Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
SYNTHESE LIBRARY
MONOGRAPHS ON EPISTEMOLOGY,
Editors:
INTRODUCTION TO
AXIOMATIC SET THEORY
This book presents the classic relative consistency proofs in set theory
that are obtained by the device of 'inner models'. Three examples of such
models are investigated in Chapters VI, VII, and VIII; the most important
of these, the class of constructible sets, leads to G6del's result that the
axiom of choice and the continuum hypothesis are consistent with the
rest of set theory [1]I.
The text thus constitutes an introduction to the results of P. Cohen
concerning the independence of these axioms [2], and to many other
relative consistency proofs obtained later by Cohen's methods.
Chapters I and II introduce the axioms of set theory, and develop such
parts of the theory as are indispensable for every relative consistency
proof; the method of recursive definition on the ordinals being an import-
ant case in point. Although, more or less deliberately, no proofs have
been omitted, the development here will be found to require of the reader
a certain facility in naive set theory and in the axiomatic method, such
as should be achieved, for example, in first year graduate work (2 e cycle
de mathernatiques).
The background knowledge supposed in logic is no more advanced;
taken as understood are such elementary ideas of first-order predicate
logic as prenex normalform, model ofa system of axioms, and so on. They
first come into play in Chapter IV; and though, there too, all the proofs
(bar that of the reduction of an arbitrary formula to prenex normal form)
are carried out, the treatment is probably too condensed for a reader
previously unacquainted with the subject.
Several leading ideas from model theory, not themselves used in this
book, would nevertheless make the understanding of it simpler; for
example, the distinction between intuitive natural numbers and the
natural numbers of the universe, or between what we call formulas and
what we call expressions, are easier to grasp if something is known about
1 Numbers in brackets refer to items of the Bibliography, which is to be found on
p.98.
VI INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION v
BIBLIOGRAPHY 98
CHAPTER I
Fig. 1.
1. AXIOM OF EXTENSIONALITY
No two distinct sets in r1lt have the same elements. We write this as
'v'x'v'y['v'Z(Z E x _ ZE y) ~ X = y].
This axiom is not satisfied by the binary relation shown in the figure; for
band c are different, yet each has c as its only element.
A useful 'axiom' to put down now, though we will not number it since
it turns out to be a consequence of later ones, is the pairing axiom. Given
two sets a and b, this axiom guarantees the existence of a set c containing
a and b as its only elements. By the axiom of extensionality there is only
one such set c. We write the pairing axiom as
'v'X'v'y3Z'v't[tEz-t=X v t=y].
We write {a, b} for the set c whose only elements are a and b. A special
case is when a and b are the same set; it follows from the axiom that there
is a set {a} containing a, and a alone.
THE ZERMELO!FRAENKEL AXIOMS 3
If a=/=b we call {a, b} a pair. The set {a} is sometimes called a singleton
or unit set.
From two sets a and b three applications of the pairing axiom yield
the set {{a}, {a, b}}, called the ordered pair of a and b and usually denoted
by (a, b). The following theorem justifies this definition.
THEOREM:.if (ao, a1' ... ' an-i) = (a~, a~, ... , an-~) then ao =a~, a1=a~, ... ,
a,,-l =a,,_~.
PROOF: Obvious by induction on n.1
4 INTRODUCTION TO AXIOMATIC SET THEOR Y
It should be noted that, given three distinct sets a, h, c in the universe <11,
we do not yet have any way of proving the existence of a set d containing
just a, h, and c as members. The next axiom fills this gap.
3. POWER-SET AXIOM
By the axiom of extensionality only one set b can have this property. It is
called the power-set of a and written gJ(a).
It is worth emphasizing at this point that we shall now use the words
'subset' and 'include' only in the sense given them above, to express a
relation between two objects of the universe. This sense is quite different
from the usual one (when we say, for instance, that a class is included
in the universe). We call it the formal sense of the word 'include' (or
'subset'), and the usual one will be called the intuitive sense. To avoid
from the start any possible confusion that might arise, let us agree that
when we use the words 'subset' and 'include' without qualification, we
are using them in their formal senses; any use of these words in their
intuitive senses will be noted as such explicitly.
For instance: each set a defines a subset (in the intuitive sense) of the
universe <?t, namely the part A composed of the elements of a. Now if b
is a set included in a, then the corresponding B is included (in the intuitive
sense) in A. But there may be - and indeed often are - subsets (in the
intuitive sense) of A to which no object of the universe corresponds; to
which, that is, there is no corresponding subset of a.
Before giving the remaining axioms of set theory we must discuss how
relations, over and above those we already have, can be defined on <?to At
present we have only the membership relation x E y, and the equality
relation X=y (which is satisfied by a and b if and only if a and b are the
same object). The following rules allow us to define others.
I. Given a relation (of three arguments, for instance) R(x, y, z), and
an object a in <?t, then we can define a binary relation R(a, y, z), to be
satisfied by the objects band ciff R(a, b, c) holds.
II. Given a relation (three arguments, say) R(x, y, z), then we can define
a binary relation R(x, x, z); this is satisfied by a and b iff R(a, a, b) holds.
III. Given any relation (say of two arguments) R(x, y), we can define
.R(x, y), a relation satisfied by a and b iff R(a, b) does not hold.
Likewise from two relations (of three arguments again) R(x, y, z) and
S(u, x, v) we can define a relation R(x, y, z) v S(u, x, v) offive arguments
satisfied by a, b, c, d, e iff one or other of R(a, b, c) and Sed, a, e) holds.
IV. Again, from a ternary relation R(x, y, z) we can define a binary
relation 3yR(x, y, z) which is satisfied by a and c iff R(a, b, c) holds for
somebin 'W.
6 INTRODUCTION TO AXIOMATIC SET THEORY
Ordering Relations (in the strict sense): A binary relation R(x, y) defines
astrict ordering on a class D(x) if for all a, b, c,
R(a, b) --+ D(a) A D(b);
-, (R(a, b) A R(b, a»);
RCa, b) A R(b, c) ~ R(a, c).
R(a, b) may again be written a<b (mod. R). It is obvious that if R(x, y)
is a strict ordering, then the relation R(x, y) v [D(x) A D(y) A X= y]
is a weak one, with domain D.
A strict ordering R on D is linear if for any objects a and b in the class
D, either R(a, b) or R(b, a) or a= b.
The binary relation 3zR(x, y, z) is then called the domain of the func-
tional relation R. The class 3x3yR(x, y, z) is called the range of the
functional relation R.
For any (for example binary) functional relation defined everywhere
(in other words, a functional relation with domain x = x A Y =y) we can
introduce a new symbol <P, and write the functional relation as z= <P(x, y).
Then, for any formula E(u, v, w), the formulas
3z[R(x, y, z) A E(z, v, w)]
and
'v'z[R(x, y, z) -+ E(z, v, w)]
(which are equivalent to one another) can be written simply as
E[ <P(x, y), v, w].
For example, the functional relation
'v't[tezoH-t=x v t=y]
is written z = {x, y}; thus the equivalent formulas
3z['v't(tezoH-t=x v t=y) A zea]
'v'z [Wet e z oH- t = x v t = y) -+ z e a]
can both be abbreviated by {x, y} Ea.
We can now go on to state the other axioms of set theory.
Suppose a formula E(x, y, ao, ... , ak- 1 ) with parameters a o, ... , ak-l
defines a singulary functional relation; and let a be any set. Then we shall
postulate that the universe I7It contains a set b whose elements are just the
images under this functional relation of those elements of a within its
domain. The demand on I7It that it satisfy this condition for any singulary
functional relation is known as the axiom scheme of replacement. The
scheme is rendered symbolically by the following infinite list of sentences:
'v'xo ... 'v'Xk-l {'v'x'v'y'v'y' [E(x, y, xo, ,." Xk-l)
A E(x, y', xo, ... , Xk-l) -+ y = y']
-+'v't3w'v'v[vewoH-3u[uet A E(u,v,xO, ... ,Xk-l)]]}'
Here E(x, y, xo, .. " Xk-l) may be any parameter-free formula with at
least two free variables x and y.
THE ZERMELO/FRAENKEL AXIOMS 9
The axioms 1,2,3, the scheme 4, and the axiom of infinity (introduced
on p. 29 below) make up the set theory of Zermelo and Fraenkel, usually
abbreviated ZF.
Easily derived from the scheme of replacement is the following scheme.
Scheme o/Comprehension: If ais a set, and A (x, a o, ... , ak-l) any formula
of one free variable (and parameters ao, ... , ak-l)' we can establish that
there is a set whose elements are exactly those elements of a for which A
holds. This is the content of the comprehension scheme, which consists
of the following infinite list of sentences:
Here A(x, xo, ... , Xk-l) is any parameter-free formula of at least one free
variable x. To derive any instance of the scheme from the scheme of
replacementitisenoughtonotethattheformulay=x A A (x, ao, ... , ak- l )
defines a singulary functional relation F whose domain is the class
A(x, ao, ... , ak-l)' By replacement then, there is a set b whose elements
are just the images under F of those members of a in F's domain; it is
immediate that b is the set whose existence we set out to prove.
The set b is usefully represented by the notation
I
{x e a A (x, ao, ... , ak-l)}'
Let us give a derivation of the pairing axiom from axiom 3 and the
scheme 4. First of all, every subset of 0 is empty, so that &(0) has 0 as
its only element; thus {0} exists. This latter set is a singleton, so if a c: {0}
then a=0 or a= {0}. So &({0}) has just two distinct elements, 0 and {0};
thus {0, {0}} exists. Now let a and b be any sets you like. It is apparent
that the relation (x=0 A y=a) v (x={0} A y=b) is a singulary func-
tional relation, so we can apply the replacement scheme to it and consider
10 INTRODUCTION TO AXIOMATIC SET THEORY
the image of the set {0, {0}} thereunder. This turns out to be the set
{a, b}, and thus the pairing axiom is proved.
We say that a class A (x) corresponds to a set (or even, twisting language a
bit, is a set) if there is a set a such that Vx(x E a +-* A (x)). More generally,
a relation (of three arguments, for example) A (x, y, z) corresponds to a
set, or even is a set, if there is a set a for which we have VxVyVz[ <x, y, z) E
E a +-* A (x, y, z)J.
It is not true that every class corresponds to a set; for example, the
class x ¢ x does not. If it did, indeed, we would for some a have that
Vx(x E a +-* x ¢ x); so, in particular, a E a +-* a if; a, which is evidently
false. (This is Russell's paradox.)
The class X=X (the universe 0Zt, in other words) also fails to correspond
to a set. For were there any set a such that Vx(x E a) were true, we could,
by using the comprehension scheme, produce a set b such that Vx(x E b +-*
+-* X E a 1\ x ¢ x); that is, Vx(x E b +-* X ¢ x). So Russell's paradox would
AxeaAyeb].
