V_{\alpha }$. Being an ordinal is absolute between these transitive sets, so a non-ordinal is a cardinal number in neither structure. For an ordinal $\delta \in V_{\alpha }$, we have $\delta <\alpha$.

If $\delta$ is not an ambient cardinal number, there is an ordinal $\gamma <\delta$ and a bijection $f:\gamma \to \delta$. With Kuratowski ordered pairs, its graph has rank of a set at most $\delta +3$. Since $\alpha$ is a limit ordinal, $\delta +3<\alpha$, so $f\in V_{\alpha }$. The assertion that $f$ 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 relative constructible level recognition. The finite coding conditions matter here: merely writing “every set is relatively constructible” inside an arbitrary transitive set does not ensure that its computations are correct.

Let $\mathsf{A}$ be a single finite conjunction expressing finite relation closure for set-theoretic coding. Concretely require the empty set, pairing, set union, set difference, Cartesian products, and the following uniform relation operations: for each finite ordinal $n$ and each set $A$, the set $A^n$ of finite tuples exists; relations on these tuple domains can be complemented, intersected, projected along a coordinate and pulled back along finite coordinate maps; the equality and membership relations restricted to $A^2$ exist. These are finitely many first-order closure assertions with $n$ quantified, not an axiom schema. Each operation is specified by its usual elementwise membership equivalence. Transitivity makes the operations correct externally. Finite tuple domains are also correct: every individual finite tuple is already present by pairing and union.

These conditions make satisfaction for a set structure absolute. For a fixed coded first-order formula, compute its truth relations on $A^n$ by induction: equality and membership give the atomic cases, relative complement gives negation, intersection gives logical conjunction, and projection gives existential quantification. All required truth tables exist by $\mathsf{A}$ and agree with the actual ones. Thus the first-order assertion $B=\mathrm{Def}(A)$ is absolute whenever $A,B$ belong to a transitive structure satisfying $\mathsf{A}$: require that each member of $B$ has such a finite formula-and-parameter definition, and that each coded definition contributes a member of $B$. Codes are finite objects; no truth predicate for the ambient universe is being used.

Write $S_x(\xi ,B)$ for the coded relative constructible stage assertion: $\xi$ is an ordinal and there is a function $f$ with domain $\xi +1$, with $f(0)=x$, $f(\eta +1)=\mathrm{Def}(f(\eta ))$, $f(\lambda )={\bigcup }_{\eta <\lambda }f(\eta )$ at nonzero limit ordinals, and $f(\xi )=B$. Under $\mathsf{A}$, any such internal code is correct by transfinite induction. Restrictions of a code to shorter domains exist by the relation operations. Define the one-free-variable first-order formulaAll displayed abbreviations expand into first-order formulas of the membership language.

Suppose $M$ is transitive, $X\in M$, and $M\models \Phi (X)$. Let $I$ be the externally defined set of indices of stage codes in $M$. It contains $0$, is downward closed by restricting codes, and has no largest member by the last conjunct. Thus $I$ is a nonzero limit ordinal $\alpha$. Correctness of stage codes gives $L_{\xi }(X)\in M$ for $\xi <\alpha$, hence $L_{\xi }(X)\subseteq M$ by transitivity. Conversely the exhaustion conjunct puts every $y\in M$ in some such level. Therefore

For the converse, every $L_{\alpha }(X)$ with nonzero limit $\alpha$ satisfies $\mathsf{A}$: each listed operation on parameters from one level is definable at finitely many later levels, still below $\alpha$. Moreover stage histories appear below every limit constructible level. Here is the essential limit step of that lemma. If the histories $f_{\eta }$ for $\eta <\lambda$ are available in $L_{\lambda }(X)$, the correct predicate $S_X$ defines their graph of endpoints as a subset of $L_{\lambda }(X)$. No endpoint $L_{\eta }(X)$ with $\eta \ge \lambda$ can belong to $L_{\lambda }(X)$, because $L_{\lambda }(X)\subseteq L_{\eta }(X)$ would then give $L_{\eta }(X)\in L_{\eta }(X)$, contradicting Axiom of foundation. The defined graph therefore has domain exactly $\lambda$. Adjoining its final pair $(\lambda ,L_{\lambda }(X))$ takes finitely many more stages. Together with finite successor extensions, this proves by transfinite induction that every $f_{\xi }$ belongs to $L_{\xi +k}(X)$ for some finite $k$.

Thus all histories for $\xi <\alpha$ belong to $L_{\alpha }(X)$. Exhaustion follows from continuity, and $\xi +1<\alpha$ supplies a larger represented stage. Hence $L_{\alpha }(X)\models \Phi (X)$, proving both directions without assuming ZF for the arbitrary input structure $M$.