This tag is for set theory topics typically studied at the advanced undergraduate or graduate level. These include cofinality, axioms of ZFC, axiom of choice, forcing, set-theoretic independence, large cardinals, models of set theory, ultrafilters, ultrapowers, constructible universe, inner model ...

learn more… | top users | synonyms

4
votes
2answers
53 views

Equivalence between different forms of the Axiom of Infinity

In Zermelo-Frankel set theory, the Axiom of Infinity is often stated as "There exists a set $X$ such that $\emptyset \in X$ and such that if $y\in X$ then $S^{+}_1(y)\in X$", where we take the ...
1
vote
1answer
38 views

Limiting the set of “constructible” properties, and loosening comprehension axiom

My historical understanding (which may very well be wrong) is that initially there was naive comprehension for set construction, which required no superset. Russell's Paradox came along and blew that ...
6
votes
1answer
91 views

Dominating strategically $\omega_1$ reals

For a given $\kappa > \omega$, define the game $d(\kappa)$: In every stage, player I chooses a sequence of elements of $\omega$, $g_n$ of length $\kappa$, and player II picks a natural number ...
5
votes
1answer
72 views

Diamond at singulars

I'm sure this is a silly question. Suppose $\lambda$ is a singular cardinal of uncountable cofinality. Then surely $\diamondsuit_\lambda$ must fail. But why? Just in case, let me specify that by ...
2
votes
0answers
46 views

Is there a 'largest' second-order categorical axiomatization of set theory, extended from ZFC2

While it's possible to obtain categorical second-order axiomatizations of set theory by extending ZFC2 with additional axioms (see [1]), these axioms seem somewhat arbitrary (e.g. adding an axiom that ...
4
votes
1answer
61 views

Find a dense embedding from specific forcing poset to any countable forcing poset

I tried to prove this in the Kunen's set theory: Let $P$ be a countable non-atomic partial order. Show that there is a dense embedding from $T = \{p\in\operatorname{Fn}(\omega,\omega) ...
2
votes
2answers
57 views

Are categorical second-order axiomatizations of set theory inconsistent due to the axiom of replacement

Second-order ZFC is nearly categorical, except that it does not determine the 'height' of the cumulative hierarchy (intuitively speaking). However, additional axioms can be added to second-order ZFC ...
0
votes
0answers
55 views

Another way of extending the Banach-Tarski paradox?

I've learned the Banach-Tarski paradox as following: The points on the sphere (but not the fixed points) are drawn as a square grid, form each point there are three new directions plus the direction ...
3
votes
1answer
59 views

Extending Banach-Tarski paradox?

I've learned the Banach-Tarski paradox as following: The points on the sphere (but not the fixed points) are drawn as a square grid, form each point there are three new directions plus the direction ...
0
votes
2answers
42 views

Definition of $\mathbb{P}$-name with index number

I've just started studying forcing. Currently, I am struggling to understand what is a $\mathbb{P}$-name in the first chapter in the Shelah's book page 6 ...
0
votes
2answers
91 views

Cardinality and Concrete Mathematics

First, let me distinguish Concrete Mathematics ( Mathematic branches that studies fixed structures ) from Abstract Mathematics ( branches that study classes of structures, such as algebra , topology, ...
1
vote
0answers
45 views

Choice of a skeleton

Suppose we are in presence of a strong enough axiom of choice (e.g., choice for conglomerates). I know that any category has a skeleton, but I would like to know if I can choose a skeleton which ...
1
vote
1answer
49 views

In P. Cohen's models (or others) may we have $\neg\mathsf{AC}+\mathsf{CH}$? May we have $\neg \mathsf{AC} + \neg \mathsf{CH}$?

I know we have the consistency of $\mathsf{ZF} + \mathsf{AC} + \mathsf{GCH}$, $\mathsf{ZF} + \neg \mathsf{AC}$, and $\mathsf{ZF} + \mathsf{AC} + \neg \mathsf{GCH}$. What about $\mathsf{ZF} + \neg ...
5
votes
2answers
74 views

What questions are independent from the axiom of constructibility?

Wikipedia gives a list of statements true in L which would be true also for set theory if the axiom of constructibility (V=L) holds. However I wonder about the converse: Are there any important open ...
1
vote
0answers
46 views

First order logic and Second order logic: a question regarding domains

(1) I understood that in the language of first order logic quantification cannot be over sets (there are no predicate variables that can be bound by quantifiers), whereas the language of second-order ...
1
vote
0answers
50 views

First order logic and first order set theory

(1) I understood that in the language of first order logic quantification cannot be over sets (there are no predicate variables that can be bound by quantifiers), whereas the language of second-order ...
3
votes
1answer
73 views

Exercise 23.10 of Jech's book

I would need a hint for Exercise 23.10 of Jech's Set Theory (third edition), which states: If $\kappa$ is a regular cardinal, then there exists a strongly almost disjoint family ...
5
votes
1answer
79 views

Definability in $L(\omega_1)$

I'm trying to solve problem II.6.35 in Kunen's book, which asks to prove that if $V=L$, then the set $B$ of $\beta<\omega_1$ such that $L(\beta)\models ZF-P$ and every element of $L(\beta)$ is ...
10
votes
3answers
257 views

Does every cover have an irredundant subcover?