So X(z) is just this last formula, and it clearly is the class of all ordered
pairs <x, y) such that x E a and Y E b. (We will not bother to carry
out this sort of check in the future; but it is suggested that the reader try
a few, to get himself used to the business of manipulating formulas.)
Now this class X is in fact a set; for if x E a and y e b then (by the defini-
THE ZERMELO/FRAENKEL AXIOMS 11
Note that for the rest of the book we shall be using the words 'map' and
'function' in the sense defined above, which is by no means their every-
day mathematical sense (since here, for example, all maps f: a -4 b
are in the universe). As we proliferate definitions the same thing will
happen to nearly all the familiar words of mathematical language. If we
ever use the words in their normal senses (and this will not happen often),
we will, as we decided before, say so explicitly. For example: let a and b
be two sets, and A, B be the corresponding parts of the universe. If f
maps a into b there will correspondingly be a map (in the intuitive sense)
from A to B. But there may well be, intuitively speaking, maps from A
to B to which there are no corresponding maps from a into b.
CHAPTER II
ORDINALS, CARDINALS
(In this extensive formula there is no explicit mention of the fact that the
ordering x E y is linear; however, no such clause is needed, since we have
stated that every non-empty subset of a contains a smallest element,
and a fortiori this applies to subsets of two elements.)
Examples of ordinals that are easily shown to be such are 0, {0},
{0, {0}}.
Let ct be an ordinal. Then the initial segments of ct are a itself, and the
elements ofct.
e
For a proper initial segment of ct is S~(a) for some E a; and S~(a)=
e} e} e e
= {11 E ct 111 < = {11 E ct 111 E = n ct. But since c a, this last term
e,
reduces to and the result is proved.
Every element of an ordinal is an ordinal.
e e
Take E a; then c ct, so membership well-orders e. Furthermore,
e e
if y E X and x E then x E a (since c ct); so x c ct, so yEa. Now
membership strictly orders the elements of ct, so from y E X and x E we e
e. e
get y E Thus x E implies that x c e,
and the two conditions for e
to be an ordinal are established.
For every ordinal ct, ct ~ ct.
e e e,
If is any element of a, then ~ since E strictly orders ct. So if a is
an element of a we must have a ~ ct. Thus ct ~ ct.
For every two ordinals a, p, either ct = p, or p E ct, or ct E p,' moreover, the
three cases are mutually exclusive.
ORDINALS, CARDINALS 15
Put e=(X n p. Then e consists of all members ohthat are <P (mod. e),
and so is an initial segment of (x. Thus e= (X or e e (x. Likewise e is an initial
e e
segment of p, so = Por e p. All in all then, there are four possibilities:
e = (X and e = p ; then (X = P.
e = (X and e e p ; then rx e p .
e= p e
and e rx ; then p E rx .
ee (X and e e p ; then e
e (X n p, so by the definition
of e, e e. e
e But this is a contradiction, since is an ordinal.
Furthermore, (X = P and rx E p together would imply that PEP; similarly,
if (X e p, then rx c p, so if P E (X were also true, we would have PEP again.
But p ¢ p. Thus the three cases are mutually exclusive.
The membership relation on the class On (that is, the relation x E y 1\
1\ On(x) 1\ On (y») isawell-ordering.
We have just shown the relation in question to be a strict linear ordering.
e e
So we need only note that since <rx +-+ e rx, S,,(E)=rx for every ordinal
rx, and rx is well ordered bye.
Observe that if rx, P f}re ordinals then rx ~ p +-+ rx c p.
On is not a set.
Suppose On is a set a. Then a is well ordered by E. Moreover, every
element of a is an ordinal, therefore a set of ordinals, therefore a subset
of a. But then a qualifies as an ordinal; so a e a. But this is impossible
for ordinals.
If rx is an ordinal the least ordinal greater than rx is rx u {rx}. This is called
the successor of rx, and written rx + 1.
It is easily checked that if rx is an ordinal then so is P=rx u {rx}. Now
sincerx e p, wehaverx<p; andifa.<ythenrxey, sorx c y, sorx u {(X} c y.
Thus p~y.
Since 0 c rx for any (x, the ordinal 0 is the least ordinal of all. We call
it O. Its successor {0} is called 1; its successor 1 u {I} (that is, {0, {0}}) is
called 2; and so on.
The union ofany set ofordinals is the least upper bound of the set.
Let a be any set of ordinals, and P= U rx. If x is a non-empty subset
"ea
of p, then for at least one rxo E a we will have x n (xo non-empty. Since
rxo is well ordered, its subset x n rxo will therefore have a least element,
which is clearly also the least element of x. Since x was an arbitrary
non-empty subset of p, it follows that Pis well ordered bye. Now suppose
16 INTRODUCTION TO AXIOMATIC SET THEORY
THEOREM: For each well-ordered system u=<a, r) there exists exactly one
(order-preserving) isomorphism/rom a on to an ordinal.
PROOF: (Uniqueness) Suppose/maps a one-one on to IX, and g does the
same on to p. Then go/ -1 is an isomorphism from IX on to p, and it can
only be the identity. So/ = g.
I
(Existence) Put b = {x E a S.,(a) is isomorphic to an ordinal}. By
uniqueness no such Sx(a) can be isomorphic to more than one ordinal,
so let P(x) be the ordinal that Sx(a) is isomorphic to.
If YEb and x<y then x must be in b, and, indeed, P(x) <P(y); for
under the isomorphism from Sy(a) on to P(y), the proper initial segment
S,,(a) of Sy(a) becomes a proper initial segment of P(y), and therefore
an ordinal less than P(y), therefore P(x). Thus b is an initial segment of a.
By replacement we can form the set P of those ordinals P(x) where
e
x E b. Now ~ ~ P(x) implies that is isomorphic to an initial segment of
S,,(a), say Sy(a) for some y ~ x (so that ~ = P(y )). It follows that P is an
initial segment of the ordinals, and therefore itself an ordinal.
Thus the map sending x to P(x) is an isomorphism from b on to p.
ORDINALS, CARDINALS 17
Our existence proof will be complete if we can show that b=a. And
this is simply done. For suppose b=l=a; since b is an initial segment of a,
it must be true for some Xo E a that b=Sxo{a). We have just proved that
b is isomorphic to an ordinal, so it follows from the definition of b that
Xo E b; but it is impossible that Xo E Sxo(a), by the very definition of
initial segment. Thus b = a after all. I
The proof falls out at once. If E(a.) is false for any ordinal at all, we
let a be the least such ordinal. Then E({3) is true whenever (3 <a, and so
by hypothesis E(a) is true, which is a contradiction.
This method of proof of VaE(a) is called proof by induction.
Let A be a class; M the class of all maps defined on ordinals, and taking
values in A; and H afunctional relation with domain M, and taking values
in A. We can now define a unique functional relation F with domain On,
and taking values in A, which for every ordinal a satisfies F(a) = H(F t a).
The functional relation y=F(a) is supplied by the formula 'there is a
ORDINALS, CARDINALS 19
map f,. defined on IX such that, for all fJ <IX, f,.(fJ) = H(j,. t fJ), and
y=H(f,.)'.
We have just proved that for each ordinal IX there is a unique map f,.
of this sort, and this establishes that the relation just defined is a functional
relation with domain On.
To prove that F has the right values, take fJ <IX. Thenfp = f,. t fJ simply
because the latter map has all the properties definingfp' Thus
F (fJ) = H (lp) = H (I,. t fJ) = I,. (fJ)
for all fJ <IX. Manifestly then, f,.=F t IX; but F(IX)=H(f,.), so F(IX)=
=H(F t IX).
That F is the only such functional relation is proved in the same way
as before. Suppose G is another, and let IX be the least ordinal where
F and G differ (if there is one). Since F(fJ) = G(fJ) for all fJ < IX we must
have F t IX=G t IX, so H(F t IX)=H(G t IX). Thus F(IX)=G(IX), a contra-
diction. It follows that F and G are equal for every ordinal IX.
Given the other axioms the following statements are equivalent to the
axiom of choice.
ACt: For any set a there is afunction h mapping the set of all non-empty
subsets of a into a in such a way that hex) e x for all non-empty
xc a.
A C": The Cartesian product of a family of non-empty sets is itself non-
empty.
ACt -+ AC: Let b= U a. We apply ACt to b. Every element x of a,
being non-empty, is a non-empty subset of b. So take the function h that
I
ACt guarantees, and consider {hex) x e a}. This set has exactly one ele-
ment from each x e a, and is the set needed to establish A C.
20 INTRODUCTION TO AXIOMATIC SET THEORY
AC --+ AC": Let (ai)iEI be a family of non-empty sets, and putbi = {i} x ai.
Then the family (bi)iEI consists throughout of pairwise disjoint non-empty
sets. Let ~ be a set with just one element in each bi(i E I). Then ~ E X ai'
isI
by the definition ofX.
AC" --+ AC': Take any set a and form the product X x. By AC" this
xCa
x",0
is not empty, so choose an element <po It is easily checked that <p(x) E x
for every non-empty subset x of a.
A further equivalent of the axiom of choice is the following statement.
I
define by recursion a functional relation F: On --+ a u {O} by decreeing
I I
g({F(f3) f3 < IX}) if {F(f3) f3 < IX} C a
F(IX) = (that is, if it is in the domain of g); '"
ootherwise.
Suppose that Fnever takes the value 0; in other words, that F(IX) E a for
every ordinal IX. Then {F(f3) I f3<IX} is in g's domain, whatever ordinal
IX is. But F(IX) cannot equal any F(f3) for f3 <IX, because
I I
F «(X) = g ( {F (f3) 13 < (X}) ¢ {F (13) 13 < (X}
by the definition of g. Thus F is an injection; On is its domain, and all
its values are in a. Inverting F, therefore, and using replacement, we can
ORDINALS, CARDINALS 21
infer that On is a set. Since this is false we must conclude that F(IX) is not
alwaysina.
Thus F(IX)=O for some ordinal IX, and we may suppose IXo to be the
I
least such. In this case F(P) e a for every P <IXo, and so {F(fJ) fJ <IXo} is
a subset of a; yet it is not in the domain of g (since F(IX 0) = 0). By the
I
definition of g, {F(P) fJ <IXo} can then only be a itself; so the range of
F t OC o is a.
I
But F t IXo is also an injection; for if P<oco, F(fJ)=g({F(y) y <P}) ¢
I
¢ {F(y) y <fJ}, so that (as before) F(fJ):f:F(y) when y <po
Thus F t IXo is a bijection from the ordinal IXo on to a, and conse-
quently a can be well ordered .•
Note that what we have just proved can be stated as follows: whether
or not AC holds, a set can be well ordered if and only if there is a map h:
BP(a)"'-{0} -+ afor which hex) E xfor every non-empty x c a.
Again we show that F must take the value 0 at least once. For, were it
I
otherwise, andF(a) E a for every ordinal a, we would have {F(P) P<a} EC
for every ordinal a. Moreover, since F(a) dominates {F(P) fi<a}, itI
cannot belong to this set, and so for p<a, we get FCP)#F(a). Thus Fis
one-one; once more the scheme of replacement applied to F- 1 would
deliver On as a set, and so we have a contradiction.
So let ao be the least ordinal for which F(ao)=O. Any smaller ordinal
I
a will satisfy F(a) E a; and so {F(P) P <a} E c; thus F(a) will be a strict
I
upper bound to {F(P) p<a}, and p<a<ao ~ F(p)<F(a) (mod.r). It
follows that F tao, which maps a o one-one into a, is also order-
I
preserving. Consequently {F(P) P <ao} is going to be a well-ordered
subset of a, and so by hypothesis it has an upper bound, d say. But it has
no strict upper bound, for the existence of such an object would put
I
{FCP) P<ao} in c; and this would mean that F(ao) E a, contrary to
supposition.
Thus there is no element of a that is greater than d (under the ordering
r); and so d is the desired maximal element of a.1
than two elements. There are two cases to be considered. In the first,
x n y = 0 for every ye Y; here we have at once x n U y=0, and nothing
yeY
remains to be proved. In the second, x n y is a singleton for one or more
y e Y. But however many y e Y yield a singleton when intersected with x,
it will always be the same singleton. For suppose x n Yo ={u} and x n Y1 =
={v}. Then since Y is linearly ordered, Yo u Yl is one or the other of
Yo, Yb which means that x n (Yo u Yl) = {u} u {v} is a singleton; and this
means that u = v. It follows at once from all this that, in this second case,
x n U y is itself a singleton, so that U Y e X, as was required.
yeY yeY
By supposition, then, X has a maximal element Yo. We claim that
Yo n x has exactly one element for each x e a. Were it otherwise, indeed,
Yo n x would have to have no elements for some x e a (since Yo e X). In
this case we could take any element e of x and form the set Yo u {e}. This,
however, would equally be in X, and would destroy Yo's maximality. I
CARDINALS
LEMMA: Let rt. be an ordinal and ~ a subset of it. Then the ordinal of the
well-ordering induced on ~ by the ordering of rt. is less than or equal to rt..
PROOF: Let Pbe the ordinal in question, and f: ~ -+ Pthe isomorphism
between ~ and p. We show that for y E~, f(y)t;;;;,y, which immediately
gives pert., and so p t;;;;, rt. as required.
Suppose, on the contrary, thatf(y»y for some y E~. There will be
a least such, Yo. For y E ~ we have then
y < Yo -+ fey) t;;;;, y < Yo;
and also
y ~ Yo -+ fey) ~ f(yo) > Yo·
As in an earlier theorem,! clearly misses out on Yo; but since it does take
greater ordinals as values (for example, f(yo»Yo), it cannot after all
have an ordinal for its range; and this contradicts the hypothesis .•
isomorphic to some ordinal p~fj. Thus ais equipollent with p, and since
it is a cardinal, a~p; so a~b.1
THEOREM: For no set a does there exist a map from a on to flJ(a); and, a
fortiori, no injection offlJ(a) into a.
Let a, b be two disjoint sets, and a', h' two more, respectively equipollent
26 INTRODUCTION TO AXIOMATIC SET THEORY
with a and b. Then a u b and a' u b' are equipollent too; for from the
first to the second there is a bijection whose restrictions to a and bare
just the given bijections from a to a' and from b to b'.
So let ct, /3 be cardinals. There certainly exist disjoint sets a, b with these
cardinalities, for we can, if we like, take ct x {O} for a and /3 x {I} for b.
Whatever disjoint a and b we actually choose, we define the cardinal sum
ct + /3 as the cardinal of a u b; it is easily seen that ct + /3 is quite independ-
ent ofthe choice of a and b.
Amongst the properties easily proved to hold for cardinal addition are
commutativity (ct + /3 = /3 + ct) and associativity (ct + (/3 + ')') = (ct + /3) + I').
To get at cardinal multiplication we can drop the disjointness conditions
on a, band a', b' that were imposed above. Iff: a -+ a' and g: b -+ b' are
some appropriate bijections, then we can define a bijection h: a x b -+ a' x b'
by writing h«x,y»=(f(x),g(y» for all xea and yeb; thus these
Cartesian products are equipollent.
So if ct, /3 are cardinals we define the (cardinal) product of ct and /3,
written for brevity ct/3, or ct· /3, as the cardinal of ct x /3. It should be clear
that if a has cardinal ct and b has cardinal /3, then a x b has cardinal ct/3.
If ct, /3, I' are all cardinals we can easily check that the commutative
(ct/3 = /3ct) and associative (ct (/3')' ) = (ct/3) I') laws of multiplication hold; there
is no more difficulty involved in checking the distributive law (ct(/3 + ')') =
=ct/3+ct,),); we simply pick three sets, a, b, c, the latter two disjoint, and
observethatax(b u c)=(axb) u (axe).
More generally, let (ai)ieI> (bi)ieI be families of sets each indexed by I.
Suppose that for every i e I we have lii = 1)1' Then X ai and X bi are
ieI ieI
equipollent. This is proved by noting that for any i e I the set Bi of
bijections from ai on to bi is non-empty; by AC", therefore, the product
of the family (Bi)ieI is not empty. So there is a family (CPi)ieI of maps, each
CPi being a bijection from ai on to bi' We now define the required bijection
fromXaj on to Xb i by associating each element (Xi)ieI of the former set
ieI ieI
with (CPi(Xi)ieI in the latter.
If (ct i); e I is a family of cardinals we call the cardinal of the set X cti the
ncti. It is easily checked that this cardinal
ieI
product of the family, and write it
ie I
is the cardinal of the Cartesian product of any family (ai)ieI indexed by I
and satisfying lii = cti for all i E I.
ORDINALS, CARDINALS 27
FINITE ORDINALS
(This section does not use the axiom of choice.)
We recall that the next greatest ordinal after a given ordinal 0( is its
successor 0( U {O(} (or IX + 1 for short; but this + is different from the + of
cardinal addition above). If p is the successor of 0( we say that 0( is the
predecessor of p.
An ordinal oc is called finite if every p ~ 0( (apart from 0) has a pre-
decessor. The formula '0( is a finite ordinal' is easily expanded into
28 INTRODUCTION TO AXIOMATIC SET THEORY
Mathematical Induction: Let P be a class such that P(O) is true, and for
every finite ordinal a, Pea) ~ P(a+ 1) is also true. Then Pea) is true for
every finite ordinal a.
For if not, take the smallest finite ordinal ao not in P. Since 0 is in P,
ao # O. Thus it has a predecessor 13 o. As ao was the smallest finite ordinal
not in P, we must have P(Po). We are given that P(Po) ~ P(Po+ 1). So
P(ao), which is impossible.
It is worth pointing out again that the definitions above of the words
'finite' and 'natural number' are not intended to provide for them their
usual senses. In future, therefore, everyday uses of the words will be
explicitly recorded as such.
It is easily seen that what we would intuitively say was an ordinal a
with a finite number of elements is indeed finite according to the
above definition. But it could happen that a finite ordinal 13 had, intui-
tively speaking, infinitely many elements; in this case since 13 c: a is ruled
out, 13 would be greater than a. In addition, the part of the universe made
up of these finite ordinals (in an intuitive sense) could not then be a class;
for supposing P(x) to define the class, we would have -,P(f3), and so
could prove the existence of a least ordinal Po for which -,P(f3o). Then
if Po were equal to Yo + 1, we would have P(Yo), showing that, intuitively
speaking, Yo had finitely many elements; but with f3o=Yo u {Yo} this
would hardly be possible.
THEOREM: ljCt, P are finite cardinals, so too are oc+ p, ocP, ocp•
PROOF: Each proof is done by induction on p. It is trivial that if oc is finite
and Pis 0 then oc+P is finite. Moreover, since oc+(P+1)=(oc+P)+ I, a
finite oc + Pmeans a finite Ct + (P + I). This proves the first part.
The proof for multiplication is similar. Since oc(P + 1) = ocp + oc, the
assumption that ocp is finite when oc, P are, together with the previous
result, yields at once that oc (P + 1) is finite. Again, the identity ocP+ 1 = ocP• oc
supplies all that is needed to establish that ocP is finite .•
of limit, then, y + 1 < ex, and so y is not the supposed supremum after all,
since y+ 1 :$')'.
So another way of formulating the axiom of infinity is: there is a limit
ordinal.
For, given the axiom, 00 could only have a predecessor if that predecessor
were finite; which would make OJ finite too, directly contrary to its defini-
tion. Since a limit ordinal is necessarily not finite, the converse holds too.
A fourth way of expressing the axiom of infinity is by
3x[Oex A'v'y(yex-+yu{y}ex)].
Given the axiom we can take 00 itselffor x. Conversely, suppose the above
sentence holds, and choose any a satisfying it. Let ex be the least ordinal
not in a. It cannot be 0, and if ex=P u {P} we get P <a; thus P E ex, so by
the characterization of a, p u {P} E a, a contradiction. Thus ex is not a
successor either, so it must be a limit, which is all we need to prove.
THEOREM: A set a is infinite iff it is equipollent with one 0/ its proper subsets.
PROOF: If a is finite, and b a proper subset, take x E a"-.b. The cardinality
of a is certainly not zero, but it is finite, so of the form ex+ 1=ex u {ex}.
There is no difficulty in finding some bijection / from a on to ex u {ex}
which maps x to ex; in this case/ t b maps b one-one into ex. Consequently
a,
1j ~ ex, so 1j < and b is not equipollent with a.
If a is infinite, a-;:,OJ. Writing/for some bijection from a on to a, we
define an injection g from a into itself by setting
g(x) = x, if f(x) -;:. 00;
g (x) = y, if f(x) < OJ and f(y) = f(x) + 1.
ORDINALS, CARDINALS 31
Write On 2 for the class of all ordered pairs of ordinals (ex, P). On this
class we can define a well-ordering relation R as follows:
(ex, P):;;;' (y, (» (mod. R) if and only if
sup (ex, P) < sup(y, (5)
v sup (ex, P) = sup(y, (5) 1\ ex < y
v sup (ex, P) = sup(y, (5) 1\ ex = y 1\ P:; ;, ().
Every segment is seen to be a set. For if S~(R) is an initial segment,
e
and = (ao, Po), and (ex, P) < (ao, Po) (mod. R), then
sup (a, P):;;;, sup (exo, Po).
Putting Yo = sup (exo, Po), we note that every pair (a, P) in S~(R) is a
member of the set (Yo+1)2; so S~(R) is a subclass of that set, and thus
a set itself.
On the other hand, take a non-empty set X all of whose elements are
in On 2 ; the set of all sup (a, P) for (a, P) E X has a smallest element Yo;
the set of all ex such that for some P we have both (ex, P) E X and
sup(a, P)=Yo has a smallest element exo; and the set of P for which
sup(ex o, P)=Yo and (exo, P) E Xhas a least element Po.
From all this it drops out that (ao, Po) is the least element of X (mod.
R); and so R is a well-ordering.
Since On 2 is therefore a well-ordered class, but not a set, a relation
y=J(a, P) can be found which establishes an isomorphism between On 2
and On. In the definition of J, be it noted, there is no need for the axiom
of choice.
for sup (ct, P), we easily see that this latter set is included in (y + 1)2 (since
(ct ' , P') «ct, P) ~ ct' <y+ 1 1\ P' <y+ 1). Thus its cardinal cannot
exceed the cardinal of(y+l)2; but as y<~p, so is y+l, and therefore
by the definition of p there are just two cases: y + 1 is finite, or
(y+ 1)2=y+ 1 <~p.
EachcaseseparatelyyieldsJ(ct, P)<~P' and so the theorem is proved.•
COROLLARY: ~:= ~(Jor every natural number n ~ 1, and every ordinal ct.
PROOF: Immediate, by induction on n.•
ordinals, by setting
s < t (mod. R) if and only if
sup{s) < sup{t) v
sup{s) = sup{t) A I{s) < let) v
sup{s) = sup{t) A l{s) = l{t) A s:f= t A
sen) < ten) for the first n where
s(n):f= ten).
(Here sup(s) stands for the greatest value taken by the function s.)
We show that R, defined in this way, is a well-ordering. This involves, in
the first place, that the class S,(R) of sequences <t (mod. R) be a set; but
since everything in this class is also in the set q(y+ 1) for y=sup(t), this is
easily proved.
So let X be a non-empty set of finite sequences of ordinals. As s ranges
over X, sup(s) takes on various ordinals as values, and of these there
must be a least, y say. Amongst the sequences s in X for which sup(s)=y,
there will be at least one of minimal length, of length n say. Now define
recursively a map I with domain n as follows: if i E n, I (i) = the smallest
ordinal of the form sCi) for SEX satisfying sup(s)=y, l(s)=n, and
s(j) = I (j) for every j < i.
Now f, as thus defined, is a member of X; and, further, sup(/)=y and
l(f)=n. For it is immediate, by induction on i, that for every i~n
there is an SEX for which sup(s)=y, l(s)=n, and s t i=1 t i; whence,
putting i=n, the result. Moreover,fis the smallest element of X. For take
some s in X, distinct fromj. If sup (s):f= y we must have sup(s»y = sup (f),
by the definition of y. Thus s> I. If sup(s)=y, however, and l(s):f=n,
we have in the same way l(s»n=l(f); and so s> I. Finally, if sup(s)=y
and l(s)=n, let i <n be the first integer where s(i):f= I(i). By the definition
off, sCi) > I (i), so once more s > I.
But a well-ordered class that is not a set is isomorphic to On; and there
is consequently a functional relation s=J(rx.) which establishes an iso-
morphism between On and q (On).
CHAPTER III
LEMMA: A set a is in V iff aU its elements are,' ifrn(a)=a, then every element
ofa has rank < a.
PROOF: Suppose a is in V, and its rank is a=p+1. Then ae Vp +1 , so
a c Vp. Thus all a's elements are in V; moreover, their ranks are all
~p, and so <a. Conversely, suppose that every element of x is in V. The
ranks of these elements form a set, and so must be bounded above by
some ordinal a. It follows that a c V"' whence a e V" + 1; thus a is in V. I
Evidently, if q> is collapsing the range of q> is a transitive set, since each
element of q>(x), for x E a, is of the form q>(y).
THEOREM: Ifr is a well-founded relation on a there exists one and only one
map with domain a which collapses for r. Moreover, the range of this map
is in the class V.
PROOF: (Uniqueness) Let q>, tjJ be two such collapsing maps, and write X
I
for {x E a q>(x);6tjJ(x)}. If q>;6tjJ, X must be non-empty, so there will
be an Xo E X for which Vy E X( <y, xo) ¢ r). Since Xo E X, we have
q>(xo);6tjJ(xo), and so without loss of generality we can assume a u that
is in q>(xo) but not in tjJ(xo). Now q> is collapsing, so there is ayE a for
which q>(y)=u and <y, x o> E r. By the specification of xo, y cannot be
in X; so q>(y)=tjJ(y)=u. But tjJ collapses too, so from tjJ(y)=u and
<y, xo> E r we get u E tjJ(xo), which is a contradiction.
(Existence) A subset Z of a is called r-transitive if x E Z 1\ <y, x) E r -
- y E Z. Clearly if q> has domain a and is collapsing for r then q> t Z is
collapsing for r (') Z 2 when Z is an r-transitive subset of a. If Z, Z' are
both r-transitive subsets of a, so too is Z (') Z'; and so if d>, d>' are col-
THE AXIOM OF FOUNDATION 39
Note that this theorem is a generalization of the theorem on pp. 16f. For
if r is a strict well-ordering on a it is easily seen to be both extensional and
well founded. What is more, the range set of the collapsing isomorphism
is transitive and well ordered by E; an ordinal, no less.
The following corollary is proved with the help of the axiom offounda-
tion. It will be used in Chapter VIII.
Let X be some class, and E(xo, .. " XII-l) some formula in (at most) the
variables xo, .. " XII-l' whose parameters are all objects of X, We write
EX(xo, .. "XII_l) for the relativization of the formula E to X, namely that
formula defined in the following way by (informal) recursion on the length
of E, (Since the formulas are not objects of the universe, there is no
question here of a recursion on the integers of the universe, but one on
intuitive objects,)
(1) E is of the form x E y, X = y, X E a, x = a, a E x, a = x,
a E b, a = b (a, b, objects of X), E is in this case called
atomic, and is its own relativization.
(2) E is -, F ; then EX is -, FX.
(3) E is F v G; then EX is F X v GX•
(4) E is 3xF(x, xo, .. ,' X,.-i);
then EX is 3x[X(x) A FX(x,xo, ... ,X,._I)]'
It follows at once from (2) and (4) that if Eis VxF(x, xo, .. " XII-l)- that
is, at length, -,3x-,F(x, xo, .. " XII-I) - then EX is Vx[X(x) - FX(x, xo,
"" XII-l)]'
Note that if the class X qualifies as a set, then the relation X(x) takes
the form X E X,
Consider any n objects ao, .. " a,.-l of the class X, Then it is apparent
that the formula EX(ao, .. " all-l) is true in the universe iff the formula
E(ao, .. " an-I) is true in the class X (augmented by the binary relation
E t X), As an example, a set X is extensional if and only if the formula EX
is true (in the universe), where E itself is one form of the axiom of
THE AXIOM OF FOUNDATION 43
extensionality,
In this section we shall show that the deployment of the axiom of founda-
tion cannot of itself lead to contradiction within ZF, by assuming a
model for ZF - that is, a universe 0/1 - and from it constructing a model
for ZF + AF; this latter model will be a set (in the intuitive sense),
augmented by a binary relation, for which all the ZFaxioms hold, and
the axiom of foundation too. More precisely, we show that if ZF has a
model, so also has ZF + AF; this is what is meant by relative consistency.
In fact, ifd/t is a universe, then the ZFaxioms and the axiom offoundation
all hold in the class V constructed within d/t.
This amounts to proving that for each axiom A of ZF+AF, A V holds
in 0/1.
admitting its negation in its place. In fact, if 0/1 is a universe, the set Vw
(together with the membership relation) satisfies every axiom ofT.
Since Vw is a transitive set, the extensionality axiom automatically holds.
To show the union axiom holds, take a E Vw ; for some nEW, then,
a E V", in which case Ua c Vn for sure, so Ua E Vn+ 1 • Thus Ua EVa>'
Likewise, every subset of a is in Vn + 1 , so that PJ1(a) c Vn + 1 , which gives
PJ1(a) E Vn + 2 ; and this shows that the power-set axiom holds.
Let a be in Vw , and take an arbitrary formula R(x, y) with parameters
in Vw , which, interpreted in Vro , defines a functional relation. In 0/1, then,
the functional relation can be defined as x E Vw /\ Y E Vw /\ RV",(x, y)
- indeed, since its domain is a set, this functional relation is a map f
with values in Vw ' Let <p: a --+ W assign to each element x of a the rank
of f(x); then since a c Vn for some nEW, a is equipollent with a finite
ordinal, and so the values of <p are all less than some natural number k.
Thus b, the set of images of members of a under J, is a subset of lik, and so
b E Vk +1 as desired.
But the axiom of infinity fails in Vw ' For suppose that a is a set, that
o E a, and that if x E a so is x u {x}. Then every nEW is in a, so that
(J) c a. But an element of Vw cannot have (J) as a subset since it is
In this section we suppose that the axiom of choice holds in the universe 0/1.
A cardinal Ais called (strongly) inaccessible if it has the following three
properties:
(1) A>w;
(2) If fJ is a cardinal < A, then 2/1 < A;
(3) If (fJt)ieI is a family of cardinals less than A, indexed by a
cardinal 1<,1., then sup fJ i < A.
leI
A cardinal that is not inaccessible is called accessible. Note that nothing
prevents a cardinal less than an accessible cardinal from being inaccessible;
for example, if A is inaccessible, 2'\ though strictly greater than A, is
accessible.
LEMMA: If Ais an inaccessible cardinal then VA = A; a set a is in VA iff a c VA
anda<A.
46 INTRODUCTION TO AXIOMATIC SET THEORY
=
PROOF: Since A. c V;. we certainly have V..t~A.. To obtain the reverse
inequality we first show that if 0( <A. then Va <A.. So let 0( be the first
ordinal <A., if there is one, for which V,,~A.. We have V,,= U
t?i'(Vp)~
P<II.
~ I &(Vp) = sup(Ci, sup 2Vp ), by the corollary on p. 33. But if tkO(,
p<" P<II.
then Vp <A. by the definition of 0(, and so 2 v p <A., since A. is inaccessible.
For the same reason, the supremum of the family of cardinals (2 Vp )p < '"
being indexed by 0( <A., must be less than A.. Thus V.. is not greater in
cardinality than the supremum of two cardinals each strictly <A.; so
V.. <A., which contradicts our assumption about 0(.
So V" <A. for all 0( <A., which means that V;. = sup VII. ~A., and so
a<;'
V;. = A..
If a E V;. then a E Va, so a c Va for some O«A., so a~ Va; thus a<A..
Conversely, suppose a c V;. and a<A.. The map x ~ rn(x) defined on a
is a family of cardinals each less than A., indexed by a set a whose cardinal
is also less than A.. Thus the least upper bound of the family is some
cardinal ~p < A..
