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

In Just Weese on page 197 there are the following corollaries:

enter image description here

enter image description here

enter image description here

enter image description here

Regarding Corollary 24: Is this a typo and should say "$CON(ZF) \not\rightarrow CON(ZF + \exists \text{ "a strongly inaccessible cardinal."})$"?

I can't see anything wrong with the implication "$CON(ZF) \rightarrow CON(ZF + \text{ "there are no strongly inaccessible cardinals."})$".

Many thanks for your help.

share|cite|improve this question
It does seem like a typo. – Asaf Karagila Dec 22 '12 at 8:47
@AsafKaragila What a typo to make : / Fatal. I think the authors got bored of writing towards the end of the book. – Rudy the Reindeer Dec 22 '12 at 8:48
So they figured "Hey, let's add particularly misleading typos and see if anyone is reading the book carefully enough at this point!" – Asaf Karagila Dec 22 '12 at 8:50
@AsafKaragila Can you have a look at page 199 and confirm that there is yet another fatal typo? On page 199 there is a paragrpah starting with "How can one construct..." and in it we have $\mathcal P^{\mathbf X}(x) \subseteq \mathcal P^{\mathbf X}(x)$. I think this should be $\mathcal P^{\mathbf V}(x) \subseteq \mathcal P^{\mathbf X}(x)$. And similarly, in the sentence following this one the second occurrence of $\mathcal P^{\mathbf V}(x)$ should be $\mathcal P^{\mathbf X}(x)$. – Rudy the Reindeer Dec 22 '12 at 10:15
It should be $\mathcal P^\mathbf X(x)\subseteq\mathcal P^\mathbf V(x)$, I think. In the second line as well. We want $\bf X\subseteq V$, so it only makes sense that the power set in $\bf X$ is not-larger or even smaller. – Asaf Karagila Dec 22 '12 at 10:19
up vote 0 down vote accepted

The next two paragraph give a proof of Corollary 24. The content of this proof is that if there are no inaccessible cardinals then we are done; otherwise there is a least inaccessible $\lambda$, in which case Lemma 25 proves that $\langle V_\lambda,\overline\in\rangle$ is a model of ZF+"There are no inaccessible cardinals".

In either case we see that the proof actually proves:

$CON(\mathrm{ZF})\nrightarrow CON(\mathrm{ZF}+\exists\text{ a strongly inaccessible cardinal})$

Which also fits the two-liner proof based on Godel's incompleteness theorem which is given right after Corollary 24.

share|cite|improve this answer
And there is nothing wrong with the other implication, right? – Rudy the Reindeer Dec 22 '12 at 9:59
@Matt: The proof given actually shows that the implication holds, so indeed there is nothing wrong with it. – Asaf Karagila Dec 22 '12 at 10:01

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.