Models of set theory with more real numbers than ordinals

1974 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 579-583 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul E. Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Standard Model ◽  
Set Theory ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Infinite Cardinal ◽  
Real Numbers ◽  
Transitive Model ◽  
Lower Case ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Dependent Choice ◽  
Models Of Set Theory

Suppose M is a countable standard transitive model of set theory. P. J. Cohen [2] showed that if κ is an infinite cardinal of M then there is a one-to-one function Fκ from κ into the set of real numbers such that M[Fκ] is a model of set theory with the same cardinals as M.If Tκ is the range of Fκ then Cohen also showed [2] that M[Tκ] fails to satisfy the axiom of choice. We will give an easy proof of this fact.If κ, λ are infinite we will also show that M[Tκ] is elementarily equivalent to M[Tλ] and that (] in M[Fλ]) is elementarily equivalent to (] in M[FK]).Finally we show that there may be an N ∈ M[GK] which is a standard model of set theory (without the axiom of choice) and which has, from the viewpoint of M[GK], more real numbers than ordinals.We write ZFC and ZF for Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, respectively with and without the axiom of choice (AC). GBC is Gödel-Bernays' set theory with AC. DC and ACℵo are respectively the axioms of dependent choice and of countable choice defined in [6].Lower case Greek characters (other than ω) are used as variables over ordinals. When α is an ordinal, R(α) is the set of all sets with rank less than α.

Definability of measures and ultrafilters

1977 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Pincus ◽  
Robert M. Solovay
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Closed Interval ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Inaccessible Cardinal ◽  
Private Communication ◽  
Real Numbers ◽  
Power Set ◽  
Disjoint Sets ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Dependent Choice

Nonprincipal ultrafilters are harder to define in ZFC, and harder to obtain in ZF + DC, than nonprincipal measures.The function μ from P(X) to the closed interval [0, 1] is a measure on X if μ. is finitely additive on disjoint sets and μ(X) = 1. (P is the power set.) μ is nonprincipal if μ ({x}) = 0 for each x Є X. μ is an ultrafilter if Range μ= {0, 1}. The existence of nonprincipal measures and ultrafilters on any infinite X follows from the axiom of choice.Nonprincipal measures cannot necessarily be defined in ZFC. (ZF is Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory. ZFC is ZF with choice.) In ZF alone they cannot even be proved to exist. This was first established by Solovay [14] using an inaccessible cardinal. In the model of [14] no nonprincipal measure on ω is even ODR (definable from ordinal and real parameters). The HODR (hereditarily ODR) sets of this model form a model of ZF + DC (dependent choice) in which no nonprincipal measure on ω exists. Pincus [8] gave a model with the same properties making no use of an inaccessible. (This model was also known to Solovay.) The second model can be combined with ideas of A. Blass [1] to give a model of ZF + DC in which no nonprincipal measures exist on any set. Using this model one obtains a model of ZFC in which no nonprincipal measure on the set of real numbers is ODR. H. Friedman, in private communication, previously obtained such a model of ZFC by a different method. Our construction will be sketched in 4.1.

On generic extensions without the axiom of choice

1983 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. P. Monro
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Generic Extension ◽  
Transitive Model ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Generic Extensions

AbstractLet ZF denote Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (without the axiom of choice), and let M be a countable transitive model of ZF. The method of forcing extends M to another model M[G] of ZF (a “generic extension”). If the axiom of choice holds in M it also holds in M[G], that is, the axiom of choice is preserved by generic extensions. We show that this is not true for many weak forms of the axiom of choice, and we derive an application to Boolean toposes.

scholarly journals On Arbitrary sets andZFC

2011 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 361-393 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Ferreirós
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Real Numbers ◽  
The Real ◽  
Formal Systems ◽  
Infinite Sets ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice ◽  
The Continuum

AbstractSet theory deals with the most fundamental existence questions in mathematics-questions which affect other areas of mathematics, from the real numbers to structures of all kinds, but which are posed as dealing with the existence of sets. Especially noteworthy are principles establishing the existence of some infinite sets, the so-called “arbitrary sets.” This paper is devoted to an analysis of the motivating goal of studying arbitrary sets, usually referred to under the labels ofquasi-combinatorialismorcombinatorial maximality. After explaining what is meant by definability and by “arbitrariness,” a first historical part discusses the strong motives why set theory was conceived as a theory of arbitrary sets, emphasizing connections with analysis and particularly with the continuum of real numbers. Judged from this perspective, the axiom of choice stands out as a most central and natural set-theoretic principle (in the sense of quasi-combinatorialism). A second part starts by considering the potential mismatch between the formal systems of mathematics and their motivating conceptions, and proceeds to offer an elementary discussion of how far the Zermelo–Fraenkel system goes in laying out principles that capture the idea of “arbitrary sets”. We argue that the theory is rather poor in this respect.

