7
$\begingroup$

The Kelley-Morse set theory can be thought as the "full-secondorderification of $\sf ZFC$", where we switch from sets to classes and allow the comprehension schema to include quantifiers on class variables.

As in the usual case of class-set theory, sets are exactly those classes which are elements of other classes. So we can consider this as a one-sort theory and have a definable predicate $\mathrm{Set}(x)\iff\exists y(x\in y)$.

The "standard" models of Kelley-Morse set theory are $V_{\kappa+1}$ where $\kappa$ is a strongly inaccessible cardinal, and then $\mathrm{Set}$ is interpreted exactly as $V_\kappa$.

But we can use the Lowenheim-Skolem theorem to obtain a countable model of Kelley-Morse. The trick here is that we keep "enough" classes to satisfy the impredicative comprehension schema, but the model is still countable.

My question is as follows:

Let $M$ be a model of Kelley-Morse What sort of limitations do we have on the cardinality of $M$ and $\mathrm{Set}^M$? Specifically, can we have a model with countably many sets and uncountably many classes? Does the answer change if we assume that $\mathrm{Set}^M$ is transitive?

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ In "The number of $β$-models of Kelley-Morse set theory" the following is proved: We prove the following theorem: For any ordinal $α$ which is the height of a countable $β$-model of Kelley-Morse set theory with the scheme of choice, there exist $2^{ω_1}$ nonisomorphic $β$-models of that theory of height $α$ and power $ω_1$, and with the same universe of sets. Moreover, assuming Martin's axiom, there exist $2^{2^ω}$ $β$-models of power $2^ω$ with the same sets. $\endgroup$ – Mohammad Golshani Jul 14 '16 at 10:14
11
$\begingroup$

The first relevant theorem is the following classical result:

Theorem A. (Mostowski, Keisler) If $M$ is a countable model of Kelley-Morse + Choice Scheme, then there is an elementary extension $M^{*}$ of $M$ such that $\mathrm{Set}^{M}= \mathrm{Set}^{M^{*}}$ and $M^{*}$ has cardinality $\aleph_1$.

In the above, the Choice Scheme consists of universal generalizations of statements of the following form, where the parameters in $\phi$ are suppressed:

$\forall x \exists Y \phi (x,Y) \rightarrow \exists Z \forall x \phi(x,(Z)_x)$,

where $x$ range over sets, capital letters range over classes, and $(Z)_x$ [read as: the $x$-th slice of $Z$] denotes $\{t: (x,t)\in Z\}$).

The theorem holds for models of Second Order Arithmetic, with the same proof that works for Kelley-Morse. The proof uses omitting types and elementary chains; see, e.g., Chapter 28 of Keisler's monograph Model Theory for Infinitary Logic. It is well-known that Kelley-Morse plus the Choice Scheme is bi-interpretable with with the extension of $ZFC^-$ ($ZFC$ without powerset, where $ZF$ is formulated using the collection and separation schemes) obtained by adding "the last cardinal exists, and it is inaccessible".

On the other hand;

Theorem B. (Jensen's Gap-1 Theorem). Assuming $V=L$, every first order theory that admits a two-cardinal model of the form $(\aleph_{1}, \aleph_{0})$ admits a two-cardinal model of the form $(\kappa^{+},\kappa)$ for any prescribed infinite cardinal $\kappa$.

By putting Theorems A & B together with the Loewenheim-Skolem theorem, we obtain the following corollary; in what follows, the "two-cardinal type" of a model $M$ of Kelley-Morse, is the ordered pair of cardinals $(|M|, |\mathrm{Set}^{M}|)$.

Corollary. It is consistent with $ZFC$ that the following holds: for every consistent extension $T$ of Kelley-Morse + Choice Scheme (in the same language), the "two-cardinal" types of models of $T$ are precisely of the form $(\kappa, \kappa)$ or $(2^{\kappa}, \kappa)$, where $\kappa$ ranges over infinite cardinals.

Postscript. I suspect that, using forcing, one can build a model of Kelley-Morse with countably many sets and continuumly many proper classes outright in $ZFC$. For models of Goedel-Bernays theory of classes, this was shown by Matt Kaufmann in this paper.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Is the corollary equivalent to GCH? $\endgroup$ – François G. Dorais Jul 15 '16 at 2:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @FrançoisG.Dorais: GCH implies the corollary for regular $\kappa$ (by Chang's two-cardinal theorem), but for singular $\kappa$ one seems to need fine-structural facts true in the constructible universe (judging from the proof of Jensen's Gap-1 Theorem). $\endgroup$ – Ali Enayat Jul 15 '16 at 4:25
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Ali. How about when CH fails, is the answer known? $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jul 15 '16 at 5:24
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila: I am not sure, but see the postscript that I have added to my answer. $\endgroup$ – Ali Enayat Jul 15 '16 at 18:34

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.