A syntactically bounded formula in set theory is built from the atomic first-order formulas and using Boolean operations and bounded quantifiers and . These abbreviate and , with different from the bounding variable .
The superscript in the question allows provable equivalence: a ZF-equivalent bounded formula is any first-order formula for which some syntactically bounded formula in set theory satisfies
Thus is the class of first-order formulas equivalent over ZF to a syntactic first-order formula. If a convention uses just for syntactically bounded set-theoretic first-order formulas, it is the smaller syntactic class; the subsequent set-theoretic absoluteness proof works for both conventions.
First prove set-theoretic absoluteness for syntactically bounded formulas in set theory by induction on their construction. Atomic equality and membership use the actual equality and membership relations in both transitive classes. Boolean operations preserve agreement.
For the bounded existential step, take and suppose . Its witness is an actual member of . Since is a transitive class, ; the induction hypothesis then gives . The converse uses the same witness in . The bounded universal step follows similarly because both structures quantify over exactly the actual members of , or follows by negation from the existential step. Hence
No ZF axioms are needed for this syntactic statement beyond the ambient meaning of a transitive class. For a ZF-equivalent bounded formula , choose a bounded equivalent . The assumption that both structures model ZF gives and . Combining these with the displayed equivalence proves the asserted set-theoretic absoluteness of .