1
$\begingroup$

Let $L$ be the language of set theory, and for each countable ordinal $\kappa$, define $L_\kappa$ as follows: $L_0 = L$, and $L_{\alpha+1}$ is obtained by adding countably many new class constants $c_\phi$ to the signature of $L_\alpha$ to stand for each formula $\phi(x)$ of one free variable. Define $L_\alpha$ for $\alpha$ a limit ordinal to be the union of $L_\beta$ for $\beta < \alpha$. Given some set theory such as ZF, it is possible to add axioms for the new constants: let $T_0 = ZF$ and $T_{\alpha+1}$ be the theory got from $T_\alpha$ by adding $$x \in c_\phi \iff \phi(x)$$ as an axiom where $\phi(x)$ ranges over the countably many formulas in $L_\alpha$. Let $T_\alpha$ for $\alpha$ a limit ordinal be the union of $T_\beta$ for $\beta<\alpha$. This is ordinary expansion by definitions.

So, for each countable ordinal $\kappa$, $T_\kappa$ is countably axiomatizable. Define $L_\Omega$ and $T_\Omega$ as the union of $L_\kappa$ and $T_\kappa$ as $\kappa$ ranges over countable ordinals.

Is $T_\Omega$ countably axiomatizable?

What relation does MK have to $T_\Omega$, if any?

New question: is every formula of $L_\Omega$ equivalent to a formula of $L_1$ modulo $T_1$? (seems likely) please see: Is every formula of LΩ equivalent to a formula of L1 modulo T1?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The way you defined it, $T_1$ (and a fortiori all subsequent theories) is inconsistent. You need to either start with a theory of classes rather than ZF, or use unary predicates instead of constants. $\endgroup$ – Emil Jeřábek Dec 13 '16 at 15:55
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Anyway, it’s impossible to countably axiomatize a (consistent) theory in an uncountable language, unless all but countably many of the symbols are left completely arbitrary by the axioms. $\endgroup$ – Emil Jeřábek Dec 13 '16 at 15:59
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, sorry. I meant to say this: add a unary predicate $M x$ for "x is a set" and for each axiom in ZF, relativize it with respect to $M x$, so that the ZF axioms only apply to sets (except for the axiom of extension) and not the new constants. As in MK, $x$ is a set if and only if there exists $y$ such that $x\in y$. $\endgroup$ – David Pokorny Dec 13 '16 at 16:02
  • $\begingroup$ It seems to me that the theory basically amounts to GB+AC, since the naming process is simply ensuring instances of class comprehension. $\endgroup$ – Joel David Hamkins Dec 13 '16 at 19:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JoelDavidHamkins I don't even think it's doing that - note that it only applies to parameter-free $\varphi$. $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Dec 13 '16 at 21:02
7
$\begingroup$

As Emil points out, $T_\Omega$ is not countably axiomatizable for trivial reasons: it has an uncountable language, and says non-trivial things about each symbol in that language.

That said, it is equivalent to a countably axiomatizable theory, in a precise sense: namely, you don't really get anything new after $T_\omega$. To see why, think about $T_{\omega+1}$: every formula in $L_\omega$ is also in $L_n$ for some finite $n$, so you've already added a constant symbol naming the relevant class; this means each constant symbol you add at stage $\omega+1$ is - provably in $T_{\omega+1}$ - equivalent to an already-added constant symbol. (Incidentally, this makes it easy to show that MK is much stronger than $T_\omega$, and hence much stronger "morally" than $T_\Omega$.)


In fact, unless I'm missing something your hierarchy collapses right away - $T_1$ is essentially the same as $T_0$. This is because, in forming $T_1$, we can replace every "new" sentence with constant symbols $c_\varphi$ by an "old" sentence where "$-\in c_\varphi$" is replaced with "$\varphi(-)$".

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Unlike the other levels, the construction of $T_1$ from $T_0$ is not conservative. The constants in $T_1$ are not just an expansion by definitions, they actually imply the existence of the corresponding “classes” which is not provable in $T_0$ alone. So, the last part is now incorrect. $\endgroup$ – Emil Jeřábek Dec 14 '16 at 6:41

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.