I am interested in asking the following question:

What sets can be proven to exist in $ZF$ without the benefit of extra assumptions? (Thanks to Toshiyasu Arai for inspiring me to ask this variation of his question from his slide presentation, "Proof Theory for Set Theory".)

I ask this question for the following reasons:

(i). The model of $ZF$ + $V$=$L$ is the smallest inner model of $ZF$ for any model of $ZF$, so it would seem that in every model of $ZF$, constructible sets exist, and in fact, every model $\mathfrak M$ of $ZF$ believes that its constructible sets form 'the' constructible universe $L$ (and in fact they do, relative to $\mathfrak M$).

(ii). Since every hereditarily finite set is constructible (i.e., $V_{\omega}$ = $L_{\omega}$ so that for finite sets, $\mathscr P_{Def}$ = $\mathscr P$-- see Peter Koepke's "Simplified Constructibility Theory", for the distinction between $\mathscr P_{Def}$, the "predicative power-set operation" and $\mathscr P$, the "impredicative power-set operation"), one might reasonably abstract $\mathscr P_{Def}$ from the finite sets as the 'correct' means for generating 'the' cumulative hierarchy of sets of $ZF$ from $\emptyset$.

(iii) Since it is known that $V_{\omega}$ $\vDash$ $ZF$ $-$ *Infinity* (where in this case, $V_{\omega}$ and $L_{\omega}$ are, because *Infinity* is absent, proper classes), $L_{\omega}$ $\vDash$ $ZF$ $-$ *Infinity* so that one might use the following lemma of Michael Rathjen (from his paper, "A Proof-Theoretic Characterization of the Primitive Recursive Set Functions", *JSL* Vol. 53, No.3, Sept. 1992)(my comments will be in square brackets):

Lemma 2.5. For each $\Delta_0$-formula $\varphi$($x_1$,...,$x_n$) [in the language of set theory] with free variables among $x_1$,..., $x_n$ and each variable $x_j$, 1$\le$$j$$\le$$n$, there is a term $\mathscr F$ on $n$ arguments built from $\mathscr F_1$,...,$\mathscr F_{10}$ [Jech's version of the G$\ddot o$del operations from his

Millemium Edition, Chapt. 13] so that$KP^{-}$ [Kripke-Platek set theory with Foundation replaced with Set Foundation] $\vdash$ $\mathscr F$($a$,$x_1$,...,$x_{j-1}$,$x_{j+1}$,...,$x_n$) = {$x_j$$\in$a| $\varphi$($x_1$,...,$x_n$)}

Proof: All of the functions $\mathscr F_1$,..., $\mathscr F_{10}$ can be obtained on the basis of $KP^{-}$. For instance, $KP^{-}$ is strong enough to prove the existence of the Cartesian product $a$ $\times$ $b$ of sets $a$ ans $b$ (see [Barwise:

Admissible Sets ane Structures, Chapt. I, Theprem 3.2]). The result now follows from [Barwise, Ibid., Chapt II, Assumption 5.2(v)] because inspection of the proof of [Barwise, Ibid., Chapt. II, Assumption 5.2(v)] reveals that all of its steps can be done within $KP^{-}$.

Since $KP^{-}$ is a subtheory of $ZF$ $-$ *Infinity*, Lemma 2.5 holds for $ZF$ $-$ *Infinity* as well. Not that if one chooses to add *Infinity* back to $ZF$ $-$ *Infinity* one has that the proper class $V_{\omega}$ (= $L_{\omega}$) is now a set and is also constructible. Since $ZF$ $\vdash$ $\mathscr P_{L}$($\omega$) $\subseteq$ $\mathscr P$($\omega$) ($\mathscr P_{L}$ is the power-set for $L$ and is just $\mathscr P$($x$) $\cap$ $L$), Asaf's observation in his excellent answer (which is tantamount to saying that the constructibility or nonconstructibility of $\mathscr P$($\omega$) is independent of the axioms of set theory, i.e that though $\mathscr P$($\omega$) exists, it cannot be proven from the axioms of $ZF$ what subsets of $\omega$ are members of $\mathscr P$($\omega$)) seems to suggest (with the help of Rathjen's Lemma) that $ZF$ $\vdash$ $\mathscr P_{L}$($\omega$) = $\mathscr P$($\omega$) unless one adds the axiom "There exists a non-constructible set of integers".

Considering these reasons, I can refine the question as follows:

Are the constructible sets the only sets that the axioms of $ZF$ alone can prove to exist?