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.

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

Background and motivation: The following theorem is due to Silver:

If there exists a Ramsey cardinal then:

  1. For every $\aleph_0 < \kappa < \lambda$, $L_{\kappa}$ is an elementary submodel of $L_\lambda$ .

2.There is a unique closed unbounded class $I$ such that for each cardinal $\kappa > \aleph_{0}$: $\kappa$ belongs to $I$, $I$ has $\kappa$ members below $\kappa$, they generate $L_\kappa$ and they're indiscernibles in $L_\kappa$.

Now, by elementarity and reflection combined with (1), for every $\kappa > \aleph_0$, $L_\kappa$ is an elementary submodel of $L$. Define $0^\#$ as the set of formulas $\phi$ such that $L_{\aleph_{\omega}}$ satisfies $\phi(\aleph_1,...,\aleph_n)$, then by indiscernibility (namely by (2)), $0^\#$ is the set of formulas satisfied in $L$ by increasing sequences from $I$.

Problem: I'd like to generalize the definition of $0^\#$ to arbitrary sets of ordinals. So let $A$ be a set of ordinals.

My naive approach: Change the two assumptions above by replacing each appearance of $\aleph_0$ above by $\sup A$ and by considering structures of the form $L_\kappa[A]$ with the additional relation $A$. Repeating the same arguments as above, for $\lambda$ being the first cardinal above $\sup A$, we obtain the set of formulas $\phi$ such that $\phi(\lambda^+, \lambda^{+2},...,\lambda^{+n}$) is satisfied in $L_{\lambda^{+\omega}}[A]$ (the strucure is considered with the additional one-place relation) as a candidate for $A^\#$.

Questions: My questions are about the following paper by Mitchell:

In the end of page 13, he gives a completely different definition of $A^\#$, most notably he dispenses with most of the assumptions which are analogous to (1)+(2) above.

Question 1: Is my definition of $A^\#$ flawed? why?

Question 2: What is the justification for dropping most of the assumptions above? Can we still represent $A^\#$ as a set of formulas satisfied by $I$-sequences in some $L_\kappa[A]$?

share|cite|improve this question

I'm not sure Mitchell really dispenses with the assumptions analogous to your (1) and (2). The sentence that begins on page 13 and ends on page 14 contains the assumption that $J$ is a closed proper class of indiscernibles for $L[A]$. I suspect that this implies (with some nontrivial work) most if not all of the analogues of (1) and (2). I further suspect that Mitchell has in mind a metatheory that allows him to talk about truth in proper-class models, rather than using circumlocutions about reflection.

To get started on extracting the analogues of (1) and (2) from Michell's hypothesis, I'd notice that the minimum of $J$ must be above the supremum of $A$. Then, in the structure $(L[A],\in)$, form the Skolem hull of the union of $J$ and the supremum of $A$. The transitive collapse of this Skolem hull won't move the elements of $A$, and it follows that the transitive collapse is $L[A]$ itself. Meanwhile, $J$ has collapsed down to a much nicer class $I$ of indiscernibles (satisfying the same formulas as $J$ in $L[A]$). In particular, I expect $I$ to be still a club in Ord (as $J$ was), to contain all cardinals $\kappa>\sup(A)$, to have $\kappa$ elements below such a $\kappa$, and to generally behave the way you described in (1) and (2).

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.