Skip to main content
added 66 characters in body
Source Link
Zuhair Al-Johar
  • 11.3k
  • 1
  • 13
  • 47

Is it possible to iterate elementary embeddability and reflect on those stages that are elementary embeddable to themselves?

The following is a formal capture of that idea:

To the language of $\sf ZF$ (i.e., mono-sorted $\sf FOL(=,\in)$) add primitive partial unary functions $W$ and $j$.

To the axioms of $\sf ZF$, add the following axioms:

Restriction: $\forall \alpha: W_\alpha \lor j_\alpha \to \operatorname {ordinal}(\alpha)$

Injectivity: $W_\alpha \land W_\beta \land \alpha \neq \beta \to W_\alpha \neq W_\beta$

Cumulation: $\forall \operatorname {ordinal} \alpha \exists \lambda: W_\alpha=V_\lambda$

Elementarity: $\forall \operatorname {ordinal} \alpha \, (j_\alpha: W_\alpha \to W_\alpha \land \\ \forall \vec{x} \in W_\alpha [ \phi(\vec x) \leftrightarrow \phi(j_\alpha[\vec x ])] \land \\ \exists x: j_\alpha (x) \neq x) \\\text {where } \phi \text { is purely set theoretic }$

Reflection: $\forall \vec{x} \in W_\alpha \, (\phi \to \phi^{W_\alpha})$

if $\phi$ [in Reflection] is a formula of the language of set theory + $``j_\alpha \!"$, meaning that $W$ doesn't occur in it and every occurence of $j$ must be subscripted with $\alpha$; also $``\alpha \!"$ only appears in $\phi$ as a subscript of $j$.

Where $V_\lambda$ stands for the $\lambda^{th}$ stage of the cumulative hierarchy, defined in the customary manner. $\phi^X$ stands for relativising all quantifiers in $\phi$ to $``\in X\!"$.

Is the above theory consistent relative to some large cardinal property? If so, Which one?

Is it possible to iterate elementary embeddability and reflect on those stages that are elementary embeddable to themselves?

The following is a formal capture of that idea:

To the language of $\sf ZF$ (i.e., mono-sorted $\sf FOL(=,\in)$) add primitive partial unary functions $W$ and $j$.

To the axioms of $\sf ZF$, add the following axioms:

Restriction: $\forall \alpha: W_\alpha \lor j_\alpha \to \operatorname {ordinal}(\alpha)$

Injectivity: $W_\alpha \land W_\beta \land \alpha \neq \beta \to W_\alpha \neq W_\beta$

Cumulation: $\forall \operatorname {ordinal} \alpha \exists \lambda: W_\alpha=V_\lambda$

Elementarity: $\forall \operatorname {ordinal} \alpha \, (j_\alpha: W_\alpha \to W_\alpha \land \\ \forall \vec{x} \in W_\alpha [ \phi(\vec x) \leftrightarrow \phi(j_\alpha[\vec x ])] \land \\ \exists x: j_\alpha (x) \neq x) \\\text {where } \phi \text { is purely set theoretic }$

Reflection: $\forall \vec{x} \in W_\alpha \, (\phi \to \phi^{W_\alpha})$

if $\phi$ [in Reflection] is a formula of the language of set theory + $``j_\alpha \!"$, meaning that $W$ doesn't occur in it and every occurence of $j$ must be subscripted with $\alpha$.

Where $V_\lambda$ stands for the $\lambda^{th}$ stage of the cumulative hierarchy, defined in the customary manner. $\phi^X$ stands for relativising all quantifiers in $\phi$ to $``\in X\!"$.

Is the above theory consistent relative to some large cardinal property? If so, Which one?

Is it possible to iterate elementary embeddability and reflect on those stages that are elementary embeddable to themselves?

The following is a formal capture of that idea:

To the language of $\sf ZF$ (i.e., mono-sorted $\sf FOL(=,\in)$) add primitive partial unary functions $W$ and $j$.

