Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T08:11:02.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constructible models of subsystems of ZF

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Richard Gostanian
Richard Gostanian*
Affiliation:
California State University, Northridge, California 91330
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One of the main results of Gödel [4] and [5] is that, if M is a transitive set such that 〈M, Є 〉 is a model of ZF (Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory) and α is the least ordinal not in M, then 〈Lα, Є 〉 is also a model of ZF.

In this note we shall use the Jensen uniformisation theorem to show that results analogous to the above hold for certain subsystems of ZF. The subsystems we have in mind are those that are formed by restricting the formulas in the separation and replacement axioms to various levels of the Levy hierarchy.

This is all done in §1. In §2 we proceed to establish the exact order relationships which hold among the ordinals of the minimal models of some of the systems discussed in §1. Although the proofs of these latter results will not require any use of the uniformisation theorem, we will find it convenient to use some of the more elementary results and techniques from Jensen's fine-structural theory of L. We thus provide a brief review of the pertinent parts of Jensen's works in §0, where a list of general preliminaries is also furnished.

We remark that some of the techniques which we use in the present paper have been used by us previously in [6] to prove various results about β-models of analysis. Since β-models for analysis are analogous to transitive models for set theory, this is not surprising.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , June 1980 , pp. 237 - 250
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Boolos, G. and Putnam, H., Degrees of unsolvability of the constructible sets of integers, this Journal, vol. 33 (1968), pp. 497–513.Google Scholar
[2]Devlin, K., Aspects of constructibility, Springer, Heidelberg, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Friedman, H., Countable models of set theories, Cambridge Summer School in Mathematical Logic, Springer, Berlin, 1973.Google Scholar
[4]Gödel, K., Consistency-proof for the generalized continuum hypothesis, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 25 (1939), pp. 220–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[5]Gödel, K., The consistency of the continuum hypothesis, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J., 1951.Google Scholar
[6]Gandy, R. and Gostanian, R., On β-models of subsystems of 2nd-order arithmetic (to appear).Google Scholar
[7]Gostanian, R., The next admissible ordinal, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 17 (1979), pp. 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Jensen, R., The fine structure of the constructible hierarchy, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 4 (1971), pp. 229–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Jensen, R. and Karp, C., Primitive recursive set functions, Axiomatic Set Theory, Part I, American Mathematical Society, Providence, R. J., 1971.Google Scholar
[10]Levy, A., A hierarchy of formulas of set theory, Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society, no. 57 (1965).Google Scholar
[11]Putnam, H., A note on constructible sets of integers, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 4 (1962), pp. 270–273.Google Scholar