5
$\begingroup$

From "Axiom of Infinity," Wikipedia:

[T]here is a set I (the set which is postulated to be infinite), such that the empty set is in I and such that whenever any x is a member of I, the set formed by taking the union of x with its singleton {x} is also a member of I.[...]

The infinite set I is a superset of the natural numbers. To show that the natural numbers themselves constitute a set, the axiom schema of specification can be applied to remove unwanted elements, leaving the set N of all natural numbers.

I presume that some version of Peano's Axioms will be derived in this process of extracting the natural numbers.

It has been suggested by a contributor at sci.math (not a crank), that it may be possible to derive Peano's Axioms using ZFC without AOI. Can this be true?


EDIT:

Specifically, without citing AOI, can we prove the existence of a set $N$, function $S: N \to N$ and $0\in N$ such that:

$\forall x,y \in N: [S(x)=S(y) \implies x=y]$

$\forall x\in N: S(x)\ne 0$

$\forall P\subset N: [0\in P \land \forall x\in P: [S(x)\in P] \implies P=N]$

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

EDIT: For the new version of the question, the answer is no: it is a good exercise to show that $V_\omega$, the class of hereditarily finite sets, is a counterexample. Note that while of course there is a class in $V_\omega$ with the desired properties - namely, $\omega$ itself - there is no such set. And this is an important distinction, with the class version of the question having a number of subtleties; see my original answer, which is below the fold.

Incidentally, ZF-AOI is equiconsistent with (first-order) PA. PA proves that PA has no finite model; roughly, this means that models of ZF-AOI which "come from" models of PA (essentially, which satisfy $\neg AOI$ - in particular $V_\omega$ "comes from" $\mathbb{N}$ itself) do not have an inductive set.


As usual with this type of question, the answer depends on exactly what you mean.

Here's a thing that is true:

If $M$ is a model of ZF-AOI, then $FinOrd^M$ - the set (class, as far as $M$'s concerned, but set externally) of $M$-finite ordinals is a model of first-order $PA$ (with $+, \times$ defined as usual in this context).

Now, I suspect you're actually interested in second-order PA, which I'll denote "$PA_2$". But this produces some subtleties. Namely, second-order PA only makes sense in a model of set theory. One might respond instinctively, "Well, look at $M$'s version of $PA_2$!" But there's a problem with that - remember that $FinOrd^M$ is (a priori) a class in $M$, rather than a set! So when we ask "Does $FinOrd^M$ satsisfy $PA_2^M$?", what we really mean is "Does $FinOrd^M$ satisfy the 'class version' of $PA_2^M$?".

That is, I think the right way to ask the question you're getting at is the following:

  • Let $M\models ZF-AOI$. Then is it necessarily the case that, for all formulas $\varphi(x, \overline{y})$ in the language of set theory and all parameters $\overline{a}\in M$, we have $$M\models \varphi(0, \overline{a})\wedge \forall x\in FinOrd[\varphi(x, \overline{a})\implies \varphi(x+1, \overline{a})]\implies \forall x\in FinOrd(\varphi(x,\overline{a}))?$$

(The point is that the classes of the form "$\{x\in FinOrd^M: M\models\varphi(x,\overline{a})\}$" represent all the sub"sets" of $FinOrd^M$ which $M$ can "see", and so they're the ones it makes sense to query with respect to satisfying the right version of $PA_2$.

The answer to this question is yes, since ZF-AOI proves that the ordinals are well-ordered and that every finite ordinal has a predecessor.

However, there are a couple caveats (for simplicity I assume the $M$'s below satisfy $\neg$AOI):

  • First, note that while $M$ can express "$FinOrd\models \varphi$" for a specific (first-order in the language of set theory - in particular, no quantifying over classes!) sentence $\varphi$, $M$ can't express "$FinOrd\models\Gamma$" for $\Gamma$ a set of sentences. So in a certain sense, $M$ doesn't know that $FinOrd^M$ is a model of the $M$-class-version of $PA_2$.

  • Second, note that if $\varphi$ is a nonstandard first-order sentence in $M$ - that is, a nonstandard finite ordinal in $M$ which $M$ thinks is the Goedel number of a sentence - then $M$ can't express "$FinOrd\models\varphi$"! This isn't really an issue here, but it's worth keeping in mind.

  • Finally, it's worth noting that ZF-AOI does not prove the Completeness Theorem - in particular, a model of ZF-AOI may not contain a set model of even first-order PA, even if it thinks that theory is consistent! ($V_\omega$ is an example of this.)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Please see my edit. $\endgroup$ – Dan Christensen Jan 27 '17 at 18:28
  • $\begingroup$ @DanChristensen Thanks! See my edit; the answer is "no", even for first-order PA. $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Jan 27 '17 at 19:02
  • $\begingroup$ @DanChristensen You may also be interested in my answer to another question. $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Jan 27 '17 at 19:07

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.