Is ZFC + the following statement consistent (and if so, is it equiconsistent to some known large cardinal):

For every function $f:ORD \rightarrow ORD$ such that:

  1. $f(\alpha)\geq \alpha$,

  2. $\alpha > \beta \Rightarrow f(\alpha) \geq f(\beta)$

$\{\kappa|\kappa \text{ is regular} \wedge \forall \alpha <\kappa (f(\alpha)<\kappa)\}$ is a proper class.

This is obviously not a theorem of ZFC, as we can take $f(\alpha)=|2^{\aleph_\alpha}|$ and conclude that we have a proper class of inaccessible cardinals. Actually, using $f(\alpha) = \alpha\text{-th-inaccessible cardinal}$ we get 1-inaccessible cardinals, and then we can get hyper-inaccessibles and get at least as far up as Mahlo cardinals, maybe more.

So either this statement is somehow plainly inconsistent, or it has a consistency strength of some large cardinal.

Note: the idea behind this construction is to "take away the uniqueness" of the power function in constructing the inaccessibles. Literally, what's 'the most' we can get out of a particular function.


This is also known as "$\rm Ord$ is Mahlo". Namely, every class which is closed and unbounded has a regular cardinal in it.

It is certainly weaker than a Mahlo cardinal: If $\kappa$ is Mahlo, then $\langle V_\kappa,\in\rangle$ is a model of this theory. But this is weaker. We only need every definable class to have a regular cardinal, and in $V_\kappa$ every club will have a cardinal.

So we can reduce it a bit from Mahlo to some sufficiently inaccessible cardinal. See also http://cantorsattic.info/ORD_is_Mahlo for some details.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you Asaf. And you're right, my "proof" that we get a Mahlo cardinal was actually that we have a stationary class of inaccessible cardinals. It didn't really show that the cardinal exists. :) $\endgroup$ – Alon Navon May 24 '16 at 21:21
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The thing is that classes are definable. First-order definable. So you only need to have these clubs intersect with the regular cardinals. Not all clubs. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila May 24 '16 at 21:22

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.