We know that the constructible universe $L$ is an absolute and minimal model of ZF (every standard model of ZF contains "an" $L$, and it is actually the same $L$ for all of them).

It is also my understanding that the existence of $0\sharp$ informally means that $V$ is much "bigger" than $L$ (meaning that if $0\sharp$ exists then even $\aleph_1$ is already an inaccessible cardinal in $L$) and that a sort of converse is true (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jensen%27s_covering_theorem).

Therefore my question is: Is there an absolute minimal model of ZF + $\exists0\sharp$ ? A sort of "$L\sharp$" if we really want to abuse notation?

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Sure. The model is denoted $L[0^\sharp]$. You mimic the construction of $L$, but allow in your language a predicate for $0^\sharp$ (understood as a set of numbers). $\endgroup$ – Andrés E. Caicedo Feb 28 '16 at 0:18
  • $\begingroup$ Isn't $L(0\sharp)$ smaller? $\endgroup$ – Alon Navon Feb 28 '16 at 0:26
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ We have $L[0^\sharp] = L(0^\sharp)$: In general, for any given set $A$, we have $L[A] \subseteq L(A)$ with equalitiy if and only if $A \cap L[A] = A$. Since $0^\sharp$ may be regarded as a subset of $\omega$, we have $0^\sharp \subseteq L \subseteq L[0^\sharp]$ and thus the claimed equality. $\endgroup$ – Stefan Mesken Feb 28 '16 at 0:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Stefan Thank you very much, I got my relative constructibility all mixed up, and you cleared a lot. :) This means in essence that we can define a "sharp" sequence. $L_0 = L$, $L_1 = L[0^\sharp]$, $L_2 = L[0^{\sharp\sharp}]$, etc... Just wondering whether there is any use for this? Any other nice properties that make these "L's" "L-ish"? $\endgroup$ – Alon Navon Feb 28 '16 at 0:49
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Well, $L[A]$ is similar to $L$ in a lot of ways - a major reason for this is, that the usual condensation lemma generalizes to $L[A]$ (which allows us to prove $\operatorname{GCH}$, $\Diamond_\kappa$, $\square_\kappa$, ... on a "tail segment" of $L[A]$). $\endgroup$ – Stefan Mesken Feb 28 '16 at 1:19

Yes, the minimal such model is $L[0^\sharp]$. This model can be built by stages, just as $L$, starting with the empty set, taking unions at limit stages, and at each successor stage $\alpha+1$ taking the collection of subsets of $L_\alpha[0^\sharp]$ definable in $(L_\alpha[0^\sharp],\in,0^\sharp)$ from parameters. Here, $0^\sharp$ can be thought of as a set of natural numbers, and definability is in the language of set theory with one additional predicate.

Note that for each finite $n$, $L_n[0^\sharp]=L_n$ (that is, the universes of both structures coincide) and so $L_\omega[0^\sharp]=L_\omega$. However, $0^\sharp$ is now definable at this stage (as the set of numbers satisfying the new predicate), so $0^\sharp\in L[0^\sharp]$.

This is not quite enough. Let $\varphi(x)$ be the formula in the language of set theory stating that $x$ is $0^\sharp$, i.e., stating that $x$ is the unique EM blueprint satisfying the three indiscernibility conditions listed in section 9 of

MR1994835 (2004f:03092) Kanamori, Akihiro. The higher infinite. Large cardinals in set theory from their beginnings. Second edition. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003. xxii+536 pp. ISBN: 3-540-00384-3.

One should also check that $L[0^\sharp]\models \varphi(0^\sharp)$, and that whenever $M$ is an inner model and $M\models\varphi(a)$ for some $a$, then $0^\sharp$ exists in $V$ and $a=0^\sharp$, so that $L[0^\sharp]\subseteq M$. This is essentially an absoluteness argument, but it is a bit technical so I will skip the details here. The point of proving this is that not only is $L[0^\sharp]$ the smallest such model, but it knows it, in the sense that it satisfies $L[0^\sharp]\models V=L[0^\sharp]$, and is contained in any inner model that believes in the existence of $0^\sharp$.

One can prove more as well, for instance, $L[0^\sharp]$ satisfies appropriate analogues of the fine structural properties of $L$, so it is not just the least model containing $0^\sharp$, it is also a very well-behaved model. Naturally, the construction generalizes to more general sharps and other inner-model theoretic objects, although the absoluteness requirements become more involved.


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.