While composing an answer for this question, I got troubled by a technical point. I wanted to assert the existence of an irredundant subcover of a given open cover, but realized I'm not sure how to ...
4
votes
2answers
46 views

show that there is a $\mathbb P$-name $\sigma$ such that $M[G]\vDash \exists x\phi (x) \iff M[G]\vDash \phi (\sigma [G])$

I want to show that there is a $\mathbb P$-name $\sigma$ such that for every $G$ a generic filter we will have $$M[G]\vDash \exists x\phi (x) \iff M[G]\vDash \phi (\sigma [G])$$ while $\phi (x)$ is a ...
1
vote
3answers
136 views

Isn't the axiom of determinacy inconsistent with ZF? What am I overlooking?

I'm sure there's something I'm missing here; probably a naive confusion of mathematics with metamathematics. Regardless, I've come up with what looks to me like a proof that (first-order) ZF+AD is ...
1
vote
0answers
88 views

How can nontrivial elementary embeddings of the universe to some inner model be surjective?

Consider $\kappa$ to the least measurable cardinal, or equivalently $\kappa$ is the critical point for an elementary embedding $j:V \rightarrow M$ from the universe $V$ to an inner model $M$ (critical ...
3
votes
0answers
45 views

Adding bounded quantifiers increases complexity in $L$

I'm reading Devlin's Constructability to learn about $L$. Following the proof that $L_\alpha$ has a $\Sigma_1$ skolem function for limit $\alpha>\omega$ (II.6.5), the author notes Notice that ...
1
vote
2answers
48 views

The class of all functions between classes (NBG)

Is it possible in NBG (von Neumann-Bernays-Gödel set theory) to construct the class of all functions $X \to Y$ between two (proper) classes $X,Y$? I guess that this does not work. In the special case ...
4
votes
2answers
105 views

How should the relativized Kleene pointclass $\Sigma^1_1(A)$ be defined?

How should the relativized Kleene pointclass $\Sigma^1_1(A)$ be defined, when $A$ is a set of reals ($A \subset \omega^\omega$)? I assume that there is a standard definition, but I can't seem to find ...
4
votes
2answers
99 views

A Ramsey-type result for families of subsets

Let $S$ be a set of cardinality $\aleph_1$. Consider the directed family $\mathcal{C}$ (here directed means directed with respect to the inclusion) of all countably infinite subsets of $S$. Suppose ...
6
votes
2answers
63 views

There is no sequence $X_n$ such that $\forall n(\mathscr P(X_{n+1})\preceq X_n)$.

I'm working on the following exercise from Kunen: Define, in ZF without the axiom of regularity, $\aleph(X)=\{\alpha: > \exists f \in \, ^\alpha X(f \text{ is } 1-1\}$. Show: ...
0
votes
1answer
32 views

Using ordinal arithmetic calculate the following ordinal numbers

(ω + 1) x ω (ω + 1) x 2 For Question #2, I can simplify to the point where I get (ω + (ω + 1)), but I'm not sure how to proceed from there
3
votes
1answer
78 views

Hilbert–Bernays provability conditions

Let "provability formula" ${\rm Prf}(x, y)$ written in the manner that provability operator $\square A$ defined as $\exists x\ {\rm Prf}(x, \overline A)$ satisfying Hilbert–Bernays axioms: If ZF ...
1
vote
1answer
54 views

Exercise (3) of Chapter III from Kunen's Set Theory: Intro to Independence Proofs

I'm a little stumped on the aforementioned question. It's statement is as follows: Let $M$ Be any class such that $\forall$x (x $\subset$ $M$ $\rightarrow$ x $\in$ $M$). Show that $WF$ $\subset$ ...
1
vote
2answers
74 views

Every II-finite set is III-finite

I need some help proving that if a set $X$ is II-finite then it is III-finite, i.e. if every non-empty family of subsets of $X$ which is linearly ordered by inclusion has a maximal element under ...
4
votes
0answers
61 views

$\phi(\mathbb{P}\ast \mathbb{\dot{Q}})$ has property $\mu$-linked and $\mu$-centered.

Let $\mathbb{P}$ be a poset and $\mathbb{\dot{Q}}$ be a $\mathbb{P}$-name of a poset. If $\phi(\mathbb{P})$ and $\Vdash_{\mathbb{P}} \phi(\mathbb{\dot{Q}})$, then $\phi(\mathbb{P}\ast ...
2
votes
1answer
43 views

forcing over a dense set.

