9
$\begingroup$

Let $M=M_0$ be a ctm of ZF.

  1. If $(M_0, \ldots, M_n)$ is a sequence of ctms of ZF, where for all $i,$ either $M_{i+1}$ is an inner model of $M_i$ or a generic extension of $M_i,$ then call $M_n$ an $n$-model of $M.$

  2. Call $M_n$ an $n'$-model of $M$ if we can further demand that $M_1$ is an inner model of $M_0.$

  3. Call $M_n$ an $n''$-model if we can instead demand that $M_1$ is a generic extension of $M_0.$

  4. Let $C_n^M, C_n^{M'}, C_n^{M''}$ respectively denote the sets of $n$-models, $n'$-models, and $n''$-models of $M.$

  5. Let $C_{\infty}^M=\bigcup_{n<\omega} C_n^M.$

My intention is that $C_{\infty}^M$ represents the set of $o(M)$-height models which $M$ is capable of "reasoning" about.

My main question is whether there is some $n$ such that $C_{\infty}^M=C_n^M.$

It's not hard to cook up $M$ such that $C_2^{M'} \not \subset C_2^{M''}$ or $C_2^{M''} \not \subset C_2^{M'},$ so this hierarchy doesn't seem to collapse immediately (if at all), at least in general. It's a priori possible that such $n$ exists for some $M$ and not others; I'm not sure how find an example either way.

If such an $n$ cannot exist, what if we instead ask for something weaker, say $n$ such that $\{\varphi \in \mathcal{L}_{\{\in\}}: \exists N \in C_{\infty}^M(N \models \varphi)\}=\{\varphi \in \mathcal{L}_{\{\in\}}: \exists N \in C_n^M(N \models \varphi)\}?$ It seems like some strengthening of the Inner Model Hypothesis could justify the existence of such an $n.$

$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ @MonroeEskew Please explain how that makes the hierarchy collapse. $\endgroup$ May 28, 2018 at 5:53
  • $\begingroup$ @MonroeEskew I do, but even if we restrict to set forcing, I don't understand your argument that this collapses. $\endgroup$ May 28, 2018 at 6:08
  • $\begingroup$ @MonroeEskew You seem to have misread the definition I presented. We aren't taking ground models, we're taking generic extensions. The sequence will alternate between smaller and large models, it's not monotonic. $\endgroup$ May 28, 2018 at 6:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Also, since you want to claim that $M$ can reason about all the models in this collection, I assume you mean your inner models to be definable? $\endgroup$ May 28, 2018 at 9:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MihaHabič, could you explain how this goes regarding Usuba's theorem? Since he only considers choice models in his proof, this sounds like a nontrivial modification. Maybe worth posting as an answer. $\endgroup$ May 28, 2018 at 13:35

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.