8
$\begingroup$

Let $V$ be a (the) universe of sets, and $On^V$ denote the ordinals of $V$.

It is well known that there are formulae that seem to define orderings `longer than' $On^V$. For example:

$\alpha < \beta$ iff either:

(a) $\alpha$ is a limit ordinal and $\beta$ is a successor ordinal.

(b) $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are both limits and $\alpha < \beta$.

(c) $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are both successors and $\alpha < \beta$.

Prima facie such a formula defines a (non-set-like) well-order of twice the `length' of $On^{V}$. There's more interesting definable well-orderings of this kind (the mouse ordering is a good example).

My question: Putting aside foundational worries (we can work over a $V_\kappa$ or $H_\kappa$ if people feel queasy), what is the limit on the `length' of the well-orders that can be defined this way?

My guess is that it's going to be the least non-recursive ordinal above $On^V$. So, for example, in the case of $V_\omega$, the upper bound of ordinals definable in $ZFC -$ Infinity will be $\omega_1^{ck}$. The reason for this being that one can't take the supremum of objects one doesn't have -- we're only looking at what orderings are definable over a fixed model. However, it might be lower, or I might have missed something, I'm not sure.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I've noticed some possible duplication in this question (math.stackexchange.com/questions/267630/…) though the questions are a little different. I'm very suspicious that it will be the least admissible ordinal above $On^V$. $\endgroup$ – Neil Barton Jul 11 '15 at 17:05
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Related. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jul 11 '15 at 17:10
  • $\begingroup$ The upper bound of well-orders definable in ZFC$-$Infinity certainly won't be $\omega^{CK}_1$ -- because $\omega^{CK}_1$ itself is first-order definable just by going a few steps higher in the arithmetical hierarchy. $\endgroup$ – hmakholm left over Monica Jul 11 '15 at 17:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The question isn't what well-orders are definable in ZFC - Infinity, it's what well-orders are definable in ZFC - Infinity over $V_\omega$. You can't just enumerate the new ordinals and take the supremum here. $\endgroup$ – Neil Barton Jul 12 '15 at 18:25
2
$\begingroup$

This is perhaps surprisingly subtle. The short version is that this ordinal is at least sometimes, and I suspect always, much smaller than the relevant analogue of $\omega_1^{CK}$.


First, suppose $A$ is a countable structure in a finite language (e.g. a countable well-founded model of $\mathsf{ZFC}$). There are various ordinals associated to $A$ (sadly there's no standard notation here, so I'm making it up as I go along):

  • $\omega_1^{CK}(A)$ is the least ordinal not Muchnik reducible to $A$; that is, the least ordinal such that there is some copy of $A$ not computing any copy of that ordinal.

  • $\omega_1^{def}(A)$ is the least ordinal which is not interpretable in $A$ with parameters; that is, the least $\alpha$ for which there are no formulas $\varphi,\psi$ with parameters from $A$ such that $\varphi$ defines an equivalence relation on $A$ and $\psi$ defines a well-ordering of the $\varphi$-equivalence classes of ordertype $\alpha$. If we take $A$ to be a countable well-founded model of $\mathsf{ZFC}$, this is the ordinal you're asking about.

  • $\omega_1^{ad}(A)$ is the smallest ordinal $\alpha$ such that there is a transitive set $X$ of height $\alpha$ such that $X\models\mathsf{KP+Inf}$ and there is some structure $y\in X$ which is isomorphic to $A$. (The "ad" is short for "admissible.")

These are each reasonable notions of "$A$'s version of $\omega_1^{CK}$;" the first two are pretty obviously motivated, while the third is motivated by a technical theorem of Sacks. It turns out that we always have $\omega_1^{CK}(A)=\omega_1^{ad}(A)$, basically as a consequence of Sacks' theorem, but in general $\omega_1^{def}(A)$ could be surprisingly small. In particular:

$(*)\quad$ Any "sufficiently closed" countable well-founded model $A$ of $\mathsf{ZFC}$ will have $\omega_1^{CK}(A)>\omega_1^{def}(A)$.

Indeed, I suspect that no countable well-founded model $A$ of $\mathsf{ZFC}$ has $\omega_1^{CK}(A)=\omega_1^{def}(A)$; however, I haven't been able to prove this. The stumbling block is that I haven't been able to find any plausible proxy for "sufficiently closed;" in particular the theory of $A$ itself (does $A=L^A$? does $A$ have lots of large cardinals?) doesn't seem to be relevant.


What about uncountable models of $\mathsf{ZFC}$?

Well, the definitions of $\omega_1^{def}(A)$ and $\omega_1^{ad}(A)$ lift immediately to uncountable structures, and in fact there's a snappier and easier-to-prove analogue of $(*)$ in this context:

$(**)\quad$ Suppose $A$ is a well-founded model of $\mathsf{ZFC}$ and $A^\omega\subseteq A$. Then $\omega_1^{def}(A)<\omega_1^{ad}(A)$.

  • See this MO answer of mine for the proof. The original statement $(*)$ can then be (stated precisely and) proved by thinking a bit more carefully about the proof of $(**)$.

And we can go further: it turns out that we can also lift the definition of $\omega_1^{CK}(A)$ to uncountable structures $A$. To do this we replace Muchnik reducibility with generic Muchnik reducibility. Given two structures $A,B$ of arbitrary cardinality, we roughly say that $A$ is generically Muchnik reducible to $B$ if $A$ is Muchnik reducible to $B$ in any generic extension where $\vert A\vert+\vert B\vert\le\aleph_0$. By Shoenfield absoluteness this is a pretty well-behaved notion; in particular, if we let $\omega_1^{CK*}(-)$ be the "generic Muchnik" version of $\omega_1^{CK}(-)$, we get that $\omega_1^{CK*}(A)=\omega_1^{ad}(A)$ for every structure $A$ whatsoever. So even for uncountable models we have:

For at least some, and I suspect for all, transitive models $A$ of $\mathsf{ZFC}$ we have $\omega_1^{def}(A)<\omega_1^{CK*}(A)$.

(Meanwhile, if you're familiar with some higher recursion theory note as a caveat that the $\alpha$-recursion analogue of $\omega_1^{CK}(-)$ is actually surprisingly small in this context - see here.)

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.