scholarly journals How to have more things by forgetting how to count them

2020 ◽  
Vol 476 (2239) ◽  
pp. 20190782
Author(s):  
Asaf Karagila ◽  
Philipp Schlicht
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Ground Model ◽  
Finite Sets ◽  
Real Numbers ◽  
Extremally Disconnected ◽  
Finite Set ◽  
Combinatorial Condition ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice

Cohen’s first model is a model of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory in which there is a Dedekind-finite set of real numbers, and it is perhaps the most famous model where the Axiom of Choice fails. We force over this model to add a function from this Dedekind-finite set to some infinite ordinal κ . In the case that we force the function to be injective, it turns out that the resulting model is the same as adding κ Cohen reals to the ground model, and that we have just added an enumeration of the canonical Dedekind-finite set. In the case where the function is merely surjective it turns out that we do not add any reals, sets of ordinals, or collapse any Dedekind-finite sets. This motivates the question if there is any combinatorial condition on a Dedekind-finite set A which characterises when a forcing will preserve its Dedekind-finiteness or not add new sets of ordinals. We answer this question in the case of ‘Adding a Cohen subset’ by presenting a varied list of conditions each equivalent to the preservation of Dedekind-finiteness. For example, 2 A is extremally disconnected, or [ A ] < ω is Dedekind-finite.

scholarly journals REALIZING REALIZABILITY RESULTS WITH CLASSICAL CONSTRUCTIONS

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 429-445
Author(s):  
ASAF KARAGILA
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
New Method ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Models Of Set Theory

AbstractJ. L. Krivine developed a new method based on realizability to construct models of set theory where the axiom of choice fails. We attempt to recreate his results in classical settings, i.e., symmetric extensions. We also provide a new condition for preserving well ordered, and other particular type of choice, in the general settings of symmetric extensions.

Partition properties of M-ultrafilters and ideals

1987 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 897-907
Author(s):  
Joji Takahashi
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Predicate Symbol ◽  
Infinite Cardinal ◽  
List Type ◽  
Weakly Compact ◽  
Unary Predicate ◽  
Transitive Model ◽  
Basic Set ◽  
Uncountable Cardinal ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice

As is well known, the following are equivalent for any uniform ultrafilter U on an uncountable cardinal:(i) U is selective;(ii) U → ;(iii) U → .In §1 of this paper, we consider this result in terms of M-ultrafilters (Definition 1.1), where M is a transitive model of ZFC (Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice). We define the partition properties and for M-ultrafilters (Definition 1.3), and characterize those M-ultrafilters that possess these properties (Theorem 1.5) so that the result mentioned at the beginning is subsumed as the special case that M is V, the universe of all sets. It turns out that the two properties have to be handled separately, and that, besides selectivity, we need to formulate additional conditions (Definition 1.4). The extra conditions become superfluous when M = V because they are then trivially satisfied. One of them is nothing new; it is none other than Kunen's iterability-of-ultrapowers condition.In §2, we obtain characterizations of the partition properties I+ → and I+ → (Definition 2.3) of uniform ideals I on an infinite cardinal κ (Theorem 2.6). This is done by applying the main results of §1 to the canonical -ultrafilter in the Boolean-valued model constructed from the completion of the quotient algebra P(κ)/I. They are related to certain known characterizations of weakly compact and of Ramsey cardinals.Our basic set theory is ZFC. In §1, it has to be supplemented by a new unary predicate symbol M and new nonlogical axioms that make M look like a transitive model of ZFC.

Zermelo and Set Theory

2004 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 487-553 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akihiro Kanamori
Keyword(s):  
20Th Century ◽  
Set Theory ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Subsequent Development ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Mathematical Work ◽  
Infinitary Logic ◽  
Bernstein Theorem ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Models Of Set Theory

Ernst Friedrich Ferdinand Zermelo (1871–1953) transformed the set theory of Cantor and Dedekind in the first decade of the 20th century by incorporating the Axiom of Choice and providing a simple and workable axiomatization setting out generative set-existence principles. Zermelo thereby tempered the ontological thrust of early set theory, initiated the delineation of what is to be regarded as set-theoretic, drawing out the combinatorial aspects from the logical, and established the basic conceptual framework for the development of modern set theory. Two decades later Zermelo promoted a distinctive cumulative hierarchy view of models of set theory and championed the use of infinitary logic, anticipating broad modern developments. In this paper Zermelo's published mathematical work in set theory is described and analyzed in its historical context, with the hindsight afforded by the awareness of what has endured in the subsequent development of set theory. Elaborating formulations and results are provided, and special emphasis is placed on the to and fro surrounding the Schröder-Bernstein Theorem and the correspondence and comparative approaches of Zermelo and Gödel. Much can be and has been written about philosophical and biographical issues and about the reception of the Axiom of Choice, and we will refer and defer to others, staying the course through the decidedly mathematical themes and details.

