9
$\begingroup$

Notations: Let $L_\alpha$ stand for the Gödel constructible hierarchy ($L_0=\varnothing$ and $L_{\alpha+1} = \mathrm{def}(L_\alpha)$ is the set of definable subsets of $L_\alpha$ and $L_\delta = \bigcup_{\beta<\delta} L_\beta$ for limit $\delta$), and $J_\alpha$ for the Jensen hierarchy ($J_0=\varnothing$ and $J_{\alpha+1} = \mathrm{rud}(J_\alpha)$ is the rud-closure of $J_\alpha \cup \{J_\alpha\}$ and $J_\delta = \bigcup_{\beta<\delta} J_\beta$ for limit $\delta$). Let $M \mathrel{\preceq_1} N$ (if $M$ and $N$ are transitive sets mean “$(M,{\in})$ is a $\Sigma_1$-elementary submodel of $(N,{\in})$”.

Consider the following two relations between two ordinals $\sigma<\gamma$:

  • say that “$\sigma$ is $\gamma$-stable” when $L_\sigma \mathrel{\preceq_1} L_\gamma$,

  • say that “$\sigma$ is $\gamma$-J-stable” when $J_\sigma \mathrel{\preceq_1} J_\gamma$.

Question: Are the above relations equivalent? If not, is there still a way to define “$\sigma$ is $\gamma$-stable” in terms of the Jensen hierarchy and/or “$\sigma$ is $\gamma$-J-stable” in terms of the Gödel hierarchy?

Clearly, any one of the above relations implies that $L_\sigma = J_\sigma$ (because $\sigma$ is, at the very least, admissible $>\omega$), so the problem concerns the right-hand side, as $\gamma$ is not required to be admissible, or even a limit ordinal. Certainly $J_\sigma \mathrel{\preceq_1} J_\gamma$ implies $L_\sigma \mathrel{\preceq_1} L_\gamma$, so the question is whether the converse holds, or, if not, whether we can still find a way to express stability for one hierarchy in terms of the other.

I know that $\sigma$ is $(\sigma+1)$-stable iff it is $\Pi_m$-reflecting for each $m$, for example, but I don't see whether this also applies to being $(\sigma+1)$-J-stable (or, if not, what the corresponding criterion would be).

Bonus question: What if we replace $1$ by $n$ (i.e., $\Sigma_1$ by $\Sigma_n$) throughout?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ (+1) Could you please clarify your terminology? Why did you name these relations stability? Frankly speaking I opened this question in the hope of finding an unlikely relationship between stability in the model theoretic sense and fine structure theory! ;-) $\endgroup$ – Morteza Azad Aug 26 '17 at 12:46
  • $\begingroup$ @MortezaAzad 'Stability' is standard set-theoretical terminology. It predates Shelah's 1969 paper 'Stability Theory')) $\endgroup$ – Philip Welch Aug 26 '17 at 13:22
  • $\begingroup$ @PhilipWelch Thanks Philip! So you possibly can give me a better sense of what is remaining "stable" here in these definitions. All what I can see is the trivial observation that the $\Sigma_1$ - statements remain stable in the sense of remaning true while transfering between two levels of these hierarchies. Am I missing anything more important and less transparent at first glance? $\endgroup$ – Morteza Azad Aug 26 '17 at 13:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MortezaAzad I don't think there is more to it than what you have suggested: the $\Sigma_1$-formulae are so stable. One point that could be made is that an early result of Levy's showed there was a level of the $L$-hierarchy that was stable in $V$ thus $L_{\sigma} \prec_{\Sigma_1} V$. The notation $\sigma_1$ is sometimes used for the least such (so countable) $\Sigma_1$ stable in $V$. $\Sigma_n $-stability is no different as a concept. (Except there may be no $\Sigma_2$-stable in $V$ level if $V\neq L$ .) $\endgroup$ – Philip Welch Aug 26 '17 at 18:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MortezaAzad I think the "stable" terminology is due to S. Kripke, who introduced it when $\gamma$ is admissible, in which case "$\sigma$ is $\gamma$-stable" means that $\sigma$ is stable (i.e., closed) under every $\gamma$-recursive function. For a standard reference, see, e.g., Barwise's book or Hinman's (look up "weakly stable" ordinals). $\endgroup$ – Gro-Tsen Aug 28 '17 at 14:04
11
$\begingroup$

