There are two concepts of "models" in set theory: one says that for each axiom $\phi$ of ZFC, $\phi^M$ holds. Remaining one just says that $M\models \mathsf{ZFC}$. First one is a schema rather a single statement. Second one is a single statement and $M$ possibly satisfies the non-standard axioms of ZFC.

We know that $L$ is an inner model of ZFC, that is, every relativized axiom over $L$ holds. My question is, if $M$ is a transitive model of ZFC, then $L^M\models \mathsf{ZFC}$? $L^M$ should be $L_\gamma$ for some $\gamma$, and $L^M$ satisfies all "standard" axioms of ZFC. Can it possible that some non-standard axiom fails on $L^M$? Thanks for any help.

  • $\begingroup$ What axiom (schema) are you using? There are multiple common axiomatizations of ZFC in use, AFAIK. And relatedly, how are you defining 'non-standard' axioms; as axioms whose Godel numbers correspond to non-standard integers? Those may not be well-formed, and it's not immediately clear how one can specifically speak of non-standard axioms... $\endgroup$ – Steven Stadnicki Jan 2 '16 at 11:48
  • $\begingroup$ @StevenStadnicki I wonder what axioms I used are important in my question, but for convenience, I assume the axioms in Wikipedia. $\endgroup$ – Hanul Jeon Jan 2 '16 at 11:53

Given an axiom $\varphi$ of $\sf ZFC$, it is provable from $\sf ZF$ that $\varphi^L$ holds. This means that as a meta-theorem, if $M$ is a model of $\sf ZF$, then $L^M$ is a model of $\sf ZFC$.

You are correct to assume that if $M$ is a transitive model, then $L^M$ is $L_\gamma$ for some $\gamma$. Or if $M$ is a class, then $L^M$ is just $L$ again.

But then your question takes a turn into unclear waters. Non-standard axioms occur when you have a non-standard model, with non-standard integers, and internally it has new axioms of $\sf ZFC$ which need not hold externally. If $M$ is transitive, then this is certainly not the case.

Moreover, the truth is a meta-theoretic concept, namely it is not part of $M$ but rather a part of $V$. So asking whether or not a statement is true or false is done in the meta-theory, and non-standard axioms live - by definition - internally to non-standard models, which are models which disagree with the meta-theory by definition.

So in other words, the meta-theory is not aware of any "non-standard axioms", so it certainly cannot tell you whether or not they are true or false in $L^M$, even if $M$ was a non-standard model.

  • $\begingroup$ I concern when $V$ is non-standard universe, that is, when $V$ has a non-standard natural numbers. As far as I imagine, when $V$ is non-standard, our formalized ZFC could have non-standard axiom, but meta-theory does not recognize such non-standard ones. However, even if that case your answer implies that $L^M$ could not satisfy whole $\mathsf{ZFC}$ formalized in $V$, right? $\endgroup$ – Hanul Jeon Jan 2 '16 at 12:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ But the point is that it doesn't matter. The proof that $L^M$ is a model of $\sf ZFC$ happens in $V$, and therefore it satisfies all the axioms that $V$ knows about. You want to take this proof to the meta-meta-theory, and then argue that because you only proved this in the meta-meta-theory, there are axioms from the meta-theory which might not hold in $L^M$. But the proof goes through in the meta-theory, so even if you do jump to the meta-meta-theory, it will not invalidate the one from the meta-theory. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jan 2 '16 at 12:05
  • $\begingroup$ I am bit confused. I have not considered or thought the meta-meta-theory. In my belief, all natural numbers in meta-theory could be standard unless $V$ has non-standard natural numbers, and every (standard?) formulas for $V$ are coded by naturals in the meta-theory. I conceive and ask my question over that belief. Have I gotten the wrong belief? $\endgroup$ – Hanul Jeon Jan 2 '16 at 12:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ We say that a model has non-standard integers if it disagrees with its meta-theory. So by definition, the meta-theory only has standard integers. If you want to involve meta-meta-theory, then you can have a meta-theory which disagrees with its meta-theory (the meta-meta-theory), but then everything becomes messy, and there's very little point in doing so. So mostly we work inside $V$ with a model $M$. So $V$ cannot have non-standard integers. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jan 2 '16 at 12:50
  • $\begingroup$ I noticed you unaccepted. That's fine, but I'd be happy to know what I can do to give you a better answer. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jan 16 '16 at 15:13

The problem I imagine is that formulas are not an object in $V$. As far as I know formulas live outside $V$. As I described it makes some technical problem.

For example, consider the theory $$ZFC + \exists c:\text{$c$ is countable transitive and $\phi^c$ for each axiom $\phi$ of ZFC}.$$ (It is described in Ch. 9, section 9 (1b) in Kunen's old set theory. I have seen its name but I forgot it.) Such theory is not $\omega$-consistent and if $V$ is a model of such theory then $V$ should have non-standard naturals. (Is it right?) Now we gaze the inside of $V$. By Gödel, $c$ does not think that itself satisfies (formalized) ZFC, though it satisfies all "standard" axioms of ZFC.

I think my question is related such situation. When proving $L$ is an inner model of ZFC, we provide $\phi^L$ holds for each axiom $\phi$. But I realized that if we apply same argument to proving $L^M$ is an inner model of $M$ then the argument says that for each (coded) axioms of ZFC $\ulcorner\phi\urcorner$, $M\models \ulcorner\phi^L\urcorner$. By induction for $\ulcorner\phi\urcorner$ we can check that $M\models \ulcorner\phi^L\urcorner$ if and only if $L^M\models \ulcorner\phi\urcorner$. Thus $L^M$ is really a model of ZFC (and in fact a model of $ZFC+ V=L$.)

Is my reasoning right?

  • $\begingroup$ The idea is generally correct. Some remarks: (1) The theory is due to Feferman, not sure if it has a common name, though; (2) if $V$ satisfies the theory it's not necessarily the case that $V$ should have non-standard integers, but it might be the case; (3) $M^L$ should be $L^M$, I'm guessing. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jan 17 '16 at 21:32
  • $\begingroup$ @Asaf Yep, $M^L$ is a typo of $L^M$ so I will edit it. $\endgroup$ – Hanul Jeon Jan 18 '16 at 5:52

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.