Welcome to MathOverflow

Question

6

Suppose $\mathbb{V} = \mathbb{L}$ and there is a countable transitive model $\mathbb{M}$ of $ZFC$.

Let $\rho$ be the $\mathbb{L}$-rank, i.e. for all $a \in \mathbb{V}$, $\rho(a) = $the least $\alpha$ with $a \in L_{\alpha+1}$.

Define a pre-order $<'$ on $M$ by $a <' b$ iff $\rho(a) < \rho(b)$.

Then my first question is: under what circumstances is $<'$ first-order definable over $\mathbb{M}$?

My second question is: supposing $(\mathbb{V} \not= \mathbb{L})^\mathbb{M}$, and given $a, b \in M \backslash \mathbb{L}^\mathbb{M}$, when does $\mathbb{M}$ "know" that $a <' b$?

Formally, when is there a formula $\phi(x, y)$ (without parameters) such that $\mathbb{M} \models \phi(a, b)$ and for all $a', b'$ with $\mathbb{M} \models \phi(a', b')$, we have $a' <' b'$?

edited Jan 29 at 13:55

asked Jan 25 at 19:58

Douglas Ulrich
101●6

Thinking about this has led me to the question: Suppose in $\mathbb{M}$ there is a class well-order of order type $\beta$ larger than $ORD^\mathbb{M}$. Can we (in $\mathbb{M}$) carry out the $L$-construction up to level $\beta$? I realize we will not be able to define classes-of-classes-of-classes within $\mathbb{M}$, but I wonder if we could still define 'small' objects (e.g. reals) that arise in $L_\beta$. – jonasreitz Feb 2 at 3:52

1

If so, then I propose that we try to force over $\mathbb{M}$ to make $<^'$ have very large order type $\beta$, so large that there is, in $L_\beta$, a function witnessing the countability of $ORD^\mathbb{M}$. Forcing to make the order type of $<^'$ large presents its own challenge, but I envision adding $\omega$-many Cohen reals, carefully selected from appropriate levels of the $L$-hierarchy to give the correct order type. – jonasreitz Feb 2 at 3:52

I don't know about the answer to the first question, although in $M$ we can define "names" for elements of $L_\beta$: namely, supposing $\phi$ is a well-order of $ORD$, let each $\alpha$ be a name of $L_\gamma$ where $\gamma$ is the order type of $\alpha$ with respect to $\gamma$; then, using these names and Godel's 8 $L$-generating functions, we can represent the formation of any $x \in L_\beta$ as a finite tree of ordinals. With these particular names, however, it is not obvious that determining whether one name contains another (say) is first-order definable. – Douglas Ulrich Feb 3 at 1:59

Sorry, I meant, $\alpha$ should be a name of $L_\gamma$, where $\gamma$ is the order type of $\alpha$ with respect to $\phi$. – Douglas Ulrich Feb 3 at 2:00

Joel David Hamkins · Answer 1 · 2013-01-29 17:07:56Z UTC

This is a great question, and very subtle.

Here is a way to see that the relation cannot be uniformly definable. Suppose $L_\alpha$ is a countable model of ZFC, and $\phi$ works as you say in every model of the form $L_\alpha[c]$, a forcing extension to add a Cohen real $c$, chosen from $L$. (Note that in $L$ we may easily find such $L_\alpha$-generic Cohen reals, since $\alpha$ is countable.)

Fix any such extension $M=L_\alpha[c]$, which is a model of ZFC. Let $c_0$ and $c_1$ be the even and odd digits of $c$, respectively. Suppose without loss that $c_0\leq'c_1$, meaning that $c_0$ appears in $L$ before or at the same rank as $c_1$. If $M$ can define this relation, then there must be some condition forcing this instance of it, and so there must be some finite initial segment $p\subset c$, such that any $L_\alpha$-generic Cohen real $d$ extending $p$ will have $\phi(d_0,d_1)$. But fix some $L_\alpha$-generic $d_1$ extending its part of $p$, and then find $d_0$ that is $L_\alpha[d_1]$-generic and extending its part of $p$, and very high in $\omega_1^L$. This is possible because there are continuum many different $L_\alpha[d_1]$-generic Cohen reals in $L$, and so some of them must have high rank; and changing a finite part of such a real does not affect rank. So now we have $L_\alpha[d]$ with $d_1\lt' d_0$ and $d$ extends $p$, a contradiction.

So it isn't uniformly definable. But as Andres points out, this approach doesn't even answer whether it might be definable nevertheless in a non-uniform way.

Andres Caicedo · Answer 2 · 2013-01-29 15:53:17Z UTC

3

[Edit: The question is more subtle than I originally understood. I am leaving this here so as to avoid it being repeated by others.]

You can define $<'$ internally only if $M$ is a model of $V=L$, that is, only if $M$ is an $L_\alpha$. For example, $M$ could be (in $L$) a forcing extension of some $L_\alpha$. Being in $L$, every point in $M$ has a rank, but we only see in $M$ the rank of points in $L^M=L_\alpha$. However, $<'$ restricted to $L^M$ is definable in $M$. The usual definition ($a,b\in L$ and $\rho(a)<\rho(b)$) relativizes, so its definition from the point of view of $M$ gives the same relation as the definition of $<'$ in $L$ restricted to elements of $L_\alpha$.

A decent reference to see how $<'$ relativizes and the amount of absoluteness involved is Devlin's book on "Constructibility".

edited Jan 29 at 15:53

answered Jan 25 at 20:16

Andres Caicedo
14.4k●1●42●79

	Oops, of course. So that's the first question. I'm going to expand upon the second question; I didn't expect the first question to be so trivial. Sorry :( – Douglas Ulrich Jan 25 at 20:27
	Wait, so the proof I was thinking of for your claim doesn't work. There are definable (proper class) well-orderings in $M$ of height greater than $ORD^M$. So I actually don't see your argument – Douglas Ulrich Jan 29 at 13:54
	Hi Douglas, yes, you are right, I misunderstood the question when I first read it (your rephrasing clarifies the subtlety). – Andres Caicedo Jan 29 at 15:54
	Somebody posted a similar question mathoverflow.net/questions/120173/can-a-model-of-v-neq-l-contain-a-class-giving-the-l-ordering-on-all-its-sets/120212#120212 here, and they also were misunderstood. So there must be something confusing in the question – Douglas Ulrich Jan 29 at 15:57
	@Andres, your answer still gives a useful starting point, since it shows that usual definition of the $L$-order will not suffice to define $<_L$ on all of $M$ -- but it's not clear whether another definition may be more successful. – jonasreitz Jan 29 at 16:13

When Is $\mathbb{L}$-Rank Definable in Inner Models of $\mathbb{V} = \mathbb{L}$?

Remember to vote up questions/answers you find interesting or helpful (requires 15 reputation points)

2 Answers

You can accept an answer to one of your own questions by clicking the check mark next to it. This awards 15 reputation points to the person who answered and 2 reputation points to you.