14
$\begingroup$

Let's say that a (recursively axiomatizable) set theory $T$ extending ZF is "ordinal-categorical" if, whenever $M$ and $N$ are standard models of $T$ sharing the same ordinals, one has $M = N$. For example, if $T$ proves $V = L$, then $T$ is ordinal-categorical. I think the same is true if $T$ proves $V = L(0^\sharp)$.

Is there anything else that can be said about such theories $T$? In particular, is there a way to find an axiom or axiom schema A such that all ordinal-categorical theories $T$ are precisely the (recursively axiomatizable) extensions of ZF+A? If this is not known, is finding such an A a goal of the inner model program?

(Note: In the original post I used the word "canonical" instead of "ordinal-categorical.)

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ +1. Very interesting question. But: every extension of a "canonical" theory is also canonical, according to your definition, and I wouldn't expect this to be a feature of canonicity. So is this the right terminology? How about: $T$ is ordinal-categorical, or models of $T$ are determined by their ordinals, or...? $\endgroup$ – Joel David Hamkins Dec 17 '14 at 0:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I thought of that. I couldn't think of a good term, but I like ordinal-categorical. I will edit the post. $\endgroup$ – Jesse Elliott Dec 17 '14 at 0:04
23
$\begingroup$

An old theorem of Harvey Friedman answers the question:

Theorem. If $T$ is an r.e. extension of KP (Kripke-Platek set theory) and $T$ is $\alpha$-categorical for all countable ordinals $\alpha$, then $T$ proves $V = L$.

In the above, "$T$ is $\alpha$-categorical" means that $T$ has at most one standard model of ordinal height $\alpha$. Friedman's result appears as Theorem 6.3 of his paper below:

Countable models of set theories, In A. R. D. Mathias & H. Rogers (eds.), Cambridge Summer School in Mathematical Logic, Lecture Notes in Mathematics vol. 337, Springer-Verlag. pp. 539--573 (1973).

Two Remarks:

1. The theory $ZF + V = L(0 ^{\#})$ need not be ordinal categorical since by Friedman's theorem, two standard models of set theory of the same height could both believe that $0 ^{\#}$ exists, and yet they might have distinct $0 ^{\#}$s. Recall that the complexity of $0 ^{\#}$ is $\Delta^1_3$.

2. It is open whether the conclusion of Friedman's theorem continues to hold if its hypothesis is weakened to "$T$ is $\delta$-categorical", where $\delta$ is the ordinal height of the Shepherdson-Cohen minimal model of set theory.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This is my way of giving another plus one: thanks Ali! $\endgroup$ – François G. Dorais Dec 17 '14 at 21:17
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! I don't have immediate free access to the book. Can you state the definition of "$\alpha$-categorical"? $\endgroup$ – Jesse Elliott Dec 18 '14 at 6:41
  • $\begingroup$ @Jesse Elliot: I have included the def. in my new edit. $\endgroup$ – Ali Enayat Dec 18 '14 at 7:15
9
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand\Ord{\text{Ord}}\newcommand\Z{\mathbb{Z}}\newcommand\Q{\mathbb{Q}}$This is a nice question, and I don't have much to say about it, except that I did want to mention that it is important in your account that you are talking about standard models, which I take to mean well-founded or transitive models. If you dropped that, the phenomenon would disappear, for the following reason.

Theorem. For any consistent theory $T$ extending ZF, there are two models of $T$ with the same ordinals, such that they are not isomorphic by any isomorphism fixing the ordinals.

Proof. Let $M$ be any countable computably saturated model of $T$. It follows that the natural numbers of the model $\omega^M$ are nonstandard and have order type $\omega+\Z\cdot\Q$. The ordinals of $M$ have type $\Ord^M$, which is the same as $\omega^M\cdot\Ord^M$, by an internal isomorphism, and this has order type $(\omega+\Z\cdot\Q)\cdot\Ord^M$. It follows that there is an order-automorphism $\pi:\Ord^M\cong\Ord^M$ that shifts the ordinals within the nonstandard parts of these blocks of $\omega^M$ by one (or one can make more complicated automorphisms). That is, we shift all the $\Z$-chains by one. Since $\Ord^M\subset M$, we may extend $\pi$ to an isomorphism $\pi:M\cong N$ to some model $N$, where $M$ and $N$ have exactly the same ordinals, but where many ordinals $\alpha$ that are even in $M$ are odd in $N$ and vice versa (this will be true exactly for the ordinals that are a nonstandard natural number successor of the largest limit ordinal below them). Thus, $M$ and $N$ have exactly the same ordinals, but are not isomorphic by any isomorphism fixing those ordinals. QED

In particular, if ZFC is consistent, then there can be models of ZFC+V=L that have exactly the same ordinals, but think different things are true of those ordinals.

$\endgroup$

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.

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