To the axioms of $\sf ZF$, add the following axioms:

Restriction: $\forall \alpha: W_\alpha \lor j_\alpha \to \operatorname {ordinal}(\alpha)$

Injectivity: $W_\alpha \land W_\beta \land \alpha \neq \beta \to W_\alpha \neq W_\beta$

Cumulation: $\forall \operatorname {ordinal} \alpha \exists \lambda: W_\alpha=V_\lambda$

Elementarity: $\forall \operatorname {ordinal} \alpha \, (j_\alpha: W_\alpha \to W_\alpha \land \\ \forall \vec{x} \in W_\alpha [ \phi(\vec x) \leftrightarrow \phi(j_\alpha[\vec x ])] \land \\ \exists x: j_\alpha (x) \neq x) \\\text {where } \phi \text { is purely set theoretic }$

Reflection: $\forall \vec{x} \in W_\alpha \, (\phi \to \phi^{W_\alpha})$

if $\phi$ [in Reflection] is a formula of the language of set theory + $``j_\alpha \!"$, meaning that $W$ doesn't occur in it and every occurence of $j$ must be subscripted with $\alpha$; also $``\alpha \!"$ only appears in $\phi$ as a subscript of $j$.

Where $V_\lambda$ stands for the $\lambda^{th}$ stage of the cumulative hierarchy, defined in the customary manner. $\phi^X$ stands for relativising all quantifiers in $\phi$ to $``\in X\!"$.

Is the above theory consistent relative to some large cardinal property? If so, Which one?

added 128 characters in body
Source Link
Zuhair Al-Johar
  • 11.3k
  • 1
  • 13
  • 47

Is it possible to iterate elementary embeddability and reflect on those stages that are elementary embeddable to themselves?

The following is a formal capture of that idea:

To the language of $\sf ZF$ (i.e., mono-sorted $\sf FOL(=,\in)$) add primitive partial unary functions $W$ and $j$.

To the axioms of $\sf ZF$, add the following axioms:

Restriction: $\forall \alpha: W_\alpha \lor j_\alpha \to \operatorname {ordinal}(\alpha)$

Injectivity: $W_\alpha \land W_\beta \land \alpha \neq \beta \to W_\alpha \neq W_\beta$

Cumulation: $\forall \operatorname {ordinal} \alpha \exists \lambda: W_\alpha=V_\lambda$

Elementarity: $\forall \operatorname {ordinal} \alpha \, (j_\alpha: W_\alpha \to W_\alpha \land \\ \forall \vec{x} \in W_\alpha [ \phi(\vec x) \leftrightarrow \phi(j_\alpha[\vec x ])] \land \\ \exists x: j_\alpha (x) \neq x) \\\text {where } \phi \text { is purely set theoretic }$

Reflection: $\forall \vec{x} \in W_\alpha \, (\phi \to \phi^{W_\alpha}); \text { if } W_\alpha \text { doesn't occur in } \phi$$\forall \vec{x} \in W_\alpha \, (\phi \to \phi^{W_\alpha})$

if $\phi$ [in Reflection] is a formula of the language of set theory + $``j_\alpha \!"$, meaning that $W$ doesn't occur in it and every occurence of $j$ must be subscripted with $\alpha$.

Where $V_\lambda$ stands for the $\lambda^{th}$ stage of the cumulative hierarchy, defined in the customary manner. $\phi^X$ stands for relativising all quantifiers in $\phi$ to $``\in X\!"$.

Is the above theory consistent relative to some large cardinal property? If so, Which one?

Is it possible to iterate elementary embeddability and reflect on those stages that are elementary embeddable to themselves?

The following is a formal capture of that idea:

To the language of $\sf ZF$ (i.e., mono-sorted $\sf FOL(=,\in)$) add primitive partial unary functions $W$ and $j$.

