Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

What is known about ZF without powerset but with an axiom "every set has a set of all its countable subsets"?

This seems stronger than positing that the set of natural numbers has a powerset, though I do not know a proof that it is.

More generally, for any definable cardinal $\alpha$, what about the axiom "every set has a set of all smaller-than-$\alpha$ subsets"?

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 7 down vote accepted

Isn't $H(\mathfrak c^+)$, the collection of sets whose transitive closures have cardinality at most $\mathfrak c=2^{\aleph_0}$, a model of your theory (but not the power set axiom)? The point is that a set of cardinality $\mathfrak c$ has only $\mathfrak c$ countable subsets.

EDIT: Colin actually asked whether this theory is stronger than ZF minus power set plus "the set of natural numbers has a power set". To get a model where $\omega$ has a power set but some sets don't have a set-of-all-countable-subsets, replace $\mathfrak c^+$ in my original answer with $\kappa^+$ where $\kappa$ is a singular cardinal, greater than or equal to $\mathfrak c$, and of cofinality $\omega$. So the proposed model consists of all sets whose transitive closures have size at most $\kappa$. From $\kappa\geq\mathfrak c$, it follows that the model contains the actual power set of the (von Neumann) natural numbers. From the fact that $\kappa$ has cofinality $\omega$, it follows that a set of size $\kappa$ has strictly more than $\kappa$ countable subsets. Therefore, some sets in the model, for instance $\kappa$ itself, don't have a set-of-all-countable-subsets in the model. (Note that each individual countable subset of $\kappa$ is in the model, so nothing other than the genuine set-of-all-countable-subsets of $\kappa$ can serve as the set-of-all-countable-subsets of $\kappa$ in the sense of the model.)

(By the way, I'm aware that, in this situation, we actually have strict inequality $\kappa>\mathfrak c$ because $\mathfrak c$ can't have cofinality $\omega$. I ignored that fact above, because it's not needed for the argument.)

share|improve this answer
    
Can you prove that the replacement axiom scheme is true in this model? –  Zsbán Ambrus Jul 29 '12 at 15:28
2  
Yes, I know this theory is weaker than ZF. But is it stronger than ZF[1]? (That is ZF without powerset but with an axiom saying the natural numbers have a power set.) There are really two parts (at least) to that question. Does ZF[1] actually not prove every set has a set of all countable subsets? I expect it does not, but I do not know. And if my expectation is true, does this theory have strictly higher consistency strength than ZF[1]? –  Colin McLarty Jul 29 '12 at 15:42
    
@Zsban: I claim that not only the replacement scheme but full second-order replacement is true in this model. If $X$ is a set in the model and $Y$ is a subset of the model and is the "image" of $X$ under a "function", then $Y$ is in the model. The transitive closure of $Y$ consists of the elements of $Y$ (of which there are at most $\mathfrak c$ since $Y$ is an image of $X$) together with the union of the transitive closures of all these elements of $Y$. That's a union of at most $\mathfrak c$ sets, each of size at most $\mathfrak c$, so the union still has size at most $\mathfrak c$. –  Andreas Blass Jul 29 '12 at 21:47
    
@Colin: I think my answer can be modified to get a model where the set of natural numbers has a power set but not every set has a set-of-countable-subsets. I'll edit to add this to my answer (so as to make it a real answer). –  Andreas Blass Jul 29 '12 at 21:48
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.