Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Just / Weese contains the following theorem (p 126):

Theorem 5: Let $\mathbf Z \neq \varnothing$ and let $\mathbf W \subseteq \mathbf Z \times \mathbf Z$ be a wellfounded set-like class. Let $\mathbf G$ be a functional class such that $dom(\mathbf G)$ consists of all pairs of the form $\langle f,z \rangle$, where $z \in \mathbf Z$ and $f$ is a function with domain $I_{\mathbf W}(z)$. Then there exists exactly one functional class $\mathbf F : ]\mathbf Z \to \mathbf V$ such that $$ \mathbf F (z) = \mathbf G ( \mathbf F \mid I_{\mathbf W} (z), z) \hspace{0.5 cm} \forall z \in \mathbf Z$$

On the same page before the theorem they write "...In Chapter 12 we shall see that the existence of a definable, set-like wellorder of the universe is relatively consistent with $ZFC$. ..."

I am not aware of any other places in the book where the word "set-like" is used, in particular not a definition of what it means. Could someone give me the definition of "set-like" class and explain to me what it means? Many thanks for your help.

share|improve this question
1  
It means every initial segment is a set. –  Asaf Karagila Dec 22 '12 at 14:36
    
@Amzoti: How does a monograph about mathematics without infinity helpful to this question? –  Asaf Karagila Dec 22 '12 at 15:30
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 7 down vote accepted

I believe in this instance it should be "set-like well-founded relational class" or something like that. The point is that for each $x \in \mathbf{Z}$ the class $\{ z \in \mathbf{Z} : z \mathrel{\mathbf{W}} x \}$ is actually a set.

Indeed, on p.125 Just-Weese give the following defintion:

A relational class $\mathbf{W}$ is said to be set-like if $$ (\forall x) (\exists y) ( y = \{ z : \langle z,x \rangle \in \mathbf{W} \} ).$$

Notice that this is precisely what you need in order to assert the existence of such a function(al class) $\mathbf{G}$ in the hypothesis of the theorem. If $I_{\mathbf{W}} ( z )$ were a proper class for some $z \in \mathbf{Z}$, then there could be no pairs of the form $\langle f , z \rangle$ where $\mathrm{dom} ( f ) = I_{\mathbf{W}} (z)$, since $f$ must be a set, and so its domain must be a set, which it cannot be. (Recall that only sets have real existence in ZF(C)). Also, the function(al class) $\mathbf{F}$ that the theorem asserts to exist similarly could not exist because it could not be defined at such a $z$.

For an example of a well-founded relational class which fails to be set-like, consider $\mathbf{W} \subseteq \mathbf{On} \times \mathbf{On}$ defined by $$\langle \alpha , \beta \rangle \in \mathbf{W} \quad \Longleftrightarrow \quad \begin{cases} 0 < \alpha < \beta, &\text{or}\\ \beta = 0 \wedge \alpha \neq 0. \end{cases}$$ This is a "well-ordering" of $\mathbf{On}$ which makes $0$ the unique maximum element (but otherwise retains the usual ordering of $\mathbf{On}$). Clearly $I_{\mathbf{W}} ( 0 ) = \mathbf{On} \setminus \{ 0 \}$ is not a set.

share|improve this answer
    
Yay! I thought you might be on vacation because I didn't get any answers from you for a while. Thank you for this nice answer. : ) –  Matt N. Dec 22 '12 at 19:42
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.