-1
$\begingroup$

Assume one has. for $V$ and for some transitive class $M$, an elementary embedding

$j$: $V$$\rightarrow$$M$ and that $j$$\neq$$id$, where $id$ is the identity.

If $V$ and $M$ satisfy $ZFC$ then the following Theorem holds

Thm. Let $\alpha$ be an ordinal.

(i) For every $\alpha$, $j$($\alpha$)$\ge$$\alpha$

(ii) $j$ moves some ordinal.

Let $\delta$ be the least ordinal moved by $j$. $\delta$ is called the critical point of $j$.

It can be proven in $ZFC$ that $\delta$ is always a cardinal.

Suppose now that $j$: $V$$\rightarrow$$M$, and $V$ and $M$ both satisfy $ZF$+$\lnot$$AC$. How can the critical point $\delta$ be defined when there exist incomparable cardinals?

I hope that this is not too silly a question. If it turns out to be silly, I will happily delete it.

(Addendum: Regarding Noah's answer to my question ("...even though the cardinalities of $V$ may not be well-ordered, the cardinals and ordinals definitely will be..."), in $ZF$+$\lnot$$AC$, there are cardinals which are not ordinals, and these may not be comparable. Since under a nontrivial elementary embedding no ordinal would be moved, could such cardinals be critical points of such an embedding?)

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $\delta$ is in that case defined as the least ordinal moved by $j$. $\endgroup$ – Andrés E. Caicedo Oct 2 '15 at 2:54
  • $\begingroup$ @AndrésCaicedo: Regardless of whether or not there incomparable cardinals? $\endgroup$ – Thomas Benjamin Oct 2 '15 at 2:56
  • $\begingroup$ @ThomasBenjamin Why does the usual definition seem unsatisfactory if choice fails? $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Oct 2 '15 at 2:57
  • $\begingroup$ @NoahSchweber: I am trying to get at the reason(s) (perhaps too indirectly--I really should come out and ask...) why it is so difficult to prove whether $ZF$ admits Reinhardt cardinals or not. I guess I have difficulty picturing what a $V$ satisfying $ZF$+$\lnot$$AC$ 'looks like' (if in fact one can actually picture such a thing...) $\endgroup$ – Thomas Benjamin Oct 2 '15 at 3:13
  • $\begingroup$ @ThomasBenjamin Why not ask that then? I'd certainly be interested in the answer. All I really know is why the standard proof doesn't work without choice (see page 82 of math.bu.edu/people/aki/d.pdf for a beautifully short proof, the most understandable I've seen), and the fact that I can't think of how to fix it. :P $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Oct 2 '15 at 3:20
3
$\begingroup$

You can define the critical point in exactly the same way.

First, note that even though the cardinalities of $V$ may not be well-ordered, the cardinals and ordinals definitely will be. EDIT: BY "cardinality," I mean cardinality in the most general sense; by "cardinal," I mean cardinality of a well-orderable set, that is, "$\aleph$-number." Equivalently, by "cardinal" I mean "ordinal which is not in bijection with any smaller ordinal."

So we still have the result that $j(\alpha)$ is an ordinal $\ge\alpha$, for every ordinal $\alpha$.

Moreover, by transfinite induction (which doesn't require choice) if $j(\alpha)=\alpha$ for every ordinal $\alpha$ then $j$ is trivial - again, this doesn't use choice.

So the answer is, the critical point can be defined in exactly the same way - as the least ordinal moved by $j$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Is this because $V$ and $M$ are well-founded? $\endgroup$ – Thomas Benjamin Oct 2 '15 at 3:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's more because $V$ thinks it is well-founded. By elementarity, $j$ sends ordinals to ordinals. Now, if $j(\alpha)<\alpha$, we must have $j^2(\alpha)<j(\alpha)$, and $j^3(\alpha)<j(\alpha)$, and so forth - and this can be recognized within $V$! So, since $V$ thinks itself well-founded, and $M$ is an inner model of $V$ (so $V$ thinks $M$ is well-founded), we must have $j(\alpha)\ge \alpha$. Similarly, the transfinite induction argument is internal, and doesn't depend on $V$ actually being well-founded. $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Oct 2 '15 at 3:05
  • $\begingroup$ I generally object treating cardinals as ordinals in ZF. $\aleph$ numbers, $\aleph$ cardinals, can already be used to designate these. But what about cardinal arithmetic? Do you call it "cardinality arithmetic" now? $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Oct 3 '15 at 7:29
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila Personally, I've always found it intuitively clearer to keep the word "cardinal" reserved for specifically well-orderable cardinalities, but I think this exchange indicates that you're right pedagogically. :) $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Oct 3 '15 at 7:38
  • $\begingroup$ @Noah: Hah! :-P $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Oct 3 '15 at 7:46

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.