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

Since I still have some trouble with transferring theorems of ZFC into the Boolean-valued framework, would someone more at ease with this check the following short calculation?

This is a proposition in Jech's book, stating that $$\|z\text{ is an ordinal}\|=\bigvee_{\alpha\in\mathbf{ON}}\|z=\check{\alpha}\|$$ I can follow the proof given, but want to confirm the following proof of the inequality $$\|z\text{ is an ordinal}\|\leq\|z\in\check{\alpha}\|\vee\|z=\check{\alpha}\|\vee\|\check{\alpha}\in z\|$$

Fix a $B$-name $z$ and an ordinal $\alpha$. Classically, if $z$ were an ordinal, it would be comparable with $\alpha$, i.e. either $z\in\alpha,z=\alpha$ or $\alpha\in z$. However, the universal closure of this statement with respect to $z$ is not $\Delta_0$, so we can't directly use absoluteness (some sort of closure is required to avoid producing a check on $z$). Instead, we find $z$'s place in the von Neumann hierarchy, $z\in V_\gamma$. We can then take the universal closure of the above statement, bounded to $V_\gamma$, which is $\Delta_0$, and get $$\|\forall y\in\check{V_\gamma}:y\text{ is an ordinal}\Rightarrow y\in\check{\alpha}\vee y=\check{\alpha}\vee\check{\alpha}\in y\|=1$$ We can then specify this to $z$ and get the desired result.

I suppose this "trick" of replacing an unbounded quantifier with a bounded one is pretty standard. I realize all of this might be moot since we know that all of the axioms of ZFC are valid in $V^B$, which means all of the theorems are also valid. But since Jech proves the result in question before proving that $V^B$ models ZFC, I thought there must be a simpler way.

EDITED: After further thought, what I wrote above is wrong. We can't specify to $z$, but only to $\check{z}$. I'm at a loss again.

share|cite|improve this question
I recall a year ago when studying this I ran into the same difficulty... – Asaf Karagila Jan 7 '12 at 13:03

Let us run through the proof of the lemma (Jech's Set Theory, 3rd Millennium Edition, Lemma 14.23): $\renewcommand{\Ord}{\mathrm{Ord}} \renewcommand{\Dom}{\operatorname{Dom}}$

Lemma 14.23: For every $x\in V^B$, $$\|x\text{ is an ordinal}\|=\sum_{\alpha\in\Ord}\|x=\check\alpha\|$$

For shortness sake, I'll denote $\phi(x)=x\text{ is an ordinal}$.

Proof: By a previous lemma, $\phi(x)$ is a $\Delta_0$ formula and thus absolute between $V$ and $V^B$. This means that $\|\phi(\check\alpha)\|=1$ for every $\alpha\in\Ord$, and clearly $\|x=\check\alpha\rightarrow\phi(x)\|=1$, therefore $\|x=\check\alpha\|\le\|\phi(x)\|$, for every $\alpha$. Therefore, $\sum\|x=\check\alpha\|\le\|\phi(x)\|$.

On the other hand, let $\|\phi(x)\|=u$, then for every ordinal $\gamma$ we have: $$\|\phi(x)\land x\in\check\gamma\|\le\sum_{\alpha\in\gamma}\|x=\check\alpha\|\tag 1$$ This is because $\check\gamma(t)=1$ for every $t\in\Dom(\check\gamma)$ and $\|x\in\check\gamma\|=\sum_{t\in\Dom(\check\gamma)}\|x=t\|\cdot\check\gamma(t)$, inductively we can show that $t\in\Dom(\check\gamma)\iff t=\check\alpha$ for $\alpha\in\gamma$.

Since ordinals are comparable then for every $\alpha$ we have: $$u=\|\phi(x)\|\le\|x\in\check\alpha\|+\|x=\check\alpha\|+\|\check\alpha\in x\|$$

This statement is equivalent to saying that $\phi(x)$ implies that $x$ and $\alpha$ are comparable, which is what we wanted to say.

Now since there is only set many $\alpha$ such that $x(\check\alpha)\neq 0$, we have that there is some $\gamma$ such that $u\le\|x\subseteq\check\gamma\|$, thus $\|\phi(x)\|\le\|x\subseteq\check\gamma\|$, and it means that $\|\phi(x)\|\le\|\phi(x)\land x\in\check\gamma\|$. Using $(1)$ we yield:

$$u=\|\phi(x)\|\le\sum_{\alpha\in\gamma}\|x=\check\alpha\|\le\sum_{\alpha\in\Ord}\|x=\check\alpha\|\le u$$

share|cite|improve this answer
First of all, I think we can do away with (1). $\|x\in\check{\alpha}\|+\|x=\check{\alpha}\|$ is the same as $\sum_{\beta\leq\alpha}\|x=\check{\beta}\|$. So, if we raise $\alpha$ sufficiently, we'll have $u\leq\sum_{\beta\leq\alpha}\|x=\check{\beta}\|$, which is enough. Secondly, I think I'm still not clear on the trichotomy inequality. Are you saying that the statement that ordinals are comparable is provable in pure predicate calculus? – Miha Habič Jan 7 '12 at 23:54
@Miha: The order of the ordinals is by $\in$, so $\varphi(x,y)=x\in y$ is the same as $x<y$ for ordinals. – Asaf Karagila Jan 8 '12 at 0:00
I'm sorry. It might be because it's late here, but I don't see what you're saying. $\phi(x)$ does indeed imply that $x$ and $\alpha$ are comparable, however, when pushing this formula into the Boolean model, we get a check over the $x$. I'm sure I'm misunderstanding you somewhere. – Miha Habič Jan 8 '12 at 0:22
@Miha: In ZF every two ordinals are comparable, because we defined the ordinals as transitive $\in$-well ordered sets. It follows that either $\alpha=\beta$ or $\alpha\in\beta$ or $\beta\in\alpha$. In the Boolean valued model we don't say that $\|\phi(x)\|$ is always valid, of course not. We say that it is the supremum of how equal you are to a real ordinal. – Asaf Karagila Jan 8 '12 at 7:10
up vote 1 down vote accepted

Actually, it seems everything is all right. If I haven't made a mistake, all you need to prove that ordinals are comparable is Extensionality, and Jech proves that Extensionality is valid in $V^B$ in Lemma 14.17. So the result does need some validity of set theory in the Boolean-valued model

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.