Skip to main content
3 of 4
linked to JDH's answer
David Roberts
  • 35.5k
  • 11
  • 124
  • 349

We are assuming that a formula πœ™(x,y) with 2 free variables defines a function means that for every x there is a unique y such that πœ™(x,y).

We assume that the axiom schema of Successor cardinals and the axiom schema of Ordinal inaccessibility are the result of replacing "f is a definable function" by "πœ™(x,y)

defines a function", replacing "𝑓(πœ†)=𝛾" by πœ™(πœ†,𝛾), and replacing 𝛼≀𝑓(𝛽) by "there is a b such that πœ™(𝛽,b) and 𝛼≀b".

We note that the axiom schema of Successor cardinals, is an immediate consequence of the axiom schema of Ordinal inaccessibility.(Suppose that πœ™(x,y) defines a function and c ia an ordinal.

By Ordinal inaccessibility, there is an ordinal 𝛼 with the property that βˆ€π›½<c:πœ™(𝛽,b)-->("b is not an ordinal" or b<𝛼. Then Β¬βˆ€π›Ύ<(𝛼+1)βˆƒπœ†<c:πœ™(πœ†,𝛾), since Β¬πœ™(πœ†,𝛼) for all πœ†<c.)

Z + Ranks + Ordinal inaccessibility has the same consequences as Z + Ranks + Ordinal Replacement.

Proof: Suppose Ordinal Replacement holds, πœ™(x,y) defines a function, 𝛾 is an ordinal, and for every ordinal 𝛼 (βˆƒπ›½<π›Ύβˆƒb:𝛼≀bβˆ§πœ™(𝛽,b)). Let πœ“(x,y) be the formula ("x is an ordinal" and "y is an ordinal" and πœ™(x,y)) or ("x is an ordinal" and (βˆ€t(πœ™(x,y)-->"t is not an ordinal") and y=0) or ("x is not an ordinal" and y=x). By Ordinal Replacement βˆƒπ΅βˆ€π‘¦(π‘¦βˆˆπ΅β†”βˆƒπ‘₯βˆˆπ›Ύπœ“(π‘₯,𝑦)). But then every ordinal is in UB. Now suppose Ordinal inaccessibility holds, πœ™(x,y) is a formula in two free variables x,y, βˆ€π‘₯[π‘œπ‘Ÿπ‘‘π‘–π‘›π‘Žπ‘™(π‘₯)β†’βˆƒ!𝑦(π‘œπ‘Ÿπ‘‘π‘–π‘›π‘Žπ‘™(𝑦)βˆ§πœ™(π‘₯,𝑦))], and A is a set of ordinals. Let πœ“(x,y) be the formula ("x is an ordinal" and "y is an ordinal" and πœ™(x,y)) or ("x is not an ordinal" and x=y). Then πœ“(x,y) defines a function. By Ordinal inaccessibility, there is an ordinal 𝛼 with the property βˆ€π›½<(UA)βˆ€b(πœ“(𝛽,b)-->b<𝛼). Then there is a set B such that

   b∈B<-->bβˆˆπ›Όβˆ§βˆƒπ‘₯∈𝐴(πœ™(x,b)). Therefore Ordinal Replacement holds.

If ZF is consistent then Z + Ranks + Ordinal inaccessibility + Choice does not prove Replacement.

Proof: See the answer of Joel David Hamkins to "Is full Replacement provable in Z + Ordinal Replacement?". (His argument shows that in a model of ZFC, βŸ¨π‘‰πœ”1,∈⟩ satisfies Z + Ranks + Ordinal Replacement + Choice but not all instancess of Replacement.)

Greg Kirmayer
  • 1.2k
  • 1
  • 6
  • 5