So for every x E a, rn(x)~~p, and therefore rn(x)<~p+1 =y. Thus
a c Vy • But y=~p+l ~2Np <A.. Consequently a E V;. .•
If A. is inaccessible then in V;. hold all the axioms of ZF, together with AF
andAC.
It is easy to check that the axioms of extensionality, union, power-set,
foundation, and infinity are satisfied.
For the axiom of choice, let a E V;. be a family of disjoint non-empty
sets. Then (since AC is here imagined to hold in °It) there is a set b c U a
whose intersection with each x E a is a singleton. Since a c VII. for some
O«A., b c VII. too, so bE Vd1 , so bE V;..
For the replacement scheme we take a E V;., and pick any formula
R(x, y), with parameters in V;. only, that within V;. defines a functional
relation. Within o/t the functional relation is defined by the formula
x E V;. /I. Y E V;. /I. RV.;>.(x, y). As its domain is a set, it corresponds to
THE AXIOM OF FOUNDATION 47
some map f, and the range off is a set b c: VA' Since trivially Ii ~ a < ..t, it
follows that b EVA'
since there is not one even in 0/1 itself. Thus 0( is a cardinal of V".
Conversely, if 0( <n is not a cardinal we can map it by some bijectionf
on to a smaller ordinal y. So f c: 0( x y, so f c: 0( x 0(; thusf E V,,+3'
Consequently f E V" and there is in V" a bijection from 0( on to y, which
proves that 0( is not a cardinal of V".
So let 0( be a cardinal <n; by the definition of n it is accessible in 0/1,
and so one of (1), (2), (3) above must fail for 0(. Therefore one of the
following holds.
(1') 0( ~ (j); here 0( must be accessible in V".
(2') There is a cardinal P< 0( for which 2';;?; 0(; then PE V"'
2' E V"' and so 0( is accessible in V".
(3') 0( ~ U Pi> where I is a cardinal less than 0( and every PI is
leI
likewise a cardinal <0(. The map i --+ PI is a subset of Ix 0(
and therefore of 0( x 0(; so it belongs to V". Thus 0( is accessible
in V".
This suffices to establish that the axiom of accessibility holds in V".
CHAPTER IV
Let X be a class and E(xo, ... , Xk- 1) a formula with all parameters
confined to X. We shall say that X mirrors the formula E (or is a mirror
for E) if, for arbitrary a o, ... , ak-l in X, E holds if and only if EX also
holds. That is, 'the class X mirrors the formula E' is none other than
Thus there is an element a of Xn for which pXn(a. ao, ... , ak-l)' Now XII
mirrors P, so it follows from this that F(a. ao •...• ak-d. And X also mir-
rors p. so pX (a. ao, ... , ak-l) too. But this entails that 3x(x E X A
A pX (x. ao, ... , ak-l)) or. what is the same thing, EX (ao, ...• ak-l)'
And this proves the lemma. I
Note that this lemma is in effect a lemma scheme. since for each
formula E it yields the proof of a true formula depending on E.
for every k-tuple ao, ... , ak-1 drawn from Vp2n • (Since
U {4i(ao, ... , ak-1) I (ao, ... , ak-1) E V~2J
is a set, it is included in some Vy , and so P2n+1 is well defined.)
P2n+2, on the other hand, is put equal to the first ordinal Y>P2n+1 for
which we get a mirror Vl' for F and all truncations.
The sequence PH is strictly increasing, as is plain enough. So if
P= sup Pm P is a limit ordinal and Vp = U VPn = U Vp2". But, by
nero II E ro nero
THE REFLECTION PRINCIPLE 51
To see the significance of this theorem in a special case, note first that
if E is a closed formula, a sentence, then to say that Vp is a mirror for
it is just to say that it is true in the universe iff it is true in Vp. Thus if E
is a sentence which is true in the universe, there are arbitrary large limit
ordinals f3 such that E is true in Vp.
In later parts of the book we shall make use of a somewhat more general
principle of reflection. Consider afunctional relation y = W" with domain On,
increasing (rt.~f3 ~ W" c Wp) and continuous (for limit rt., W,,= U Wp).
p<"
Let W be the union (in the intuitive sense) of all the W" - that is, the class
defined by 3rt.[On(rt.) 1\ x E W,,]. Then, provided E(xo, 00., Xk- 1) has no
parameters, there is,for every ordinal rt., a greater limit ordinal f3 such that
'Vxooo.'VXk- 1 [XoEWp 1\ ... 1\ Xk-1EWp
~ (EW (xo, 00', Xk-l) ~ EWP (xo, ... , Xk-1))] .
No real modification of the proof is required to establish this form of the
principle; for, apart from its continuity, the only fact about the functional
relation y = V" used above was that it was increasing. In this more general
case, the expression 'the set X mirrors the formula E' can be taken as
shorthand for the assertion that every member of X is in the class Wand
'Vxo ... 'VXk -l [xo EX 1\ ... 1\ Xk- l EX
~ (EW (xo, 00., Xk-l) ~ EX (xo, ... , Xk-1»]'
52 INTRODUCTION TO AXIOMATIC SET THEORY
Let rx be a limit ordinal >w (rx is then not less than w+w). There is no
difficulty in showing that in the set V" (enriched with the membership
relation) all the following axioms hold.
(1) Axiom ofExtensionaIity.
(2) PairingAxiom:\fx\fy3zVt[tEz~t=x v t=yJ.
(3) Union Axiom.
(4) Power-set Axiom.
(5) Axiom ofInfinity: 3x[0 E x /\ Vy(y E X -t y U {y} E x)J.
(6) Scheme of Comprehension: for every formula A (x, xo, ... , Xk-l)
without parameters, the axiom
VXO.·.VXk_1Vx3yVz[ZEY~[ZEX /\ A(z,x o, ... ,Xk-l)]]'
(1) and (3) hold because V" is transitive; (2) and (4) because rx is a limit
ordinal- for if x, y E Va, we get x, y E Vp for some /J<rx, so {x, y} E VP+1>
and .9(X)EVp+1> where /J+l<rx; and (5) holds because WEVa - we
selected rx above w.
Lastly, to show that all the comprehension axioms (6) hold, suppose
a, ao, ... , ak-l E V.; they then belong to some Vp for /J<rx, so any
I
subset of a, for example the set b={z E a AV,,(z, ao, ... , ak-l)} isin Vp+ 1,
and so in Va as required.
We designate by Z the theory (Zermelo set theory) axiomatized by
(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6).
It is not hard to see that, provided Z is consistent, it is strictly weaker
than ZF. For we can find a sentence - for example 'Every well-ordered
system is isomorphic to an ordinal' - which is derivable in ZF but not
inZ.
For suppose given some universe q{; in Vw+ro (w+w is the first limit
ordinal > w), as we have just seen, all the axioms of Z hold. The ordinals
of Vro+ro - the sets, that is, that satisfy the relativization of On(x) to
Vro + ro - are simply the ordinals <w+w. But .9(w x w) E Vw + ro , so every
THE REFLECTION PRINCIPLE 53
Note that the foundation axiom also holds in V.. (IX being a limit ordinal
beyond m). We now intend to prove that no consistent extension of
ZF + AF can be obtained by adding finitely many new axioms to Z + AF;
put another way, this means that whatever sentence, consistent with Z + AF,
A may be, we can find aformula B which is a consequence ofZF+AF+A,
but not ofZ+ AF+ A.
The formulaB is 'there exists a limit ordinal P>w such that AVp,. This
is certainly a consequence of ZF + AF+ A, since A is a consequence of
that theory. We need only apply the reflection principle with w for IX.
Now if IX is a limit ordinal, it is easily checked that V.. is a mirror for
all the following formulas (whose free variables are just e, x, y).
So suppose that E(xo, ... , Xk-l) is 3xF(x, xo, ... , Xk- 1 ), F itself being
a formula for which the lemma holds. Then E V" is the formula 3x [x E V~ /\
/\ FV,,(x, xo, ... , Xk-l)] and so [Ev«xo, ... , Xk-l)Y" is 3x[x E V" /\
/\ (x E v~t" /\ (FVIi(X, Xo,"" Xk- 1 )t"].
We have noted above (in (5» that V" mirrors the formula of two varia-
bles x E V~. As a consequence, if x, (E V"' we get (x E V~)V" +-+ X E V~;
furthermore, since ( is in V" it is less than IX, so x E V" /\ X E V~ +-+ X E V~.
And again, since V" mirrors F V " (induction hypothesis), we have for
x, Xo,"" Xk-l E V" that
(FV~ (x, xo, ... , Xk-l»)Y" +-+ FVI;' (x, xo, ... , Xk-l)'
So let IX be the first limit ordinal greater than w for which V" mirrors the
sentenceA; since A is true in 0lI, IX is the least limit ordinal > wsuch that A V ".
By the lemma V" mirrors the formula A V " (of one free variable only,
().Bisjust3([(isalimitordinal> w /\ A V"],soBv"is3( [(E V", /\ g
is a limit ordinal >wt" /\ (AV"t"J. Since V", mirrors both A V' and '( is
a limit ordinal >w', BV " is equivalent to 3([( E V", /\ (is a limit ordinal
>w /\ AVIiJ. However, as IX was chosen to be the least limit above w for
which A V ", we cannot have, for a limit (, both A V " and ( E Vo;; and, as
we can see, BV " requires both to be true. Thus BV " is false. This proves
that, though V" satisfies all the axioms of Z, AF, and A (by the choice of IX),
the formula B does not hold in it. So B cannot be a consequence of
Z+AF+A.
As a corollary to the above result we may note that if ZF is consistent,
it is not finitely axiomatizable. For the assumption of consistency allows
us to assume ZF+AF consistent; so if ZF were equivalent to a single
sentence A, ZF + AF would be equivalent to Z + AF + A.
In the first two chapters we constructed, within each universe 011, a sort
of replica for several of the fundamental ideas of mathematics; the idea
of a mapping, for example, or that of a natural number. And we agreed
thenceforth to use these words in the senses we had given them in 011,
and not at all in their everyday senses.
We are now going to carry out the same 'reconstruction' for the idea
of a formula of set theory. In this case, however, we shall continue to use
the word 'formula' in its intuitive sense only, as we have used it up to
now, and will take advantage of the word 'expression' in order to refer
to the kind of objects that we shall define in the universe.
Choose from 011 any five distinct sets, to be denoted by v, "', 3, e, and
=; these sets might be, for instance, the sets 0, 1, 2, 3,4. Choose also a
denumerable set "Y whose elements, called variables, differ from all five
sets chosen above - "Y might consist of the natural numbers ~ 5. If x
is a variable we shall write the ordered pair <3, x) as 3x.
We define by recursion a map n -+ Iffn with domain co: Iffo is the set
< <
of ordered triples e, x, y) and =, x, y) where x, y are in "Y; more
formally,
LEMMA: For each expression (P one and only one 0/ the following possi-
bilities is realized:
(P is atomic;
(P iso/the/orm (-, P);
(P is o/the/orm (v, P, PI);
(P is o/the/orm (:Ix, P).
