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

If $j : V \rightarrow M$ is an elementary embedding, what can we learn in $M$ from $j''ORD$? That is, what is $M[j''ORD]$?

In particular,

Is it $M[j''ORD]$ equal to all of $V$?

If not, do we get a model intermediate between $M$ and $V$? If $\kappa$ is the critical point of $j$, is $\kappa$ still a large cardinal in $M[j''ORD]$? I am thinking of $j$ arising from a measure on $\kappa$, but I'm also interested in the more general situation.

My thinking goes like this: If we have the image of all of $V$, we can reconstruct $V$ itself by taking the Mostowski collapse of $j''V$ (and $j$ is the inverse of the Mostowski collapse). In $M[j''ORD]$, let's consider the class $W$ of sets with rank in $j''ORD$. Does the Mostowski collapse of $W$ yield all of $V$, and if not, what's missing?

EDIT: formatting, clarification of question.

share|improve this question
    
I would like to understand this question and its answer, but as a non-set-theorist I'm not familiar with the notation. Can you say what $j''$ and $M[-]$ mean? –  Mike Shulman Feb 26 '12 at 4:06
    
Mike, I believe that Jonas intends that $j$ is a large cardinal elementary embedding of the universe $V$ into a transitive class $M$. The double quote notation $j''X$ means the pointwise image of $X$ under $j$, which might elsewhere be denoted $j[X]$. And $M[j''\text{Ord}]$ means the model obtained from $M$ by adjoining the class $j''\text{Ord}$---for example, close under the Goedel operations, but allowing also the characteristic function of that class. In my solution, I argue that every set in the universe $V$ is constructible from an object in $M$ and a small piece of $j''\text{Ord}$. –  Joel David Hamkins Feb 26 '12 at 4:35
    
Hi Mike -- by $j''A$ I mean "the image of $A$ under the map $j$", or $\{j(a) | a \in A\}$. The notation $M[A]$ indicates the extension of the model $M$ by the element $A$ -- that is, the structure we get by starting with $M$, adding $A$, and closing under definability (analogous to to building a field extension by adding an element and closing under plus and times). In the case where $A$ is a proper class and thus can't be "added to the structure" (as with $ORD$), we proceed by adding a predicate for $A$ and closing under definability in this extended language. –  jonasreitz Feb 26 '12 at 4:43
    
Oops - Joel beat me to the reply -- thanks, Joel! –  jonasreitz Feb 26 '12 at 4:44
    
Okay. Those were my guesses, but then I am confused. Since $j$ maps $V$ into $M$, and $ORD\subseteq V$, it seems to me that $j''ORD \subseteq M$. So why does "adjoining" $j''ORD$ to $M$ do anything at all, when $j''ORD$ is already contained in $M$? –  Mike Shulman Feb 26 '12 at 17:02

1 Answer 1

up vote 8 down vote accepted

Nice question, Jonas!

Yes, in the case that $V$ satisfies ZFC and $M\subset V$, then indeed $M[j''\text{Ord}]=V$. To see this, consider first the case of a set of ordinals $A\subset\theta$ in $V$. Notice that from $j''\theta$ we may reconstruct $j\upharpoonright\theta$. Further, $j(A)$ is in $M$, and from $j(A)$ and $j\upharpoonright\theta$ we may easily reconstruct $A$ itself. So every set of ordinals in $V$ is in $M[j''\text{Ord}]$. If $V$ satisfies ZFC, then this suffices, since every set is coded by a set of ordinals. Namely, (as you know) if $a$ is any set, then $\langle \text{TC}(\{a\}),{\in}\rangle\cong\langle\theta,E\rangle$ for some cardinal $\theta$ and some binary relation $E$ on $\theta$, and then using a Gödel pairing function to code $E$ as a single set $A\subset\theta$. So for any set $a$, we find $E$ and then $A$, and by the previous argument $A$ is in $M[j''\text{Ord}]$, and so also $E$ and hence $a$ itself is there. Thus, $M[j''\text{Ord}]=V$, as desired.

The argument relies on the axiom of choice, and in the most general case, I believe this is required.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks, Joel -- very nice argument! If we drop your condition that $M \subset V$, I think your argument shows we can still recover $V$ but we get $V \subset M[j''ORD]$ instead of equality. Is $V$ a definable class in this case? For this I guess we'd need a more canonical representation of each element -- something like the set $W$ that I described in the question, I'll think about how to make this work. Your argument also shows that we can recover the map $j$ from the image of the ordinals, provided $j$ is definable in $V$. What if $j$ is not 'in $V$', for example an external ultrapower? –  jonasreitz Feb 26 '12 at 4:58
    
If we can always recover $j$ from $j''ORD$, then it seems $M[j''ORD]$ could properly contain both $M$ and $V$, and more. –  jonasreitz Feb 26 '12 at 5:00
    
I agree with all that. –  Joel David Hamkins Feb 26 '12 at 5:21

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.