To the axioms of $\sf ZF$, add the following axioms:

Restriction: $\forall \alpha: W_\alpha \lor j_\alpha \to \operatorname {ordinal}(\alpha)$

Injectivity: $W_\alpha \land W_\beta \land \alpha \neq \beta \to W_\alpha \neq W_\beta$

Cumulation: $\forall \operatorname {ordinal} \alpha \exists \lambda: W_\alpha=V_\lambda$

Elementarity: $\forall \operatorname {ordinal} \alpha \, (j_\alpha: W_\alpha \to W_\alpha \land \\ \forall \vec{x} \in W_\alpha [ \phi(\vec x) \leftrightarrow \phi(j_\alpha[\vec x ])] \land \\ \exists x: j_\alpha (x) \neq x) \\\text {where } \phi \text { is purely set theoretic }$

Reflection: $\forall \vec{x} \in W_\alpha \, (\phi \to \phi^{W_\alpha}); \text { if } W_\alpha \text { doesn't occur in } \phi$

Where $V_\lambda$ stands for the $\lambda^{th}$ stage of the cumulative hierarchy, defined in the customary manner. $\phi^X$ stands for relativising all quantifiers in $\phi$ to $``\in X\!"$.

Is the above theory consistent relative to some large cardinal property? If so, Which one?

Is it possible to iterate elementary embeddability and reflect on those stages that are elementary embeddable to themselves?

The following is a formal capture of that idea:

To the language of $\sf ZF$ (i.e., mono-sorted $\sf FOL(=,\in)$) add primitive partial unary functions $W$ and $j$.

To the axioms of $\sf ZF$, add the following axioms:

Restriction: $\forall \alpha: W_\alpha \lor j_\alpha \to \operatorname {ordinal}(\alpha)$

Injectivity: $W_\alpha \land W_\beta \land \alpha \neq \beta \to W_\alpha \neq W_\beta$

Cumulation: $\forall \operatorname {ordinal} \alpha \exists \lambda: W_\alpha=V_\lambda$

Elementarity: $\forall \operatorname {ordinal} \alpha \, (j_\alpha: W_\alpha \to W_\alpha \land \\ \forall \vec{x} \in W_\alpha [ \phi(\vec x) \leftrightarrow \phi(j_\alpha[\vec x ])] \land \\ \exists x: j_\alpha (x) \neq x) \\\text {where } \phi \text { is purely set theoretic }$

Reflection: $\forall \vec{x} \in W_\alpha \, (\phi \to \phi^{W_\alpha})$

if $\phi$ [in Reflection] is a formula of the language of set theory + $``j_\alpha \!"$, meaning that $W$ doesn't occur in it and every occurence of $j$ must be subscripted with $\alpha$.

Where $V_\lambda$ stands for the $\lambda^{th}$ stage of the cumulative hierarchy, defined in the customary manner. $\phi^X$ stands for relativising all quantifiers in $\phi$ to $``\in X\!"$.

Is the above theory consistent relative to some large cardinal property? If so, Which one?

deleted 2 characters in body
Source Link
Zuhair Al-Johar
  • 11.3k
  • 1
  • 13
  • 47

Is it possible to iterate elementary embeddability and reflect on those stages that are elementary embeddable to themselves?

The following is a formal capture of that idea:

To the language of $\sf ZF$ (i.e., mono-sorted $\sf FOL(=,\in)$) add primitive partial unary functions $W$ and $j$.

To the axioms of $\sf ZF$, add the following axioms:

Restriction: $\forall \alpha: W_\alpha \lor j_\alpha \to \operatorname {ordinal}(\alpha)$

Injectivity: $W_\alpha \land W_\beta \land \alpha \neq \beta \to W_\alpha \neq W_\beta$

Cumulation: $\forall \operatorname {ordinal} \alpha \exists \lambda: W_\alpha=V_\lambda$

Elementarity: $\forall \operatorname {ordinal} \alpha \, (j_\alpha: W_\alpha \to W_\alpha \land \\ \forall \vec{x} \in W_\alpha [ \phi(\vec x) \leftrightarrow \phi(j_\alpha[\vec x ])] \land \\ \exists x: j_\alpha (x) \neq x) \\\text {where } \phi \text { is purely set theoretic }$

Reflection: $\forall \vec{x} \, \exists \alpha (\phi \to \phi^{W_\alpha}); \text { if } W_\alpha \text { doesn't occur in } \phi$$\forall \vec{x} \in W_\alpha \, (\phi \to \phi^{W_\alpha}); \text { if } W_\alpha \text { doesn't occur in } \phi$

Where $V_\lambda$ stands for the $\lambda^{th}$ stage of the cumulative hierarchy, defined in the customary manner. $\phi^X$ stands for relativising all quantifiers in $\phi$ to $``\in X\!"$.

Is the above theory consistent relative to some large cardinal property? If so, Which one?

Is it possible to iterate elementary embeddability and reflect on those stages that are elementary embeddable to themselves?

The following is a formal capture of that idea:

To the language of $\sf ZF$ (i.e., mono-sorted $\sf FOL(=,\in)$) add primitive partial unary functions $W$ and $j$.

To the axioms of $\sf ZF$, add the following axioms:

Restriction: $\forall \alpha: W_\alpha \lor j_\alpha \to \operatorname {ordinal}(\alpha)$

Injectivity: $W_\alpha \land W_\beta \land \alpha \neq \beta \to W_\alpha \neq W_\beta$

Cumulation: $\forall \operatorname {ordinal} \alpha \exists \lambda: W_\alpha=V_\lambda$

Elementarity: $\forall \operatorname {ordinal} \alpha \, (j_\alpha: W_\alpha \to W_\alpha \land \\ \forall \vec{x} \in W_\alpha [ \phi(\vec x) \leftrightarrow \phi(j_\alpha[\vec x ])] \land \\ \exists x: j_\alpha (x) \neq x) \\\text {where } \phi \text { is purely set theoretic }$

Reflection: $\forall \vec{x} \, \exists \alpha (\phi \to \phi^{W_\alpha}); \text { if } W_\alpha \text { doesn't occur in } \phi$

Where $V_\lambda$ stands for the $\lambda^{th}$ stage of the cumulative hierarchy, defined in the customary manner. $\phi^X$ stands for relativising all quantifiers in $\phi$ to $``\in X\!"$.

Is the above theory consistent relative to some large cardinal property? If so, Which one?

Is it possible to iterate elementary embeddability and reflect on those stages that are elementary embeddable to themselves?

The following is a formal capture of that idea:

To the language of $\sf ZF$ (i.e., mono-sorted $\sf FOL(=,\in)$) add primitive partial unary functions $W$ and $j$.

To the axioms of $\sf ZF$, add the following axioms:

Restriction: $\forall \alpha: W_\alpha \lor j_\alpha \to \operatorname {ordinal}(\alpha)$

Injectivity: $W_\alpha \land W_\beta \land \alpha \neq \beta \to W_\alpha \neq W_\beta$

Cumulation: $\forall \operatorname {ordinal} \alpha \exists \lambda: W_\alpha=V_\lambda$

Elementarity: $\forall \operatorname {ordinal} \alpha \, (j_\alpha: W_\alpha \to W_\alpha \land \\ \forall \vec{x} \in W_\alpha [ \phi(\vec x) \leftrightarrow \phi(j_\alpha[\vec x ])] \land \\ \exists x: j_\alpha (x) \neq x) \\\text {where } \phi \text { is purely set theoretic }$

Reflection: $\forall \vec{x} \in W_\alpha \, (\phi \to \phi^{W_\alpha}); \text { if } W_\alpha \text { doesn't occur in } \phi$

Where $V_\lambda$ stands for the $\lambda^{th}$ stage of the cumulative hierarchy, defined in the customary manner. $\phi^X$ stands for relativising all quantifiers in $\phi$ to $``\in X\!"$.

Is the above theory consistent relative to some large cardinal property? If so, Which one?

added 3 characters in body
Source Link
Zuhair Al-Johar
  • 11.3k
  • 1
  • 13
  • 47
Loading
added 2 characters in body
Source Link
Zuhair Al-Johar
  • 11.3k
  • 1
  • 13
  • 47
Loading
added 25 characters in body
Source Link
Zuhair Al-Johar
  • 11.3k
  • 1
  • 13
  • 47
Loading
deleted 9 characters in body
Source Link
Zuhair Al-Johar
  • 11.3k
  • 1
  • 13
  • 47
Loading
added 72 characters in body
Source Link
Zuhair Al-Johar
  • 11.3k
  • 1
  • 13
  • 47
Loading
Source Link
Zuhair Al-Johar
  • 11.3k
  • 1
  • 13
  • 47
Loading