Ever since Cohen invented forcing in 1963, people have studied the properties that cardinals can have in generic extensions of the ground model. A very early result of Lévy shows that if κ is a regular cardinal and λ > κ is strongly inaccessible, then there is a notion of forcing which collapses every cardinal strictly between κ and λ yet preserves every other cardinal. This, of course, answers one question of the genre “What properties can a cardinal have in a generic extension?”

Another question of the same genre that can be asked is the following: Is it possible to have a generic extension of the ground model in which all cardinals are preserved and yet the cofinalities of some cardinals are different? This question was first answered in the affirmative by Prikry, who proved the following theorem.

Theorem 1.1 (Prikry [5]). Assume that V ⊨ “ZFC + κ is measurable”. Then there is a notion of forcing, P, such that for G V-generic over P:

(1) V and V[G] have the same cardinals.

(2) V and V[G] have the same bounded subsets of κ.

(3) V[G], i.e, V[G] ⊨ “κ is Rowbottom”.

(4) V[G] ⊨ “cof(κ) = ω”.

Prikry's result naturally raises the following question: Is it possible to get a generic extension in which cardinals are preserved and yet the cofinalities of certain cardinals are different from the ground model's but are uncountable? This question was first answered in the affirmative by Magidor, who proved the following theorem.

Let (M, )⊨ ACA0 be such that , the collection of all unbounded sets in , admits a definable complete ultrafilter and let T be a theory extending first order arithmetic coded in such that M thinks T is consistent. We prove that there is an end-extension N ⊨ T of M such that the subsets of M coded in N are precisely those in . As a special case we get that any Scott set with a definable ultrafilter coding a consistent theory T extending first order arithmetic is the standard system of a recursively saturated model of T.

We study the degree of (weak) (Q-pointness, and that of (weak) P-pointness, of ideals on a regular infinite cardinal.

In this paper we prove:

Theorem 1. Any finite model of the axiom of power-set also satisfies the axioms of extensionality, sum-set and choice.

Clearly, it will follow from (2) below that in a finite model the axiom of power-set is satisfied if and only if every set is a power-set. Thus, Theorem 1 follows immediately from Theorem 2 below, where by a theory of sets we mean a first-order theory without identity and with only one binary predicate symbol ∈.

Theorem 2. If in a theory of sets every set is a power-set and if the axiom of power-set is valid, then the axioms of extensionality, sum-set and choice are valid.

The proof of Theorem 2 will follow from the lemmas which we establish below.

We mean by x = y that x and y have the same elements. We denote a power-set of x by P(x) when it exists; similarly, we denote a sum-set of x by Ux.

Clearly, in every theory of sets we have:

(1) (x ⊂ y) ↔ (P(x) ⊂ P(y)),

(2) (x = y) ↔ (P(x) = P(y)),

(3) (x = y) → ((x ∈ P(z)) → (y ∈ P(z))),

(4) ⋃P(x) = x.

In view of (2), (3) and the definition of equality, we have:

Lemma 1. If in a theory of sets every set is a power-set, then equal sets are elements of the same sets.

We have also, in view of (4):

Lemma 2. If in a theory of sets every set is a power-set, then every set has a sum-set.

We denote by KP_ the fragment of set-theory containing the axioms of extensionality, pairing, union and foundation as well as the schemas of ∆0-comprehension and ∆0-collection, that is: Kripke-Platek set-theory (KP) with the axiom of foundation in place of the ∈-induction schema. The theory KP is obtained by adding to KP_ the schema of ∈-induction

Using ∈-induction it is possible to prove the existence of the transi tive closure without appealing to the axiom of infinity (see, e.g., [1]). Vice versa, when a theory proves the existence of the transitive closure, some induction is immediately ensured (by foundation and comprehension). This is not true in general: e.g., the whole of Zermelo-Fraenkel set-theory without the axiom of infinity does not prove ∈-induction (in fact, it does not prove the existence of the transitive closure; see, e.g., [3]). Open-induction is the schema of ∈-induction restricted to open formulas. We prove the following theorem.

KP_ proves open-induction.

We reason in a fixed but arbitrary model of KP_ whom we refer to as the model. The language is extended with a name for every set in the model. We call this constants parameters. Let φ(x) be a satisfiable open-formula possibly depending on parameters and with no free variable but x. We show that φ(x) is satisfied by an ∈-minimal set, that is, a set a such that φ(a) and (∀x ∈ a) ¬φ(x). We assume that no ordinal satisfies φ(x), otherwise the existence of a ∈-minimal set follows from foundation and comprehension.