7
$\begingroup$

By Gödel's second incompleteness theorem, the following assertion is true in ZFC: $$ Con(ZFC)\rightarrow Con(ZFC+\neg Con(ZFC)) $$ Considering the completeness theorem, this assertion is equivalent to that one can always construct a model of $ZFC+\neg Con(ZFC)$ from a given model of $ZFC$. Is there any concrete construction of the new model, just like the constructible universe and forcing method?

$\endgroup$
8
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ This requires changing the set of natural numbers, so it's unlikely there will be a nice construction, and certainly no transitive model. There is, however, a nice construction of a transitive model of “ZFC + ‘ZFC has no transitive model’” from one of ZFC, namely, take smallest transitive model of ZFC (which is of the form $L_α$, where $α$ is the smallest ordinal for which this is indeed a model of ZFC). $\endgroup$
    – Gro-Tsen
    Mar 26, 2021 at 14:34
  • $\begingroup$ Since $\mathsf{ZFC}+\neg Con(\mathsf{ZFC})$ is consistent, we can find (in a larger language) a consistent complete theory $T$ with the witness property such that $T\supseteq\mathsf{ZFC}+\neg Con(\mathsf{ZFC})$. The ($\{\in\}$-reduct of the) term model of $T$ is then a model of $\mathsf{ZFC}+\neg Con(\mathsf{ZFC})$. Of course this works for any consistent theory $S$ (note that the only noncomputable step is passing from the original theory to the complete consistent extension with the witness property). $\endgroup$ Mar 26, 2021 at 15:09
  • $\begingroup$ @NoahSchweber I want a construction that only uses the information of the model itself. Noice that $ZFC+\neg Con(ZFC)+\neg Con(ZFC+\neg Con(ZFC))$ can have a model when $ZFC$ is consistent. If $M$ is a model of $ZFC+Con(ZFC)+\neg Con(ZFC+\neg Con(ZFC))$ (I am not sure if it is possible), does your construction work? $\endgroup$
    – Ka Ho
    Mar 26, 2021 at 16:05
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @KaHo Since the completeness theorem is provable in $\mathsf{ZFC}$, for any theory $T$ and any structure $M$ if $M\models \mathsf{ZFC}+Con(T)$ then $M$ can perform an "internal" Henkinization argument and so there is an $a\in M$ which is a model of $T$. (More accurately, $M$ thinks $a$ is a model of $T$, and by the niceness of first-order logic $a$ actually is a model of $T$ in reality.) Maybe I'm not understanding what you're asking? $\endgroup$ Mar 26, 2021 at 16:08
  • $\begingroup$ @NoagSchweber Just forget my last comment; it is stupid. I was actually thinking of a construction that uses the elements of the original model transfinitely, just like the two constructions that I mentioned in the question. $\endgroup$
    – Ka Ho
    Mar 26, 2021 at 16:19

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

As has been discussed in the comments, there is no inner model or forcing-like construction that will give you a model, since the collection of natural numbers needs to grow.

You'll have to tell me if this is 'natural' enough, but by modifying the construction mentioned by Joel David Hamkins here, we can get the following:

Proposition. There is a formula $\varphi(x)$ in the language of set theory such that for any $V \models \mathsf{ZFC}$, there is a unique $a \in V$ satisfying $\varphi(x)$ and this $a$ is always (externally) a model of $\mathsf{ZFC}+ \neg\mathrm{Con}(\mathsf{ZFC})$.

Proof: As Noah Schweber mentioned in the comments, by standard (computable) procedure, for any theory $T$, we can find an expansion $H_{T} \supseteq T$ which is term complete, i.e., for every formula $\varphi(x,\bar{y})$ and tuple of closed terms $\bar{t}$, there is a closed term $s$ such that $H_{T}\vdash \exists x \varphi(x,\bar{t}) \to \varphi(s,\bar{t})$. The two most common ways to do this are adding Henkin constants and Skolemizing the theory. This implies that for any completion $T'$ of $H_T$, the term structure of $T'$ is a model of $T'\supseteq T$, where the term structure is the structure whose universe is the collection of all closed terms in the language of $T'$ with the interpretations of the atomic relations dictated by $T'$.

Another thing to note is that the construction of the language of $H_T$ can be done in such a way that if the language of $T$ is countable with a given enumeration, then the language of $H_T$ is countable with a given enumeration which is uniformly computable from the enumeration of the language of $T$. Also note that this language really only depends on the language of $T$, not on $T$ itself.

