6
$\begingroup$

In the first-order context, "reflection" of a formula $\varphi(x)$ below $\kappa$ refers to the the following situation:

There are many ordinals $\alpha<\kappa$ such that for all $a \in V_\alpha$, $V_\alpha \models \varphi(a)$ iff $V_\kappa \models \varphi(a)$.

If $\kappa$ is inaccessible, then this holds for any expansion of $V_\kappa$ in a countable language. "Many" can be taken to mean on a club set.

When we move to higher-order logic, talk of reflection usually shifts to talk of indescribability. A cardinal is $\Pi^m_n$ indescribable if for any $A \subseteq V_\kappa$ and any $\Pi_n$ sentence $\sigma$ in $(m+1)$-order logic with a predicate for $A$, if $(V_\kappa, \in, A) \models \sigma$, then there is $\alpha<\kappa$ such that $(V_\alpha,\in,A\cap V_\alpha) \models \sigma$. It is a standard fact that if $\kappa$ is measurable, then there is a measure-one set of $\alpha< \kappa$ that are $\Pi^m_n$-indescribable for every $m,n$. One can also show something stronger: If $\kappa$ is measurable, there is a measure-one set of $\alpha < \kappa$ such that if $A \subseteq V_\alpha$, then there is $\beta < \alpha$ such that $(V_\alpha,\in,A)$ and $(V_\beta,\in,A\cap V_\beta)$ have the same $\omega$-order theory.

Now this is not completely analogous to reflection because we're no longer talking about elementary substructures, but just elementarily equivalent structures, albeit with a common interpretation of a particular predicate. So my question is, what kind of large cardinal $\kappa$ is needed to get the following statement?

For any $A \subseteq V_\kappa$ and any $n \in \omega$, there are many ordinals $\alpha < \kappa$ such that $(V_\alpha,\in,A \cap V_\alpha) \prec^n (V_\kappa,\in,A)$, where $\prec^n$ means elementary in $(n+1)$-order logic.

It happens at an $\omega$-strong cardinal, but this is clearly not optimal.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ How exactly are you defining $\prec^n$? If it only allows first-order parameters, then by using a truth predicate for the language with A and only first-order parameters it should be straightforward to show that these are just the totally indescribable cardinals. If we allow second-order parameters, then the claim is inconsistent - just consider "$\forall x\in X$" where $X = V_\alpha$. $\endgroup$ – Sam Roberts Sep 17 '14 at 7:49
  • $\begingroup$ @SamRoberts, why not post that as an answer? Part of the point as I see it is that the remark about "no longer talking about elementary substructures" is not really accurate, since any desired set parameters can be coded into $A$, and so $\sigma$ may in effect refer to them. $\endgroup$ – Joel David Hamkins Sep 17 '14 at 11:27
7
$\begingroup$

It depends on how we define elementarity for the $(n+1)^{th}$-order language of set theory, $\mathcal L^{n}_\in$. For $X\subseteq V_\kappa$, two salient definitions are:

$V_\alpha \prec^n_X V_\kappa$ iff $\forall \vec{x}\in V_\alpha(V_\alpha\vDash \phi(X\cap V_\alpha,\vec{x}) \leftrightarrow V_\kappa\vDash \phi(X,\vec{x}))$, for all $\phi\in \mathcal L^{n}_\in$ with parameters among $X, \vec{x}$.

$V_\alpha \prec^{*n}_X V_\kappa$ iff $\forall \vec{x}\in V_\alpha\forall \vec{Y}\subseteq V_\alpha(V_\alpha\vDash \phi(X\cap V_\alpha, \vec{Y}, \vec{x}) \leftrightarrow V_\kappa\vDash \phi(X,\vec{Y},\vec{x}))$, for all $\phi\in \mathcal L^{n}_\in$ with parameters among $X,\vec{Y}, \vec{x}$.

${\bf Theorem}$ ${\bf 1:}$ There are no $\alpha<\kappa$ such that $V_\alpha\prec^{*n} V_\kappa$ for $n\geq 1$.

${\it Proof.}$ If $Y = V_\alpha$, $V_\alpha\vDash \forall x(x\in Y)$ but not $V_\kappa\vDash \forall x(x\in Y)$.

${\bf Theorem}$ ${\bf 2:}$ If $\kappa$ is $\Pi^{n}_1$-indescribable for $n\geq 1$, then for any $X\subseteq V_\kappa$ there are unbounded $\alpha<\kappa$ such that $V_\alpha\prec^{n-1}_X V_\kappa$.

${\it Proof.}$ In $n+1^{th}$-order Zermelo set theory we can define a $\Delta^{n}_1$ satisfaction predicate for $\mathcal L^{n-1}_\in$. Denote it $Sat$. Then we can define $Y\subseteq V_\kappa$ such that $V_\kappa$ satisfies:

(*) $\langle \vec{x},\phi\rangle\in Y \leftrightarrow Sat(\phi, X, \vec{x})$, for all $\phi\in \mathcal L^{n-1}_\in$ with parameters among $X, \vec{x}$.

Clearly, (*) is $\Delta^n_1$ and since $\kappa$ is $\Pi^{n}_1$-indescribable, it follows that there are unbounded $\alpha<\kappa$ which satisfy:

(**) $\langle \vec{x},\phi\rangle\in Y\cap V_\alpha \leftrightarrow Sat(\phi, X\cap V_\alpha, \vec{x})$, for all $\phi\in \mathcal L^{n-1}_\in$ with parameters among $X, \vec{x}$.

For any such $\alpha$ it is easy to see that $V_\alpha\prec^{n-1}_X V_\kappa$, as required.

(Note that we can easily strengthen "unbounded" to "stationary" but not "club" - any $\alpha$ for which $V_\alpha\prec^1 V_\kappa$ will be inaccessible.)

${\bf Corollary:}$ $\kappa$ is totally indescribable just in case for any $X\subseteq V_\kappa$ and $n<\omega$ there are unbounded $\alpha$ such that $V_\alpha\prec^n_X V_\kappa$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Isn't your corollary in fact an equivalence? That is, doesn't your argument show that the desired property is equivalent to total indescribability? $\endgroup$ – Joel David Hamkins Sep 17 '14 at 13:25
  • $\begingroup$ @JoelDavidHamkins That's right (and what I claimed in my comment!). Will modify it. Thanks! $\endgroup$ – Sam Roberts Sep 17 '14 at 13:28
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, I did mean the first definition. Notation question: When you write $\mathcal{L}^n_\in$, you mean the $n^{th}$ order formulas? (i.e. We have a 15th order predicate for 14th order satisfaction.) Wouldn't it be better for that to denote $(n+1)$-order formulas, keeping with the $\Pi^n_1$ notation? $\endgroup$ – Monroe Eskew Sep 17 '14 at 14:27
  • $\begingroup$ That's right. I was thinking i should perhaps bring that notation in line with the $\Pi^m_n$ notation. I will go through and change it when I get a chance. $\endgroup$ – Sam Roberts Sep 17 '14 at 15:46

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.