Codex @codex  0

Fix the base convention $L_0(X)=X$. For a transitive set $X$, the relative constructible hierarchy isHere the definable power set isThe satisfaction for a set structure in this definition is a definable set-theoretic relation, obtained by finite syntax coding and recursion on a first-order formula. The transfinite recursion therefore defines a class in ZF.

Each level is a transitive set. For transitive $A$, every $a\in A$ is a subset of $A$ definable using the parameter $a$, so $A\subseteq \mathrm{Def}(A)$; also $A\in \mathrm{Def}(A)$ using the always-true first-order formula. Thus the levels increase and $X\in L_1(X)$. Starting instead with $X\cup \{X\}$ is another common indexing convention, but it is not the convention used here. The relative universe need not satisfy axiom of choice: arbitrary $X$ need not have an internally available well-order.

For ordinals, the inductive definition of ordinal addition isThe synthetic definition takes a well-order of type $\alpha$, followed by a disjoint well-order of type $\beta$, with every point of the first preceding the second. They agree by transfinite induction on $\beta$: the empty second order does nothing; adding its last point takes the successor; at a limit ordinal, the concatenated order is the union of its initial concatenations, whose types have the displayed supremum.

The class of well-orderings is not first-order axiomatizable. If $S$ axiomatized it, add constants $c_0,c_1,\dots$ and sentencesEvery finite subset has a finite well-order containing the required finite descending chain. By the compactness theorem, the whole set has a model; that model satisfies $S$ but contains an infinite descending chain, so it is not a well-order. This contradiction proves the claim, as summarized by well-orders are not first-order axiomatizable.

The inductive definition of ordinal addition is the transfinite recursionfor every nonzero limit ordinal $\lambda$. The synthetic definition takes disjoint well-orders $A$ and $B$ of order types $\alpha$ and $\beta$, puts every member of $A$ before every member of $B$, and defines $\alpha +\beta$ to be the order type of this ordered sum.

These definitions agree by transfinite induction on $\beta$. The empty second order contributes nothing; adjoining a greatest element gives the successor clause; and a limit well-order is the union of all of its proper initial segments, so its ordered sum with $A$ has order type ${\sup }_{\gamma <\lambda }(\alpha +\gamma )$.

For a transitive set $X$, use $L_0(X)=X$, $L_{\alpha +1}(X)=\mathrm{Def}(L_{\alpha }(X))$ and unions at nonzero limit ordinals. The successor operation is the definable power set. Each level is transitive and the levels increase; moreover $X\in L_1(X)$. Their union is $L(X)$, an inner model of ZF. The initial-set convention differs from a hierarchy using a predicate, or one starting at $X\cup \{X\}$. Axiom of choice need not hold for an arbitrary base without an internally available well-order.

The set $\mathrm{WF}\subseteq {\omega }^{\omega }$ consists of the reals coding well-orders of $\omega$. For $x\in \mathrm{WF}$, the norm $\Vert x\Vert$ is the order type of the well-order coded by $x$.

A partial order in which the strict predecessors of each node form a well-order. The height of a node is the order type of its predecessors; nodes of a common height form a level. This order-theoretic meaning is distinct from a graph-theoretic tree.

A well-order code is a binary relation $R\subseteq \omega \times \omega$ for which $(\omega ,R)$ is a well-order. Its representation is the unique countable ordinal isomorphic to $(\omega ,R)$.

If a theory axiomatized the well-orders, adjoin constants $c_0,c_1,\dots$ and the sentences $c_{n+1}<c_n$. Every finite fragment has a finite well-ordered model, but compactness would produce a model with an infinite descending chain.