21
$\begingroup$

Gödel's constructible universe ($L$) is defined using definable power set operator in first order logic ($\mathcal{L}_{\omega ,\omega}$). One can produce such a universe in infinitary logics in the same way using corresponding notions of formulas and definability. Obviously $L$ becomes larger when the logic has more expression power.

For each cardinal $\kappa$ define $L_{\kappa}$ to be Gödel's constructible universe in the infinitary logic $\mathcal{L}_{\kappa,\kappa}$ and $L_{\infty}$ is Gödel's constructible universe in $\mathcal{L}_{\infty,\infty}$.

(1) Is $L_{\kappa}$ a model of $ZFC$ for each cardinal $\kappa$? What about $ZFC+GCH$?

(2) What is $L_{\infty}$?

(3) Is there a (possibly large) cardinal $\kappa$ such that $L_{\kappa}$ is Dodd-Jensen core model, $L[U]$, $HOD$, etc?

(4) What are the consistency strengths of the existence of non-trivial elementary embeddings from $\langle L_{\kappa},\in\rangle$ to itself for different $\kappa$s in the sense of infinitary logic $\mathcal{L}_{\kappa,\kappa}$?

Note that by Prof. Hamkins' answer for $L_{\infty}$ finally it reach Kunen's inconsistency but what about a given cardinal $\kappa$? Are all these consistency strengths for different cardinals bounded by some large cardinal axiom and there is a gape between consistency strength of the existence of a non-trivial elementary embedding from $\langle L_{\infty},\in\rangle$ to itself and consistency strengths of the existence of such elementary embeddings for $L_{\kappa}$s?

(5) If there is a cardinal $\kappa$ such that $L_{\kappa}=HOD$, is it possible to determine consistency strength of the existence of a non-trivial (first-order) elementary embedding from $\langle HOD,\in\rangle$ to itself by analyzing the growth speed of the consistency strength of existence of such embeddings for $\langle L_{\lambda}, \in\rangle$s in $\lambda <\kappa$?

(6) What is $L_{\kappa}$ for the least strongly compact cardinal $\kappa$?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You might find the recent work of Kennedy-Magidor-Vannanen interesting, by the way. They talk about generalized constructions using various quantifiers rather than infinitary logic. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Feb 7 '14 at 16:32
17
$\begingroup$

Theorem. $L_\infty$ is the entire set-theoretic universe $V$.

Proof. I claim that every set will arise in the construction process, because eventually it will become explicitly definable by a formula. In infinitary logic, there are far more than only countably many formulas, and one can cook up a formula to define a specific set, by using the formulas that define its elements. What I claim specifically is that for every set $a$ there is a ${\cal L}_{\infty,\infty}$ formula $\psi_a(x)$, such that in any transitive set $M$ with $a\subset M$ we have $a=\{ x\mid M\models\psi_a(x)\}$. Suppose that this is true for each $a\in A$. Consider the formula $$\psi_A(u)=\bigvee_{a\in A}(u=\{x\mid \psi_a(x)\}).$$ In any transitive $M$ with $A\subset M$, it follows that $\psi_A(u)$ will hold if and only if $u=a$ for some $a\in A$. Thus, $A=\{u\mid M\models \psi_A(u)\}$, and so $A$ is also definable. Thus, by $\in$-induction, we've verified that every set is definable, and so every set in $V$ eventually arises in your universe $L_\infty$. QED

This argument is similar to the fact that if one undertakes the constructible universe using second-order logic, rather than infinitary logic, the result is $\text{HOD}$.

