I'm attempting the following exercise: (Working in $ZFC$ without foundation) Assume $0<\gamma<\delta$ and $R(\gamma)$ (also called $V_{\gamma}$ sometimes) is an elementary substruce of $R(\delta)$ then $R(\gamma)\models ZFC$ (and so $R(\delta)$ does too). I know $R(\gamma)\models ZC$ (ZFC without replacementent) whenever $\gamma$ is a limit $>\omega$. And I know how to show our $\delta$ here must be a limit and $>\omega$. So I'm just missing the replacement axiom.

The exercise includes a hint: "For the replacement axiom in $R(\gamma)$, if $A\in R(\gamma)$ and if $\forall x\in A \exists ! y \varphi(x,y)$ holds, then $\exists B \forall x\in A \exists y\in B \varphi(x,y)$ must hold in $R(\delta)$."

I don't know how to prove what the hint says, as I feel it is not even true. As I can define $\varphi(x,y) =$ "$y$ is some fixed ordinal bigger than $\delta$" and take a singleton set $A\in R(\gamma)$, and it will be true that $\forall x\in A \exists ! y \varphi(x,y)$ but there can't be a $B$ in $R(\delta)$ that contains this $y$ as this $y$ can't be in $R(\gamma)$!

Thank you for reading.

P.S. This is exercise I.16.8 from Kunen's Set Theory.

  • $\begingroup$ Doesn't the question assume things about $\gamma$ and $\delta$. $\endgroup$ – user185596 Aug 23 '16 at 14:01
  • $\begingroup$ No. Only 0 < $\gamma$ < $\delta$. One then can show that $\gamma$ must be a limit. $\endgroup$ – JKEG Aug 23 '16 at 14:06

The idea for replacement is that: If you have a function defined on your universe (by the use of a formula), then the image of a set under this class function must still be a set.

So suppose that you have $A\in{R(\gamma)}$ and $\forall{x}\in{A}\exists{!y}\varphi{(x,y)}$. Now notice that we have $B$, the image of the values of $A$ under the function given by $\varphi$, inside of $R(\gamma)$ is a set (our ambient universe which has $R(\gamma)$ etc as subclasses satisfies replacement, and as such the sets $A$, and $B$ are in our ambient universe as sets. Think about why this is true of $B$).

Now this set is a subset of $R(\gamma)$ as $\forall{x}\in{A}\exists{!y}\varphi{(x,y)}$. But the construction of the universe $R$ (or V) is such that subsets at level $\gamma$, become elements at level $\gamma+1$. So $B\in{R(\delta)}$, as a set. Now the elementarity allows us to move the existence formula downstairs to $R(\gamma)$. Thus we have the required result.

The problem with your example for the failure of this statement is that the formula $\varphi$ in some vague sense doesn't have access to the $\delta$ (you should think more about why this is: Hint, $\varphi$ is a formula of set theory, what language is $\delta$ in?) in the way you want it to.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, my confusion was that I didn't consider that $R(\gamma)\models \forall x\in A \exists ! y \varphi (x,y)$ from which $B\subseteq R(\gamma)$ follows easily. Your post cleared that up. $\endgroup$ – JKEG Aug 24 '16 at 2:39

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.