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

Say you have a model $M$ (of $\mathsf{ZF}$) containing a set $S$ that you know is countable outside the model but the enumeration is missing from the model so that $S$ appears to be uncountable in $M$.

Is it possible to add to the model a bijection between $S$ and a set $S'$ that is uncountable outside the model? And similarly, is it possible to add to the model a bijection between $S$ and an uncountable cardinal, say $\aleph_1^M$?

share|cite|improve this question
No. For, the modelled bijection would witness uncountability of $S$ outside the model as well. (NB. This response assumes we are talking about models of set theory and that "function" is interpreted in its set-theoretic sense.) – Lord_Farin Jun 25 '13 at 15:52

I assume by "model" you mean "model of set theory". In question two, I'll also assume that $M$ is transitive and countable, so we do not have to worry about whether generics over $M$ exist, which is a technical issue that I believe would distract us from the problem at hand.

The answer to the first question is no: A bijection between $S$ and an uncountable set $T$ would give us that $S$ is uncountable, against your assumption (if $S$ is countable, the enumeration does not go "away" by adding more sets to $M$).

The answer to the second question, on the other hand, is yes. The method of forcing allows you to do that, resulting in a larger model $M[f]$ where $f$ is a bijection in $M$ between $S$ and, say, $\aleph_1^M$. Of course, we have that $\aleph_1^{M[f]}>\aleph_1^M$.

That said, we can of course have a situation where $M\in N$ and $N$ is a model of set theory, and we have in $M$ a set $T$ that $N$ believes is uncountable, although $T$ is truly countable in the outside world, and we could then add to $M$ a bijection between $S$ and $T$. This would, of course, destroy the fact that $T$ is uncountable. This can be achieved by forcing over $N$. We then obtain models $M[f]\subset N[f]$ with $T$ countable in both.

More complicated scenarios are also possible where the extension is not achieved via forcing. For example, if enough large cardinals exist, then $\aleph_1^L$ is countable in $V$, and there is a real $0^\sharp$ such that in $L[0^\sharp]$ we have that $\aleph_1^L$ is countable. The real $0^\sharp$ cannot be added by forcing.

Or we can have countable (but not transitive) $M\preceq N$ where $N$ is an end extension of $M$, and it is easy to arrange that the transitive collapse $\hat N$ of $N$ would be a superset of the transitive collapse $\hat M$ of $M$ and see as countable some sets that in $\hat M$ were uncountable.

More interesting "paradoxes" can be achieved: If you are willing to relax the requirement that $M$ is transitive. For example, H. Putnam noticed that as a straightforward corollary of Shoenfield's absoluteness, we have that any real (even $0^\sharp$) belongs to an $\omega$-model of $V=L$.

If there are enough large cardinals (in the true universe), in $L$ there will be transitive countable models $M$ of $V=L[0^\sharp]$, and more. By adding cardinals on top, we will eventually reach a countable $\alpha$ such that $L_\alpha$ is a model of set theory, all of $M$ belongs to $L_\alpha$, and all the members of $M$ are countable in $L_\alpha$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Well, you can always take an end extension first... (if one exists!) :-) – Asaf Karagila Jun 25 '13 at 16:00
@AsafKaragila Hehe. I was typing precisely an example with end-extensions while you wrote that. – Andrés E. Caicedo Jun 25 '13 at 16:10
That's an interesting observation by Putnam. How does that relate to the theorem that every model of $\sf ZFC$ has an end extension satisfying $V=L$? – Asaf Karagila Jun 25 '13 at 16:22
That is more as the last example I suggested, though more complicated versions can be achieved via Barwise compactness, and also Joel Hamkins has some interesting recent results in a different vein. I do not recall (but I haven't checked in years) the literature on Putnam's result mentioning this explicitly. – Andrés E. Caicedo Jun 25 '13 at 16:26
Sure. If there is no absoluteness between $M$ and $V$, so that an object $f$ may appear to be, say, a function in $M$ while it is not in $V$, we could have that from the point of view of some extension of $M$ we have a "bijection" between $S\in M$ and some object $T$ with $S$ being countable in the real world (and in $M$) and $T$ being uncountable in the real world. But this is not very interesting. We could just as well have a huge uncountable set be empty from the point of view of $M$. It is only in the context of absoluteness that these questions are relevant, and then it is not possible. – Andrés E. Caicedo Jun 25 '13 at 20:17

It is possible, but not without adding ordinals.

The reason is that this bijection would mean that the replacement axiom fails, because the image of a set is the whole model. But it is possible, under some circumstances, when we do add ordinals. Consider the following scenario:

Assume that we have $\kappa_0<\kappa_1$ two inaccessible cardinals, then we can take a countable elementary submode of $V_{\kappa_1}$, $M$. So $M$ thinks that there exists an inaccessible cardinal, so $N=V_{\kappa_0}^M$ is a countable model of $\sf ZFC$.

Now over $M$ we force to add a bijection between $\kappa_0^M$ and $\aleph_1^M$, call that function $G$. Now we can't add $G$ to $N$ directly, but if we also add the rest of $M$ (which is an end-extension of $N$) and then add $G$ then we have added this bijection.

It's all quite convoluted. I know. Let me try and sum up:

  1. We have $M$ which is a countable model in which there exists an inaccessible $\kappa$. $N=V_\kappa^M$ is also a model of $\sf ZFC$, and $M$ is an end-extension of $N$.
  2. Add to $M$ a bijection from $\aleph_1^M$ and $\kappa$. Call this model $M[G]$.
  3. Now we can't add $G$ to $N$ directly, but we can first go to $M$ and then add $G$.
share|cite|improve this answer

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.