Furthermore, P and P' are expressions determined by (P, and strictly lower
in depth than (P itself.
PROOF: Bearing in mind that the ordered triple (a, b, c) is defined as the
ordered pair (a, (b, c», it is clear that each expression is an ordered pair.
Also clear is the fact that the first element of such a pair is bound to be
8, =, -, v, or :Ix (where x E 1); and these objects are distinct from one
another, as that is the way we chose them.
Ifthe first element of a pair is 8 or = we must have (P E Co; if it is -, the
second element of the pair is an expression P. Writing n+ 1 for the depth
of (P we have (-, P) E C n+ 1 and (-, P) ¢ Cn; so by the definition of
Cn+ 1 we get P E Cn; and therefore the depth of P is less than n+ 1. On
the other hand it is obvious that P is determined uniquely by (P. Exactly
the same goes if the first element of the pair is :Ix. If, however, it is v,
then the second element takes the form (P, PI), P and P' being deter-
mined by (P, obviously enough. From (v, P, P') E Cn + 1 and (v, P,
PI) ¢ Cn it again follows at once that P, P' E Cm and therefore P and
P' have depth less than n + 1.1
In the sequel the expressions (8, x, y), (=, x, y), (-, (P), ( v, (P, P),
and (:Ix, (P) will be shortened to x B y, x=y, -(P, «(p) v (p), and :Ix (P
respectively; the sets 8, =, -, v will be called the membership sign, the
equals sign, the negation sign, and the disjunction sign respectively; and
:I is the existential quantifier.
The expressions (,..,(p) v (p), -« -(P) v (- P», -:lx( -(P) will be
still further shortened to «(P) ~ (P), «(P) A (P), Yx«(P) respectively;
and the expression «(P ~ P) A (P ~ (P) will be written «(P) ~ (P).
We now define recursively on the depth of an expression a map w
from C into the set of all finite subsets of r; w((P) will be called the set
58 INTRODUCTION TO AXIOMATIC SET THEORY
DEFINITION:
We can also define (recursively on the depth of the expression iP) a binary
functional relation Y = Val (iP, X) whose domain is 'iP is an expression
and X is a set'. Y is called the value of the expression iP in the set X, and
it is a subset of w(</l)X.
DEFINITION:
Xfor which AX (c5(xo), ... , c5(Xk-l» holds; this is easily proved by informal
metamathematical induction on the length of the formula A.
We shall write an expression <P whose free variables form a finite set
{xo, ... , xk-d (indexed by a natural number k) as <P(xo, ... , Xk-l); such
an expression will, for brevity, be called k-adic.
An expression with parameters <Po is by definition an ordered pair
(<P, 11) where <P is an expression and 11 a map defined on some subset of
weep) (perhaps weep) itself). If the free variables of <P are Xo, ... ,Xk-l>
Yo, ... , YI-l (and they are all different), and the domain of 11 is the subset
{xo,"" Xk-l} of w(<P), and the value of 11 at each Xj (for i <k) is aj, then
the expression <Po with parameters is written <P{ao, ... , ak- l , Yo, ... , YI-l)'
The set {Yo, ... , YI-l} - that is, w{ <P)",-dom(11) - is, by definition, the set
of free variables of the expression <Po with parameters, and is denoted by
w(<Po).
Suppose now that X is a set and <Po = (<P, 11) an expression all of whose
parameters are taken from X. Such an expression will sometimes be called
an X-expression. We extend the earlier definition of Val so that Val {<Po, X)
becomes the set of all maps c5 E w(tPo)X such that c5 u 11 E Val(<P, X) -
here () u 11 is the map defined on w( <P) as equal to c5 on w( <Po) and to 11
on w(<P)"'-w(<Po).
If A(xo, ... , xk-d is any formula whatever with parameters, there
corresponds to it in an obvious fashion an expression with parameters,
r £1 for short. Val(rA', X) will be properly defined if all the parameters
of the formula A are elements of X; in which case Val(rA', X) is the
set of all maps c5 from {xo, ... , Xk-l} into X for which the formula
A X(c5(x o),"" c5{Xk-l» holds; this again follows easily by informal
induction on the length of A.
An expression <P with parameters is said to be closed if w(<P)=0. If <P
is a closed X-expression - so that the set X contains all the parameters of
<P - then Val(<P, X) is a subset of 0X={0}. Accordingly, Val(<P, X)=l
or O. Ifit is 1 we say that <P is satisfied in the set X.
The following theorem, proved with the help of the axiom of choice, will
be used in Chapter VIII.
say, where a E Pn+1> and so 'P (a, ao, ... , ak-1) is satisfied in X (by the
definitions of 9 and U'l')' The depth of 'P(a, ao, ... , ak-1), however, is
strictly less than that of 4>, and so, by the induction hypothesis, 'P(a, ao,
THE SET OF EXPRESSIONS 61
..• , ak-I) is satisfied in Y; from this it follows at once that 3xP(x, aQ, •.• ,
ak-I), whichisjustIP(aQ , .. " ak_I),issatisfiedin Y.
Conversely, if 3xP(x, aQ, .. " ak-I) is satisfied in Y, there must be an
a E Y for which pea, aQ, , .. , ak-I) is satisfied in Y. By the induction
hypothesis pea, aQ, .. " ak-I) is also satisfied in X, so 3xP(x, aQ, .. " ak-I)
is too.
In particular we have proved that every expression in d is satisfied
in Y .•
Clearly enough the expressions IP, IP a have the same free variables. The
parameters of IP a, however, are a, aQ, ... , a/-I'
The induction hypothesis gives Val ('1', a) equal to w('P) a r\ Val ('1'", b), so
Val ( 4>, a) = {.5 ew(0) a I 3.5' ~ .5 (.5' e w('P) a A .5' e Val ('1'", b))}
We now consider a universe <ft where the axiom of foundation holds, and
define a class OD, the ordinal definable sets, by the following formula,
o D (x): 'There are an ordinal IX and a monadic expression 4i (y, lXo, ••• , 1X,-1)
whose parameters are ordinals <IX and whose value in the set Va is {x}'.
LEMMA: Let a be a set, and A(x, lXo, ••. , IXk-l)' whose parameters are
ordinals, be a formula with a single free variable. If a is the only set for
which A holds, then a is ordinal definable.
PROOF: Since we have chosen a universe <ft in which AF holds, we can
make use of the reflection principle to obtain an ordinal IX not only
greater than lXo, ... , IXk - 1 but also large enough for a to be in Va, and such
that Va mirrors the formula A (x, lXo, ... , IXk-l)' Then a is the only member
of Va for which the formula AV",(x, lXo, ... , IXk-l) holds, and so the value
of the expression r A(x, lXo, ... , IXk-tY"' in the set Va is {a}. Thus a is ordi-
nal definable .•
Our main task in this chapter will be the proof of the relative con-
sistency of the axiom of choice. We do this by constructing from a model
0/10 of ZF another model, one for ZF + AF + A C. Moving off from 0/10 we
first construct a model 0/1, as we have done before (p. 43), for ZF + AF.
We then show that not only ZF+ AF but also ACholds in the class HOD
constructed within 0/1.
If A (x, IX) is an ordinal definition of a, since b is the only set for which
B(y, a): Vz [z E Y - HOD(z) /\ z c: a]
holds, it is clear that 3x[A (x, IX) /\ B(y, x)] holds for b and for nothing
else. Thus OD(b).
Vro' Using our bijection K from Q) on to Vro , we let n be the natural number
for which K(n) = 4> (x, Xo, .. " X,-I)' In a similar way we let Pbe the first
ordinal for which J' (p)isthefunction {(xo, cxo), ... , (x,-l> cx,_I)}whereJ'
is the functional relation defined on p. 64. Then cx= 8 (4) (x, cxo, ... , CX,-I»)
is taken as that ordinal cx associated with the pair (n, P) by the isomorphism
between On 2 and On.
Granted 8 then, we proceed to define another functional relation
P=D(x), from aD into On, by the formula 'P is the least ordinal to
represent a pair of ordinals (cx, 1') where 1'=8(4)) for some monadic
expression 4> with parameters in cx and value {x} in V,,'.
The formula P=D(x) has no parameters; what is more, it defines an
injection, for x =1= x' -+ D(x) =1= D(x'), as is easily checked.
It is clear now that the relation R(x, y) defined by the parameter-
free formula OD(x) A OD(Y) A D(x)~D(y) is a well-ordering of the
class aD.
So suppose a to be any hereditarily ordinal definable set. Restricting
the well-ordering R to a yields the set
b = {(x, y) e a 2 1 D(x) ~ D(y)} ,
and it is this set which we shall show to be a well-ordering of a, and itself
in HOD.
Taking the latter point first, note that all of b's elements are in HOD,
so we have only to prove that OD(b). But since the formula
B(y, a): 'v'z[zey~3u3v(uea A vea A
z = (u, v) A D(u) ~ D(v»)]
holds only for b, and we may assume that some ordinal definition of a,
A(x, cx), holds only for a, it is clear once more that b is ordinal defined
by the formula 3x [A (x, cx) A B(y, x)]. So HOD(b).
As far as all is concerned, b certainly well-orders a; that this is also the
case in HOD is apparent from the fact that all non-empty subsets of a,
those lying in HOD in particular, have a smallest element (mod. b).
Thus Zermelo's theorem holds in HOD; so AC too. This concludes the
proof that A C is consistent relative to ZF.
The ordinals of HOD are the same as the ordinals of all; and the natural
numbers of all appear unchanged in HOD too. Note that since AFholds
68 INTRODUCTION TO AXIOMATIC SET THEORY
The Choice Principle: We say that the choice principle holds for a universe
cp/ if there is a formula A(x, y) of two free variables and no parameters
which defines a well-ordering of the entire universe.
In such a case the axiom of choice is easily seen to hold. We should
ORDINAL DEFINABLE SETS 69
note however that, as it stands, the choice principle is not only not an
axiom, it is not even a scheme of axioms; rather, it is something like an
'infinite disjunction' of sentences, of all those sentences, that is, which
say, of a binary relation without parameters, that it well-orders the
universe <11. Nevertheless, we can establish the following result.
THEOREM: If AF holds in <11, then the choice principle holds in <11 if and
only if the axiom YxOD(x) holds in <11.
PROOF: If the choice principle holds, some parameter-free formula A (x, y)
defines a well-ordering of <11. So there will be generated by this well-
ordering an isomorphism x = J( a) from On on to <11, and this isomorphism
will be definable by a formula free of parameters. Thus x=J(a) will
provide an ordinal definition for every element of <11, and therefore
YxOD(x) will hold.
