2 TeXified

In a letter dated 16 October Georg Kreisel asked me the question that follows. He agreed to my idea of posting the question here.

I’d be grateful if you could recommend an exposition of formulae of standard set theory interpreted in suitable segments La$L_\alpha$ of L. $L$. (a) It is commonly said that each set of L$L$ is definable by such a formula with symbols for specific ordinals, usually without specifying suitable La$L_\alpha$ where the formula is interpreted. (Of course, if a set is defined at all, there is a bound for the a$\alpha$ beyond which the definition is stable.) (b) Are there definitions without any additional symbols interpreted in L$L$ which define (in V) $V$) uncountable, let alone, strongly inaccessible ordinals at all?

1

# Formulae of standard set theory interpreted in suitable segments of L

In a letter dated 16 October Georg Kreisel asked me the question that follows. He agreed to my idea of posting the question here.

I’d be grateful if you could recommend an exposition of formulae of standard set theory interpreted in suitable segments La of L. (a) It is commonly said that each set of L is definable by such a formula with symbols for specific ordinals, usually without specifying suitable La where the formula is interpreted. (Of course, if a set is defined at all, there is a bound for the a beyond which the definition is stable.) (b) Are there definitions without any additional symbols interpreted in L which define (in V) uncountable, let alone, strongly inaccessible ordinals at all?