Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Consider the following passage in Just/Weese:

enter image description here

where $fin(x) \equiv $ "$x$ is a finite set".

I'd like to confirm the following with you : requiring "ZFC $\vdash fin(n)$ if $n \in \omega$" is weaker than requiring that "$fin(x) \iff$ $x$ is a finite set", right? There could be a model $M$ of ZFC in which we have an infinite set $x$, that is, there is an injection $\omega \to x$ in real life but $M \models fin(x)$. Is that correct?

And I'd also like to double check my understanding: The problem with question 20 above is that elements in $M$ might be finite sets representing infinite set and the other way around, we can have $\mathbb R \in M$ but in $M$, $\mathbb R$ might stand for the set $n$. So neither $\implies$ nor $\Longleftarrow$ hold in question 20. Correct?

Thanks for your help.

share|cite|improve this question
Yes, that requirement is weaker. For example it does not exclude $fin(x)\equiv x=x$. – Hagen von Eitzen Nov 23 '12 at 12:49
up vote 2 down vote accepted

In answer to the question in the first paragraph, you are correct, though it is irrelevant. Yes, a model $\langle M , E \rangle$ of ZFC could have the property that its version $\varnothing^M$ of the emptyset is actually an infinite set, but what we know for certain is that $$\{ b \in M : b \mathrel{E} \varnothing^M \} = \varnothing,$$ since the emptyset is defined by having the property that $( \forall y ) ( y \notin \varnothing )$. This Question is really talking about these subsets of $M$ represented by elements of $M$ (as in previous questions).

In regards to your second question, this Question has (virtually) nothing to do with whether an element $a \in M$ that $M$ thinks is finite is actually an infinite set in real life. It is saying that there is no formula $\phi (x)$ in the language of set theory such that whenever $\langle M , E \rangle$ is a model of ZFC and $a$ is an element of $M$ then $$ M \models \phi [ a ] \quad \Longleftrightarrow \quad \{ b \in M : b \mathrel{E} a \} \text{ is finite}$$ (and by "is finite" on the right-hand-side we mean is really finite in the real world).

It appears to me that Just-Weese will be showing that a particular theory extending ZFC will be consistent where there following are new axioms:

  1. $c_k \neq c_\ell$ for distinct $k , \ell$;
  2. $c_k \in c_0$ for all $k \neq 0$; and
  3. $\mathrm{fin} (c_0)$.

Then a model $\langle M , E , c_0 , c_1 , \ldots \rangle$ of this theory will also be a model of ZFC, and $M \models \mathrm{fin} [ c_0 ]$ however the set $$\{ b \in M : b \mathrel{E} c_0 \} \supseteq \{ c_k : k \neq 0 \}$$ is infinite. (This will be similar to an idea I sketched out in a previous answer.)

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you! (I know that it is irrelevant but since it was the root of confusion of my two last questions I wanted to double-check that I now really understand.) – Rudy the Reindeer Nov 23 '12 at 11:39

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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