Theorem.(Myhill & Scott) The constructible universe in second-order logic is the same as HOD. $$L_{SO}=\text{HOD}.$$

Proof. Any set that appears in $L_{SO}$ is ordinal definable, and so $L_{SO}\subset \text{HOD}$. Conversely, if $A$ is a set of ordinals in $\text{HOD}$, then it is ordinal definable in some $V_\alpha$, and so once $L_{SO}$ has constructed up to some stage $\theta$ of size at least $|V_\alpha|$, then in second order logic we can define $A$ as a subset by saying "there is a relation on $\theta$ which makes it isomorphic to $\langle V_\alpha,\in\rangle$, such that the formula is true for the corresponding ordinals. That is, the second-order logic allows us to summon a copy of $V_\alpha$ and run the definitions inside it. QED

For a reference, see Myhill, Scott, Ordinal definability. 1971 Axiomatic Set Theory (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Vol. XIII, Part I, Univ. California, Los Angeles, Calif., (1967) pp. 271–278 Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I. .

Your models $L_\kappa$ arise in Chang's paper in the very same journal issue:

C.C. Chang, Sets constructible using $L_{\kappa,\kappa}$, 1971 Axiomatic Set Theory (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Vol. XIII, Part I, Univ. California, Los Angeles, Calif., 1967) pp. 1–8 Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I.

MR Abstract. Let $C_\alpha^\omega$ be the αth level in the Gödel ramified hierarchy of constructible sets. The author studies the hierarchy $C_α^κ$ that results on using $L_{κκ}$ definability (in place of $L_{ωω}$ definability) in generating this hierarchy, where κ is a regular cardinal. The class $C_κ=⋃_αC_α^κ$ is a model of ZF; in fact, it is the smallest transitive model containing all the ordinals closed under <κ-termed sequences (Theorems I and II). It need not be a model of the axiom of choice (Theorem IV). Other results show what happens to the GCH and Scott's result on measurable cardinals in this model. These results depend on a generalization of Gödel's collapsing lemma (Theorem V). Finally, the author shows how to improve results about indiscernibles in $C_ω$ by using infinitary formulas. In particular, he shows that if there is a Ramsey cardinal then $C_{ω_1ω}$ is an $L_{ω_1ω}$-elementary substructure of $C_ω$, thus improving Silver's result.

The case $\kappa=\omega_1$ is known as the Chang model.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ It is a really interesting observation that in this dual approach for building Godel's costructible universe by strengthening the expression power of our logic using longer formulas we will reach $V$ and if we increase the expression power of the logic by assuming wider range for quantifiers we will reach $HOD$. It seems $HOD$ and $V$ are some kind of limit $L$ in limit logics (The first one in $\mathcal{L}_{\infty,\infty}$ and the next one in $SO$). Maybe this means one can prove a dual form of Kunen's inconsistency theorem for $HOD$ too. $\endgroup$ – user46667 Feb 7 '14 at 17:15
  • $\begingroup$ Is it possible to find a proof of Kunen's inconsistency theorem in terms of infinitary logic by analyzing the structure of $L_{\infty}$ ($=V$)? If yes, is it possible to reformulate this proof for similar result about $L_{SO}$ ($=HOD$)? Maybe there is no non-trivial self-elementary embedding for $V$ because $V$ is $L$ of a too powerful logic like $\mathcal{L}_{\infty,\infty}$ as well as $HOD$ which is $L$ of another too powerful logic like $SO$. $\endgroup$ – user46667 Feb 7 '14 at 17:26
  • $\begingroup$ Joel, it seems your argument also shows that $L_\kappa$ (in Gina's sense) is $L(V_\kappa)$; is this correct? $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Feb 7 '14 at 17:46
  • $\begingroup$ @NoahS, since $V_\kappa$ could be much larger than $\kappa$ in size, I think $L([\kappa]^{<\kappa})$ is closer to being right. I'd have to think more about it. $\endgroup$ – Joel David Hamkins Feb 7 '14 at 17:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Great! Chang's paper is a very nice reference that exactly matches my questions. Thank you very much. I don't know if Chang (or others) investigated around possible relations between these generalized constructible universes and Kunen inconsistency and HOD problem or not. $\endgroup$ – user46667 Feb 7 '14 at 18:53

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.