As remarked the non-trivial direction is to show $L_\sigma\prec_{\Sigma_1}L_\gamma$ implies $J_\sigma\prec_{\sigma_1}J_\gamma$. Let's take the extreme case that $\gamma=\sigma+1$. Suppose $J_{\sigma+1}\models \exists u \varphi(u,x)$ where $\varphi\in\Sigma_0$ and $x\in J_\sigma = L_\sigma$. The short answer is to copy everything onto subsets of $\sigma$ and use $\mathcal{P}(L_\sigma)\cap J_{\sigma+1}= L_{\sigma+1}$. But in more detail: as $J_{\sigma+1}=\bigcup_{n\in\omega} S_{\omega\sigma+n}$ (see Jensen's original Fine Structure paper, or Devlin's "Constructibility" for the definition of the $S_\nu$-hierarchy, and these and other assertions) we have for some $n$ that $S_{\omega\sigma+n}\models \exists u \varphi(u,x)$. (Here we have $\omega\sigma=\sigma$ as well as the fact that the Goedel pairing function $Q$ is $\Delta_1^{L_\sigma}$). By adding some extra `Basic Functions' to the usual list, we can assume each $S_{\omega\sigma+n}$ is transitive. Now use the fact that there is an onto function $F:\omega\sigma \rightarrow S_{\omega\sigma+n}$ in $J_{\sigma+1}$. Use this to get a subset $f\subseteq \omega\sigma$ with

$$\langle \sigma, Q \mbox{''}f \rangle \cong \langle S_{\omega\sigma+n},\in \rangle $$ and $f\in J_{\sigma+1} $ and so also in $L_{\sigma+1} $. We now have an existential statement of the form $L_{\sigma+1} \models \mbox{''}\exists \sigma\exists f \subseteq \sigma \ldots $''. So reflect this to some $\tau<\sigma$ and obtain: $$\langle \tau, Q \mbox{''} \bar f \rangle \models \exists u \varphi(u,Q(\xi)_1) $$

where we ensure for some $\xi \in \bar f$, $ Q(\xi)_1 $ represents $x$ in the structure say. Taking the transitive collapse of $\langle \tau, Q \mbox{''}\bar f\rangle $ then yields a transitive model $U\in J_\sigma$ of $\exists u \varphi(u,x)$ as needed.

[Edit: added to address comment. Now use this argument repeatedly to prove by induction on $\delta$ for $\sigma+1\leq\delta<\gamma$ that $L_\sigma\prec_{\Sigma_1}L_\gamma$ implies $J_\sigma\prec_{\sigma_1}J_\gamma$. The successor case of a $\delta+1$ is just a variant of the one given and the case of a limit $\delta$ is of course trivial.]

For the Bonus Q just note that for $n>1$, if $L_\sigma\prec_{\Sigma_n}L_\gamma$, then both $L_\sigma$ and $L_\gamma$ are limits of admissible ordinals, so then $L_\sigma=J_\sigma$ and $L_\gamma=J_\gamma$ and there is nothing to do!

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ (Thank you for another nicely written answer.) I agree that $\gamma=\sigma+1$ is the extreme case: but are you claiming that it somehow implies the general case, or that the proof can be adapted to the general case, or simply that this is a good sign for the general case? • PS: sorry about the bonus question which in hindsight was really stupid indeed. $\endgroup$ – Gro-Tsen Aug 28 '17 at 14:00
  • $\begingroup$ @Gro-Tsen: Comment added that this can be used as the ingredient of a proof by induction $\endgroup$ – Philip Welch Aug 28 '17 at 18:51

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.