Conversely, given that YXOD(x) holds, we can proceed as above to
write down the formula D(x)=:;;D{y); this is parameter-free, and it
defines a well-ordering on <11. I
In particular, granted AF, the parameter-free formula D{x)=:;;D(y)
has the following property. Ifthere is any parameter-free formula A (x, y)
defining a well-ordering of the universe, then D(x)=:;;D(y) defines a well-
ordering of the universe.
In Chapter VIII we will be able to show the relative consistency of the
axiom YxOD(x).
CHAPTER VII
FRAENKEL/MOSTOWSKI MODELS
Relative Consistency o/the Negation o/the Axiom o/Choice
(Without the Axiom 0/ Foundation)
Union Axiom: If a is a set then the class 3y [y E' a A x E' y] is one too.
For this formula is just an abbreviation of 3y[y e F(a) A x E F(y)],
and so is equivalent to x E U F(y). Putting this last set equal to c, we
obtain yeF(a)
Power-set Axiom: If a is any set, the formula Vy(y E' x ~ Y E' a) is just
Vy[y EF(x) ~ y EF(a)J;
that is, it is equivalent to F(x) c F(a) or, putting c for @J(F(a», to
F(x) E c. Defining b by F(b) = {x I F(x) E c}, and remembering that F is
bijective, we get F(x) E c equivalent to x E F(b). Thus
x E' b - Vy [y E' X ~ Y E' a] ,
proving that the power-set axiom also holds.
I
Put a1 for {F(x) x E F(a)}; then the two sentences above say that the
elements of at are non-empty and disjoint in pairs. So if the axiom of
choice holds in d/t, we can find a set h1 which intersects each member of
at at a single point; that is,
Vx3y[xEal-VZ(Y=Z+-+ZEX /\ zEb l )],
or, alternatively,
Vx3y [F(x) E a 1 - Vz(y = Z +-+ Z E F(x) /\ ZE b I )].
Now the definition of al implies that F(x) E a1 iff x E F(a); if and only
if, that is, x E' a. Thus we get
VX3y[xE'a-Vz(y=Z+-+ZE'X /\ zEb 1 )].
Write now b for F- 1 (b 1 ); we obtain
Vx3y [x E' a _ Vz(y = Z +-+ Z E' X /\ Z E' b)],
showing that the axiom of choice holds in d/t'.
pollent to w'.
Define F by setting F(n) = {n}, F({n})=n for every natural number
n~ I, and F(x)=x everywhere else. This is a bijection all right since n
and {p} must be different if nand p are both positive natural numbers.
FRAENKEL/MOSTOWSKI MODELS 73
If a is in W we again call the least ordinal IX for which a E W" the rank
ofa.
LEMMA: An object a is in W if and only if all its elements are. The rank
ofany element of a is strictly below that of a itself, provided only that a does
not have rank O. The axioms ofZF hold in the class W.
PROOF: All parts of the lemma are proved in the same way as similar
results were proved for V in Chapter IlL.
We now consider a universe OU1 satisfying all these axioms; and, writing
X for the set of atoms of 0//1 we carry out the above construction within
OUt· ThusWo=XandifO(~l, W,.= U L1'(WfI); Wis the class defined by
31X[On{lX) A XE WJ. f/<,.
Every object of ou1 is in W; equivalently, 0//1 satisfies the axiom
Yx31X[On(lX) A x e W,,]. For suppose the existence of an a not in W;
let b be its transitive closure, and c the set of those elements of b not in W.
Since a is not in W, some element x of a is not in W; and since this x will
FRAENKEL/MOSTOWSKI MODELS 75
LEMMA: Let E(ao, ... , all-i) be a sentence with parameters ao, ... , a,,-1>'
and let (j be a permutation of X. Then E(ao, ... , all-i) +-+ E«(jao, ... , (jail-i)'
PROOF: The proof is by informal induction on the length of the formula
E(ao, ... , an-i); if this formula is atomic, that is, ao e a1 or ao=a1 , then
the theorem holds because (j is an e-automorphism of the universe ~l '
If E(ao,' '" all-i) is ,F(ao" .. , all-i) we have F(ao, ... , all -1)
+-+F((ja o, ... , (jall -1) by the induction hypothesis; and therefore the required
equivalence holds also for E. When E(ao, ... , all-i) is F(ao, ... , an-i) V
V G(ao, "., a,. -1) the proof is the same.
If E(ao, .. " all-i) is 3xF(x, ao, "" all-i), suppose it to be true in ~i;
then for some object a we have F(a, ao, .. ,' all-i)' and so F«(ja, (jao, .. "
(jail-i) by the induction hypothesis; thus 3xF(x, (jao, ... , (jall -1)' The
converse is handled likewise.•
Note that this lemma is another example of a theorem scheme, this
time in the theory T defined on p. 74 above. What we have shown is the
sentence 'For every permutation (j of the set of atoms, and for every
xo, ... , X,.-l> E(xo, ... , X,.-1) +-+ E«(jxo, ... , (jX,.-l)' for an arbitrary para-
meter-free formula E(xo,"" X n -i)'
LEMMA: Let A (x, ao, ... , ak-1) be a formula of one free variable holding
for just one set, the set a; let (j be a permutation of X. Then (ja is the only
setfor which theformula A (x, (jao, "., (jak-l) holds.
PROOF: By assumption we have 'v'x[x=a +-+ A(x, ao, ... , ak-1)]; so, by
the previous lemma,
'v'x [x = (ja +-+ A (x, (jao, ... , (ja k - 1 )] ••
FRAENKEL/MOSTOWSKI MODELS 77
LEMMA: IflX is an ordinal, and Uis a permutation ofX, then UlX = lX.
UlX#=lX; then
PROOF: Otherwise, suppose lX is the first ordinal for which
u/J=/J for all /JelX, so ulX={u/Jl/JelX}=lX, which contradicts the
supposition. I
LEMMA: Let A (x, lXo, ... , tXr-1' u) be a singulary formula whose parameters
are all ordinals, except for u, which is a finite sequence of
IXo, ••• , IXr-t, U
atoms (a map, that is to say,from some natural number s into X). Then if
a is the only set for which the formula A holds, a is definable by ordinals
and atoms.
PROOF: The generalized reflection principle provides us with an ordinal
IX>IXo, ••• , IXr-1and big enough for u and a both to belong to W,., and
such that W,. mirrors the formula A.
Then the value of the expression r A(x, IXo, .•• , IXr-l> up in W,. is {a}.
Write 'l'(x, IXo, •.• , IXr-l> u) for this expression. Since u is a finite sequence
ao, ... , as-l of atoms we have
u = {(O, ao), ... , (8 - 1, as-I)}.
Thus the expression
Elz(Yt[t 8 z<-> t = (0, ao) v ... v
t = (8 - l,as-l)] A P(x,IXo, ... ,lXr-hZ»)
gets the value {a} in W" and has only ordinals and atoms for parame-
ters·1
The converse can also be obtained.
78 INTRODUCTION TO AXIOMATIC SET THEORY
For suppose in HOD 1 there were a set v which imposed a strict linear
order on X. Let A (x, 15 o, u) be some definition of v by ordinals and atoms.
Then since u is only a finite sequence of atoms ao, ... , as-l> and X is
equipollent with co (in 0111 ), there must be two atoms b, c different from
all theao, ... , as - 1 ' v linearly orders X, however, so without loss of generality
we can suppose (b, c) E v. Let (1 be that permutation which switches band
c round, but otherwise leaves X unaltered; then nothing happens to any
of the atoms ao, ... , a s - 1 under (1, so (1U=U. Moreover, (115 0 =15 0 , since 15 o
is an ordinal. But, by the lemma on p. 76 (1V is defined by the formula
A(x, (115 0 , (1u), so (1V actually equals v. Now (b, c) E v by assumption, so
«(1b, uc) E UV, so (c, b) E v. Thus v is not a strict order, which contradicts
our hypothesis.
Let us note two other properties of X which contradict AC and yet are
true of Xin HOD1 •
Note that the model of ZF+-,AC just constructed does not satisfy
80 INTRODUCTION TO AXIOMATIC SET THEORY
CONSTRUCTIBLE SETS
Relative Consistency of the Generalized Continuum Hypothesis
The class L defined by the formula L{x): 3(X[On{a) A x E L,,], the union
(in the intuitive sense) of all the L", is called the class of constructible sets.
Appropriately enough, a set a is called constructible if it is in L; if, there-
fore, it is in L" for some ordinal a.
The axiom of constructibility is the sentence 'Every set is constructible',
or, equivalently, 'v'x3a[On(a) A x E La]. The main business of this
chapter will consist in showing that if ZF is consistent, it remains so on the
addition of the axiom of constructibility. We do this by proving that the
class L with the usual membership relation satisfies all the ZFaxioms and
the axiom of constructibility too.
We first prove some results for the L,,'s very similar to ones proved already
for the VIZ'S. If a' ~ a then L". c L", since La' = U TI (Lp) c U TI (Lp) =
p<,,' p<"
=L".lfp<a, thenLp E L,,; for Lp E TI(Lp) and TI(Lp) c La. By our most
recent theorem then, since Lp c L" and Lp E L", we have TI (Lp) c TI (L,,).
As L",+1 = U TI(Lp) we have La+l = TI(L,,) for every ordinal (x. On
p.. "
the other hand, if a is a limit ordinal,
Let the value of this expression in the set L",o be Y, which is thus the set
of elements x of L",o for which the following formula, which is relativized
to L",o' holds.
VuVv[uEL",o AVEL",o-+[(UEX AVEX)
-+ (u EV V U = v v V E u)]]
A VuVv[uEL",o 1\ VEL",o-+(UEX 1\ VEU)-+VEX)].
Seeing that L",o is transitive, an element x of it will satisfy this formula if
and only if
VUVV[UEX 1\ VEX-+UEV V U=V v VEU]
1\ VuVv [u EX 1\ V E U -+ V E x] ;
just, that is, when it is an ordinal.
The value of !V(x) in L",o is therefore the set of ordinals belonging to
L",o' We have proved that ao anyway is not one of these, and therefore
84 INTRODUCTION TO AXIOMATIC SET THEORY
We can now proceed to check that all the axioms of ZF + AF hold in the
classL.
Scheme of Replacement: Let R(x, y, ao, ... , ak-l) be a formula of two free
variables whose parameters ao, ... , ak-1 are in L; and suppose that, when
interpreted in L, it defines a functional relation. Within the universe IJlt
this functional relation is defined by the formula L (x) A L(y) A
A RL(x, y, ao, ... , ak-l); both domain and range are subclasses of L.
Let b stand for the set of images of the elements of some constructible
set a under this functional relation. We must show b to be constructible.
