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.

I'm struggling to solve the following old exam problem:

Assume $\mathsf{ZFC}+V=L$. Prove that if $M$ is any uncountable transitive set such that $(M,\in)\models\mathsf{ZFC}$, then $(M,\in)\models$ "every set of integers is constructible".

I think it should be a standard Condensation argument, but I can't get it to work. A couple of observations:

  1. It is a standard Condensation argument easy if $M$ (rather than $V$) satisfies $V=L$.
  2. The proof that the $\mathsf{GCH}$ holds in $L$ gives that every constructible subset of $L_{\omega}$ is a member of $L_{\omega_1}$. Assuming $V=L$, this means that $P(\omega)\subseteq L_{\omega_1}$. Therefore it suffices to show (though I don't see how, and I'm not sure that it's necessarily true) that every countable ordinal belongs to $M$, so that $M$ contains $L_{\omega_1}$. If this were true, then $M$ would not only believe that every real is constructible; it would contain every constructible real and the ordinal witnessing its constructibility.
  3. $L^M = L_\alpha$ for some $\alpha$.
  4. If $\sup(\mathrm{ON}\cap M)$ is countable, then (since $M$ is uncountable) $M$ must contain sets of arbitrarily large $L$-rank below $\omega_1$. Again, it seems unlikely that $\sup(\mathrm{ON}\cap M)$ could be countable, but I don't see how to prove that it can't be.

Anyone see what I'm missing?

share|improve this question
1  
By "a couple of" I meant "four". –  Zach N Feb 22 '13 at 7:08
1  
If $M$ satisfies $V=L$, then $M$ satisfies "every set (of integers or other things) is constructible" by definition, not by a condensation argument. –  Amit Kumar Gupta Feb 22 '13 at 7:10
    
You're right, of course. Good point. –  Zach N Feb 22 '13 at 7:11

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

If the height of $M$ is countable, then some $V_\alpha^M$ is uncountable, but then it cannot be in bijection with an ordinal of $M$. This is a contradiction.

It follows that the height of $M$ is uncountable, but then you are done, because $L^M$ is $L_\alpha$ for some uncountable $\alpha$. But $L_{\omega_1}$ already contains all reals.

share|improve this answer
    
Argh! This is frustratingly simple, but correct and very helpful. Thank you! –  Zach N Feb 22 '13 at 7:18

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.