Cardinal collapsing and ordinal definability

1978 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 635-642 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petr Štěpánek
Keyword(s):  
Boolean Algebra ◽  
Set Theory ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Complete Boolean Algebra ◽  
Ground Model ◽  
Inner Model ◽  
Definable Sets ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Generic Extensions ◽  
Models Of Set Theory

We shall describe Boolean extensions of models of set theory with the axiom of choice in which cardinals are collapsed by mappings definable from parameters in the ground model. In particular, starting from the constructible universe, we get Boolean extensions in which constructible cardinals are collapsed by ordinal definable sets.Let be a transitive model of set theory with the axiom of choice. Definability of sets in the generic extensions of is closely related to the automorphisms of the corresponding Boolean algebra. In particular, if G is an -generic ultrafilter on a rigid complete Boolean algebra C, then every set in [G] is definable from parameters in . Hence if B is a complete Boolean algebra containing a set of forcing conditions to collapse some cardinals in , it suffices to construct a rigid complete Boolean algebra C, in which B is completely embedded. If G is as above, then [G] satisfies “every set is -definable” and the inner model [G ∩ B] contains the collapsing mapping determined by B. To complete the result, it is necessary to give some conditions under which every cardinal from [G ∩ B] remains a cardinal in [G].The absolutness is granted for every cardinal at least as large as the saturation of C. To keep the upper cardinals absolute, it often suffices to construct C with the same saturation as B. It was shown in [6] that this is always possible, namely, that every Boolean algebra can be completely embedded in a rigid complete Boolean algebra with the same saturation.

AD and the supercompactness of ℵ1

1981 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 822-842 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard Becker
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Axiom Of Determinacy ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Dependent Choice

Since the discovery of forcing in the early sixties, it has been clear that many natural and interesting mathematical questions are not decidable from the classical axioms of set theory, ZFC. Therefore some mathematicians have been studying the consequences of stronger set theoretic assumptions. Two new types of axioms that have been the subject of much research are large cardinal axioms and axioms asserting the determinacy of definable games. The two appear at first glance to be unrelated; one of the most surprising discoveries of recent research is that this is not the case.In this paper we will be assuming the axiom of determinacy (AD) plus the axiom of dependent choice (DC). AD is false, since it contradicts the axiom of choice. However every set in L[R] is ordinal definable from a real. Our axiom that definable games are determined implies that every game in L[R] is determined (in V), and since a strategy is a real, it is determined in L[R]. That is, L[R] ⊨ AD. The axiom of choice implies L[R] ⊨ DC. So by embedding ourselves in L[R], we can assume AD + DC and begin proving theorems. These theorems true in L[R] imply corresponding theorems in V, by e.g. changing “every set” to “every set in L[R]”. For more information on AD as an axiom, and on some of the points touched on here, the reader should consult [14], particularly §§7D and 8I. In this paper L[R] will no longer even be mentioned. We just assume AD for the rest of the paper.

The isomorphism property for nonstandard universes

1995 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 512-516 ◽  
Author(s):  
James H. Schmerl
Keyword(s):  
Standard Model ◽  
Set Theory ◽  
Nonstandard Analysis ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Recent Effort ◽  
Separation Axioms ◽  
The Standard Model ◽  
Power Set ◽  
Replacement Scheme ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice

The κ-isomorphism property (IPκ) for nonstandard universes was introduced by Henson in [4]. There has been some recent effort aimed at more fully understanding this property. Jin and Shelah in [7] have shown that for κ < ⊐ω, IPκ is equivalent to what we will refer to as the κ-resplendence property. Earlier, in [6], Jin asked if IPκ is equivalent to IPℵ0 plus κ-saturation. He answered this question positively for κ = ℵ1. In this note we extend this answer to all κ. We also extend the result of Jin and Shelah to all κ. (Jin also observed this could be done.)In order to strike a balance between the generalities of model theory and the specifics of nonstandard analysis, we will consider models of Zermelo set theory with the Axiom of Choice; we denote this theory by ZC. The axioms of ZC are just those of ZFC but without the replacement scheme. Thus, among the axioms of ZC are the power set axiom, the infinity axiom, the separation axioms and the axiom of choice.Let(V, E) ⊨ ZC. If a ∈ V, we let *a = {x ∈ V: (V,E) ⊨ x ∈ a}. In particular, i ∈ *ω iff i ∈ V and (V,E) ⊨ (i is a natural number). A subset A ⊆ V is internal if A = *a for some a ∈ V.The standard model of ZC consists of those sets of rank at most ω + ω. In other words, if we let V0 be the set of hereditarily finite sets and for n < ω, then (Vω, ∈) is the standard model of ZC, where Vω = ⋃n<ω. Vn.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document