Each element of it certainly is, so pick some ordinal Clo exceeding the
order of any element of b and big enough for a, ao, ... , ak-l to be in
L"o' Then b c L lZo'
CONSTRUCTIBLE SETS 85
Now the expression r R(u, v, ao, ... , ak-lrl has two free variables
u, v, and parameters ao, ... , ak- 1 E Lp; call it q,(u, v) for short. Thus
Val (4), Lp) is the set of mapsJ: {u, v} --+ Lp such that RLP(J(u),J(v),
ao, ... , ak-l)' By (*), however, this set is the set ofmapsJ: {u, v} --+ Lp for
which RL(J(U), J(v), ao, ... , ak- 1 ). Consequently, Val (3u(u 8 a 1\
4>(u, v), Lp) is the set of maps J: {v} --+ Lp for which 3x(x E a 1\
RL(X,J (v), ao, ... , ak- 1 »; so val (3u(u 8 a 1\ q,(u, v), Lp) is just the set of
elements of L which are images of members of a under the functional
relation RL(X, y, ao, ... , ak-l); in fact, b, in view of the choice of fJ. Thus
bE L p + 1 , and is constructible.
is constructible.
Note that the ordinals of L are the ordinals of the universe O/!. For all
ordinals IX are constructible, and clearly they all satisfy OnL(a). Con-
versely, a constructible IX satisfying OnL(IX) is transitive and linearly or-
dered by E; so an ordinal.
86 INTRODUCTION TO AXIOMATIC SET THEORY
so
(FW (ao, ... , ak-1) v GW(ao, ... , ak-1»
~ (FW' (ao, ... , ak-1) v GW' (ao, ... , ak-1»,
If the relation G(y, zo, .. " Z,-I) and the functional relation y= F(xo, .. ,'
Xk-l) are absolute, then the relation G(F(xo, .. " Xt-l), Zo, ... , Z,-I) is
absolute.
The relation in question can be defined by
For the latter we simply check the absoluteness of the following relations:
x={), defined by 'v'y(y E X -+ Y if. x).
y=x u {x}, defined by 'v'z(z E Y -+ Z=X v Z E x) A
x=w,definedby 'v'Z(ZEX-+ZEY) A XEy.
On(x) A () E X A 'v'y [y E X ~ Y u {y} EX]
'v'y [y E X ~ (y = () v 3z(y = Z U {z}))].
A
A 8 = f(4J)].
The axiom of constructibility asserts that the three classes 011, V, L are
identical (this axiom therefore implies AF). The axiom of constructibility
is usually denoted V=L, which is an abbreviation of the formula Vx[V(x)
+-+ L(x)] (when this notation is used, AFis understood to hold). What we
have shown, therefore, is that if ZFis consistent, then so is ZF + AF+ V = L.
The axiom of constructibility has many important consequences. We
shall now show that it entails the axiom of choice, in particular - and
even the choice principle stated on p. 69-, and the generalized continuum
hypothesis. These two sentences are thus satisfied in L, and therefore
consistent relative to the remaining axioms.
V= L IMPLIES AC
which takes in their natural order the ordinals associated with its elements.
As a consequence, and using the injection K- 1 noted above, we can find an
injection from the set of monadic expressions with parameters in X into
(j) x U ( On), aclass which is well ordered by the well-ordering already defined
=
THEOREM: Suppose again that ZF+AF+AC holds in 0lI. Then L(I.=a,for
every ordinal (X~w. /fa is a constructible set, od(a)~~(a)+~o.
PROOF: We have seen already that (X c L(I.' so that a,~La.' To show the
converse inequality for all (X~w we proceed by induction. For w we note
that Ln= v" for every new (a trivial induction proves this); thus Lru= Vru ,
With all this achieved, let d/I be a universe satisfying the axiom of con-
structibility. We have already proved that the axiom of choice holds in
CFI, so the theorems above can be applied. Any set a is constructible, so
if a c: ~p we have
od(a) ~ ~(a) + ~o ~ ~P'
since ~(a) c: ~p. Thus od(a)<~p+l' so a E L Np +1' But a is any subset of
----
~P' so t1'(~p) c: LNp +1 ' whence 9I'(~P)~LNp+l' Thus 9I'(~P)~~P+l'
Cantor's theorem gives us the reverse inequality, so we can conclude that
9I'(~p) = ~P+ 1> which is the generalized continuum hypothesis.
The fundamental ideas of elementary logic and model theory are discussed in detail in,
for example,
[4] Elliott Mendelson, 1964, Introduction to Mathematical Logic, D. Van Nostrand,
Princeton.
[5] G. Kreisel and J. L. Krivine, 1967, Elements of Mathematical Logic (Model
Theory), North Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
[6] Roger C. Lyndon, 1966, Notes on Logic, D. Van Nostrand, Princeton.
[7] Joseph R. Shoenfield, 1967, Mathematical Logic, Addison-Wesley.
This last book contains (amongst much else) an important chapter on set theory.
The proof given in the text of the generalized continuum hypothesis in L is close to
that of
[9] Carol Karp, 1967, 'A Proof of the Relative Consistency of the Continuum Hypo-
thesis', in Sets, Models and Recursion Theory (ed. by John N. Crossley), North-
Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, pp. 1-32.
Editors:
DONALD DAVIDSON (Rockefeller University and Princeton University)
JAAKKO HnmKKA (Academy of Finland and Stanford University)
GABRIiiL NUCHELMANS (University of Leyden)
WSSLEY C. SALMON (Indiana University)
~RIsTO HILPINEN (ed.), Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings. 1971,
VII + 182 pp. Dft.45,-
~EVERT W. BETH, Aspect of Modern Logic. 1970, XI + 176 pp. Dft.42,-
tPAUL WEINGARTNER and GERHARD ZECHA, (eds.), Induction, Physics, and Ethics.
Proceedings and Discussions of the 1968 Salzburg Colloquium in the Philosophy of
Science. 1970, X + 382 pp. 00. 65,-
~ROLFA. EBERLE, Nominalistic Systems. 1970, IX + 217 pp. Dft.42,-
PAAKKO HINTIKKA and PATRICK SUPPES, Information and Inference. X + 336 pp.
Dft.60,-
tKAREL LAMBERT, Philosophical Problems in Logic. Some Recent Developments. 1970,
VII +176 pp. Dft. 38,-
tP. V. TAVANEC (ed.), Problems of the Logic of Scientific Knowledge. 1969, XII+
429 pp. Dft. 95,-
~ROBERT S. CoHEN and RAYMOND J. SEEGER (eds.), Boston Studies in the Philosophy of
Science. Volume VI: Ernst Mach: Physicist and Philosopher. 1970, Vm+295 pp.
Dft.38,-
tMARSHALL SWAIN (ed.), Induction, Acceptance, and Rational Belie/. 1970, VII+
232 pp. Dft.4O,-
tNICHOLAS RESCHER et aI. (ed8.), Essays in Honor of Carl G. Hempel. A Tribute on the
Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. 1969, VII + 272 pp. Dft. 46,-
tPATRICK SUPPES. Studies in the Methodology and Foundations of Science. Selected
Papers from 1951 to 1969.1969, XII +473 pp. Dft.70,-
tJAAKKO HnmKKA, Models for Modalities. Selected Essays. 1969, IX + 220 pp.
Dft.34,-
tD. DAVIDSON and J. HnmKKA: (eds.), Words and Objections: Essays on the Work
of W. V. Quine. 1969, vm + 366 pp. Dft. 48,-
tJ. W. DAVIS. D. J. HoCKNEY, and W. K. WILSON (eds.), Philosophical Logic. 1969,
vm + 277 pp. 00. 45,-
tROBERT S. CoHEN and MARX W. WARTOFSKY (eds.), Boston Studies in the Philosophy
of Science. Volume V: Proceedings of the Boston Colloquium for the Philosophy of
Science 1966/1968.1969, VllI+482 pp. Dft.58,-
tRoBERT S. COHEN and MARX W. WARTOFSKY (eds.), Boston Studies in the Philosophy
0/ Science. Volume IV: Proceedings 0/ the Boston Colloquium for the Philosophy 0/
Science 1966/1968. 1969, VIII + 537 pp. Dfl. 69,-
tNICHOLAS RESCHER, Topics in Philosophical Logic. 1968, XIV + 347 pp. Dfl. 62,-
tGONTHER PATZIG, Aristotle's Theory o/the Syllogism. A Logical-Philological Study 0/
Book A 0/ the Prior Analytics. 1968, XVII + 215 pp. Dfl. 45,-
tC. D. BROAD, Induction, Probability, and Causation. Selected Papers. 1968, XI + 296 pp.
Dfl.48,-
tRoBERT S. COHEN and MARX W. WARTOFSKY (eds.), Boston Studies in the Philosophy
0/ Science. Volume III: Proceedings 0/ the Boston Colloquium for the Philosophy 0/
Science 1964/1966. 1967, XLIX + 489 pp. Dfl. 65,-
tGUIDO KONG, Ontology and the Logistic Analysis 0/ Language. An Enquiry into the
Contemporary Views on Universals. 1967, XI + 210 pp. Dfl. 38,-
·EvERT W. BETH and JEAN PIAGET, Mathematical Epistemology and Psychology. 1966.
XXII + 326 pp. Dfl. 58,-
·EVERT W. BETH, Mathematical Thought. An Introduction to the Philosophy 0/ Mathe-
matics. 1965, XII + 208 pp. Dfl. 32,-
tPAUL LORENZEN, Formal Logic. 1965, VIII + 123 pp. Dfl.22,-
tGEORGES GURVITCH, The Spectrum 0/ Social Time. 1964, XXVI + 152 pp. Dfl.20,-
tAo A. ZINOV'EV, Philosophical Problems 0/ Many- Valued Logic. 1963, XIV + 155 pp.
Dfl.28,-
tMARx W. WARTOFSKY (ed.), Boston Studies in the Philosophy 0/ Science. Volume I:
Proceedings o/the Boston Colloquium/or the Philosophy 0/Science, 1961-1962. 1963,
VIII + 212 pp. Dfl. 22,50
tB. H. KAZEMIER and D. VUYSJE (eds.), Logic and Language. Studies dedicated to Pro-
lessor Rudolf Carnap on the Occasion 0/ his Seventieth Birthday. 1962, VI + 246 pp.
Dfl.32,50
"'EVERT W. BETH, Formal Methods. An Introduction to Symbolic Logic and to the Study
0/ Effective Operations in Arithmetic and Logic. 1962, XIV + 170 pp. Dfl.30,-
·HANS FREUDENTHAL (ed.), The Concept and the Role 0/ the Model in Mathematics
and Natural and Social Sciences. Proceedings 0/ a Colloquium held at Utrecht, The
Netherlands, January 1960. 1961, VI + 194 pp. Dfl. 30,-
tP. L. R. GUIRAUD, Probtemes et methodes de la statistique linguistique. 1960,
VI + 146 pp. Dfl.22,50
.J. M. BOCHENSKI, A Precis 0/ Mathematical Logic. 1959, X + 100 pp. Dfl.20,-
·GORDON & BREACH, INC., 150 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10011
tHUMANITIES PRESS, INC., 303 Park Avenue South, New York, N.Y. 10010