2
$\begingroup$

The following is a reformulation of $\sf ZFC$, it is a version of a well known approach going back to Dana Scott (I suppose), it axiomatizes $\sf ZFC$ simply by "Specification, Reflection, and Choice".

The language of this theory is first order logic with equality and membership, and as usual definitions are allowed to be added to the background logic, so we have as many defined predicate and function symbols as their defining formulas.

Axioms:

Specification: if $\phi$ is a tri-parameteric formula, not using "$Y$", then: $$.. \forall X \, \exists! Y \, \forall z \, (z \in Y \iff z \in X \land \phi)$$

Reflection: if $\varphi$ is a mono-parameteric formula, not using "$\alpha$", and $\varphi^{V_\alpha}$ is the "$\in V_\alpha$" bounded form of $\varphi$, then: $$ ( \varphi \implies \exists \alpha: \varphi^{V_\alpha})$$

Choice: as in $\sf ZFC$.

$V_\alpha$ is defined in the customary manner as: the image of ordinal $\alpha$ under a function from an ordinal that assigns to each element the set of all subsets of images it assigns to prior elements; ordinal is defined as being a set of all transitive proper subsets of it.

Note that there is no restrection on using defined predicate and function symbols in above schemata.

This reformulation is highly technical and by no means naive. But, I'd prefer it when contemplating extending $\sf ZFC$ with large cardinal axioms since reflection is at the heart of such extensions.

Are there known simpler reformulations of $\sf ZFC$ that more suits that purupose? like using embeddings instead of reflection, or perhaps some other way altogether?

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ The question seems to imply that the usual formulation of ZFC does not "suit" large cardinals well. Would you mind explaining why you believe that to be the case? $\endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    Commented Mar 26, 2022 at 12:18
  • $\begingroup$ @Wojowu, I didn't say it doesn't suit, but I think it is "less" suitable than the above formulation, simply because it lacks a pivotal tool in contemplating extending ZFC with large cardinals, namely "Reflection". Other tools include embedding, determinancy, etc... Since almost all large cardinal properties have a version of reflection that enacts them, then this makes reflection more operative for them. The known axioms of ZFC are of course more suitable than those technical ones as an axiomatization of ZFC generally speaking, but I think for this particular purpose this is more suitable $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 26, 2022 at 12:26
  • $\begingroup$ @Wojowu, I was careful in the title, I said "more suit", this mean that the usual formulation is suitable, but I'm asking of one which is even more suitable, in other words more invovled with themes governing extensions of ZFC with large cardinal axioms. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 26, 2022 at 12:28
  • $\begingroup$ I would ask this as: Is there a formulation of ZFC that more closely parallels large-cardinal extensions? $\endgroup$
    – user44143
    Commented Mar 27, 2022 at 21:42
  • $\begingroup$ @MattF. Good suggestion! I think this captures well what I intended to say really. Thanks! $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 27, 2022 at 21:45

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .