Skip to main content
edited title
Link
Guozhen Shen
  • 1.8k
  • 1
  • 11
  • 17

The relationship between three propertiesexistence of the Mostowski collapses for a classnon-set-like well-founded relation $R$from which there is a homomorphism to $Ord$

added 824 characters in body; edited title
Source Link
Guozhen Shen
  • 1.8k
  • 1
  • 11
  • 17

Can we find a function satisfying certain recursive condiction with respect to The relationship between three properties of a non-set-like well-foundedclass relation? $R$

Given classes $H$, $R$, can we find a class $G$ such that the following statement is provable in ZFC?

If $R\subseteq V\times V$ and $H$ is a function from $V$ into $Ord$ such that for all sets $x,y$, $y\ R\ x$ implies that $H(y)<H(x)$, then $G$ is a function from $V$ into $V$ such that for all sets $x$, $G(x)=\{G(y)\ |\ y\ R\ x\}$.

Note that the relation $R$ in the above statement must be well-founded, but need not to be set-like.


The intent of this question is to investigate the relationship between the following three properties of a class relation $R$:

(1) There is a function $H$ from $V$ into $Ord$ such that for all sets $x,y$, $y\ R\ x$ implies that $H(y)<H(x)$, i.e., there is a homomorphism from $[V,R]$ into $[Ord,\in]$.

(2) There is a function $F$ from $V$ into $Ord$ such that for all sets $x$, $F(x)=\mathrm{sup}^{+}\{F(y)\ |\ y\ R\ x\}$, i.e., there is a rank function for $R$.

(3) There is a function $G$ from $V$ into $V$ such that for all sets $x$, $G(x)=\{G(y)\ |\ y\ R\ x\}$, i.e., there is a Mostowski function for $R$.

It is easily seen that (3) $\Rightarrow$ (2) $\Rightarrow$ (1), and Schweber's answer below shows that (1) $\Rightarrow$ (2). The question now is whether we can prove that (1) $\Rightarrow$ (3).

Can we find a function satisfying certain recursive condiction with respect to a non-set-like well-founded relation?

Given classes $H$, $R$, can we find a class $G$ such that the following statement is provable in ZFC?

If $R\subseteq V\times V$ and $H$ is a function from $V$ into $Ord$ such that for all sets $x,y$, $y\ R\ x$ implies that $H(y)<H(x)$, then $G$ is a function from $V$ into $V$ such that for all sets $x$, $G(x)=\{G(y)\ |\ y\ R\ x\}$.

Note that the relation $R$ in the above statement must be well-founded, but need not to be set-like.

The relationship between three properties of a class relation $R$

Given classes $H$, $R$, can we find a class $G$ such that the following statement is provable in ZFC?

If $R\subseteq V\times V$ and $H$ is a function from $V$ into $Ord$ such that for all sets $x,y$, $y\ R\ x$ implies that $H(y)<H(x)$, then $G$ is a function from $V$ into $V$ such that for all sets $x$, $G(x)=\{G(y)\ |\ y\ R\ x\}$.

Note that the relation $R$ in the above statement must be well-founded, but need not to be set-like.


The intent of this question is to investigate the relationship between the following three properties of a class relation $R$:

(1) There is a function $H$ from $V$ into $Ord$ such that for all sets $x,y$, $y\ R\ x$ implies that $H(y)<H(x)$, i.e., there is a homomorphism from $[V,R]$ into $[Ord,\in]$.

(2) There is a function $F$ from $V$ into $Ord$ such that for all sets $x$, $F(x)=\mathrm{sup}^{+}\{F(y)\ |\ y\ R\ x\}$, i.e., there is a rank function for $R$.

(3) There is a function $G$ from $V$ into $V$ such that for all sets $x$, $G(x)=\{G(y)\ |\ y\ R\ x\}$, i.e., there is a Mostowski function for $R$.

It is easily seen that (3) $\Rightarrow$ (2) $\Rightarrow$ (1), and Schweber's answer below shows that (1) $\Rightarrow$ (2). The question now is whether we can prove that (1) $\Rightarrow$ (3).

Source Link
Guozhen Shen
  • 1.8k
  • 1
  • 11
  • 17

Can we find a function satisfying certain recursive condiction with respect to a non-set-like well-founded relation?

Given classes $H$, $R$, can we find a class $G$ such that the following statement is provable in ZFC?

If $R\subseteq V\times V$ and $H$ is a function from $V$ into $Ord$ such that for all sets $x,y$, $y\ R\ x$ implies that $H(y)<H(x)$, then $G$ is a function from $V$ into $V$ such that for all sets $x$, $G(x)=\{G(y)\ |\ y\ R\ x\}$.

Note that the relation $R$ in the above statement must be well-founded, but need not to be set-like.