$\mathsf{ZFC}$ proves that for any theory $T$, $\mathrm{Con}(T) \to \mathrm{Con}(H_T)$. (This is also provable in significantly weaker theories for the standard definitions of $H_T$.)

Let $\{\psi_i\}_{i<\omega}$ be a fixed computable enumeration of the axioms of $\mathsf{ZFC}+\neg\mathrm{Con}(\mathsf{ZFC})$, and let $T_i$ be $\{\psi_j\}_{i<j} + \neg \mathrm{Con}(\mathsf{ZFC})$ for each $i\leq \omega$ (so in particular, $T_\omega = \mathsf{ZFC} + \neg \mathrm{Con}(\mathsf{ZFC})$). Through a combination of the reflection theorem and Gödel's incompleteness, you can show that for each $i<\omega$, $\mathsf{ZFC}\vdash \mathrm{Con}(T_i)$. (Crucially though, we don't have that $\mathsf{ZFC} \vdash (\forall i<\omega)\mathrm{Con}(T_i)$ unless $\mathsf{ZFC}$ is inconsistent.) So by the above comment, we also have that for each $i<\omega$, $\mathsf{ZFC} \vdash \mathrm{Con}(H_{T_i})$. Note that the choice of enumeration here matters, and we will get different models with different choices of enumeration.

Let $\mathcal{L}$ be the common language of the $H_{T_i}$'s. By the above discussion we may assume that $\mathcal{L}$ has a fixed computable enumeration. By a standard argument, this implies that we have a computable enumeration of the collection of $\mathcal{L}$-sentences. Let $\{\chi_{i}\}_{i<\omega}$ be such an enumeration.

$\mathsf{ZFC}$ proves that every consistent $\mathcal{L}$-theory $S$ has a unique 'leftmost' completion. What I mean by this is that we may regard complete $\mathcal{L}$-theories $S'$ as elements of $2^{\omega}$ by considering $\{i : S' \vdash \chi_i\}$. The leftmost completion is the one which is smallest in the lexicographical ordering on $2^\omega$. Such a completion exists by a typical compactness argument.

Okay so now pass to our model $V$ of $\mathsf{ZFC}$. $\mathsf{ZFC}$ implies that there is a maximal $k\leq \omega^V$ such that $V\models \mathrm{Con}(T_k)$. So in particular, if this $k$ is not $\omega^V$, then $V\models \neg \mathrm{Con}(T_{k+1})$. By the reflection theorem, $V \models \mathrm{Con}(T_i)$ for every externally finite $i$, so if $k<\omega^V$, then it must be a non-standard integer. Since $V$ thinks that $T_k$ is consistent, it also thinks that $H_{T_k}$ is consistent, and so it thinks that the leftmost completion $S$ of $H_{T_k}$ is consistent. $S$ has a term model $M$ which satisfies $S$ since $H_{T_k}$ is term complete.

So we can let $\varphi(x)$ be a formula that is satisfied if and only if $x$ is the term model of the leftmost completion of $H_{T_k}$ where $k\leq \omega$ is the largest for which $T_k$ is consistent. Although there are arbitrary choices in the construction of this formula, it does not have any parameters.

So to see that $M$ is externally a model of $\mathsf{ZFC}+\neg \mathrm{Con}(\mathsf{ZFC})$, note that we either have that $V \models k = \omega^V$ or that $k$ is a non-standard integer. In both cases, for every $i<\omega$, $V \models (M\models \psi_i)$, so since satisfaction of formulas is absolute, we have that $M$ models all of $\mathsf{ZFC}+\neg\mathrm{Con}(\mathsf{ZFC})$. $\square$


It is possible to make this construction slightly more 'canonical.' For example, if we start with $\mathsf{ZFC}+ V=L + \neg \mathrm{Con}(\mathsf{ZFC})$, then there are natural definable Skolem functions, so we don't have to make any arbitrary choices to introduce them.

We still ultimately need to pick a completion of the Henkinized/Skolemized theory. We were able to do this in a definable way, but ultimately our completion depends heavily on the enumeration of the language. I doubt there is an 'enumeration invariant' way to choose a definable completion of a theory like $\mathsf{ZFC}$ or $\mathsf{PA}$, but maybe someone will show up and point out that there actually is one.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

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

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.