I want to show that given a countable transitive model $M$ a notion of forcing $\mathbb P$ and a generic filter $G$, then forcing over a dense set of $\mathbb P$, $D$ is just as forcing over $\mathbb ...
0
votes
1answer
34 views

Function on a well-ordered set

Let $(W,<)$ be a well ordered set. Let $f : W\rightarrow W$ be a function such that $u < v$ implies $f(u) < f(v)$. Show that $\forall w \in W, w \leq f(w)$. I was thinking to consider $T=\{x ...
3
votes
1answer
41 views

A generalization of “any countable limit ordinal is the union of a sequence of increasing ordinal”

Using the fact that every countable ordinal is isomorphic to a closed subset of $\mathbb Q$, I find out that any countable limit ordinal is the union of a sequence of increasing ordinal. Now I'm ...
2
votes
1answer
48 views

The Amoeba poset has property Knaster.?

The Amoeba poset has property Knaster.? Amoeba poset $\mathbb{P}=\{p \subseteq \mathbb{R}: p$ $\text{is open} \wedge \mu(p)< \epsilon\}$ for $\epsilon>0$. Any suggestion. Thanks
4
votes
1answer
87 views

No Borel well-order of the reals?

I'm told there is no Borel well-order of the reals (in ZFC). I'm told, in fact, that this is because of Borel determinacy. However, this is usually a vague handwave of the form (a) take the usual ...
11
votes
4answers
198 views

Is $2^{\aleph_0} = \aleph_1$?

I was reading a thread on Examples of Common False Beliefs in Mathematics on MathOverflow, in which a user wrote: $$2^{\aleph_0} = \aleph_1$$ This is a pet peeve of mine, I'm always surprised ...
3
votes
2answers
129 views

Do we know if the consistency of $ \mathsf{ZFC} $ is sufficient to prove that $ \mathsf{ZFC} \nvdash \text{Con}(\mathsf{ZFC}) \to \mathsf{SM} $?

This is basically a sequel to this earlier post. There, I asked: If $ \mathsf{ZFC} $ is consistent, then is $ \mathsf{ZFC} \nvdash \neg \text{Con}(\mathsf{ZFC}) $, i.e., $ \neg ...
0
votes
1answer
35 views

uncountable repetitions

I have a question (or two) about recursive naming conventions. Consider the following recursive naming sequence: Base step: Let S be any nonempty set. Let x be any arbitrary element of S. Let S* be ...
1
vote
1answer
55 views

informal semantics regarding CH and AC

why is the assertion $\aleph_1=2^{\aleph_0}$ referred to as a hypothesis, whereas $$\forall \alpha( S_\alpha \ne \varnothing) \Rightarrow \prod_\alpha S_\alpha \ne \varnothing$$ is called an axiom? ...
2
votes
0answers
55 views

Dependence of axioms of Zermelo set theory

I'm reading a book about Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, and I was told that there are a lot of dependence relation among the commonly used axiom system (in the question What axioms does ZF have, ...
1
vote
1answer
95 views

Reference request for the independence of $ \text{Con}(\mathsf{ZFC}) $.

Gödel’s Second Incompleteness Theorem says that if $ \mathsf{ZFC} $ is consistent, then $ \mathsf{ZFC} \nvdash \text{Con}(\mathsf{ZFC}) $, i.e., $ \text{Con}(\mathsf{ZFC}) $ is not provable in $ ...
1
vote
0answers
37 views

Surreal numbers in set theories other than ZFC

This isn't really a question rather than my thoughts on these things; I initially had questions but believe I managed to answer them. Regardless, here goes. Feel free to correct any mistakes, as I'm a ...
0
votes
1answer
92 views

Breaking the AC barrier using Kelley-Morse set theory

In her blog post Variants of Kelley-Morse set theory, Prof. Gitman proves that every model of the the common version of Kelley-Morse set theory ($\mathsf{KM}$) is a model of the Wikipedia version of ...
0
votes
1answer
33 views

Every set with more than point admits a permutation with no fixed point and the Axiom of Choice [duplicate]

Assuming axiom of choice , for any set $S$ with more than one point , there exist a bijection $f:S \to S$ such that $f(s) \ne s , \forall s \in S$ . Is the converse true , i.e. Does the statement " ...
2
votes
1answer
48 views

How to define “is a structure” by a first-order formula of ZFC

So, I've been trying to define a series of notions by first-order formulas in ZFC, and I'd like to know if I'm getting this right. In particular, I'd like to know if my formula for defining a ...
7
votes
0answers
100 views

Order-preserving map of regressive functions on $\omega_1$

I posted the following question a year ago on MO. It did receive some attention, but the answer there remains incomplete (as discussed in some detail in its comments). Meanwhile I got the impression ...
2
votes
1answer
54 views

Consequences of the negation of the Axiom of Dependent Choice

It seems to me that a proper reason to include The Axiom of Choice as a foundational axiom of set theory should be based on the observation that the negation of The Axiom of Choice has absurd ...
-2
votes
0answers
26 views

Cardinal numbers greater than $\omega$ , ZF [duplicate]

Prove in $ZF$ that for every cardinal number exists a greater cardinal number. I managed to prove this fact in $ZFC$. But without using axiom of choice I can't well-order P(A), and can't build ...