This is exercise I.9.6 from Kunen's Set Theory (2011). $R$ is set-like on the class $A$ iff $y \in A$ implies $\{ x \in A: xRy \}$ is a set. I am not so sure about this, but it is implied that this can be done without using the axiom of choice.

The obvious choice of $R$ is $xRy$ iff $x= F(y)$, however what I am most unsure of is how to pick the class such that it cointains all of $A$ and all of $F(A)$. I think the simple $A \cup F(A)$ doesn't work because for an $x \in A$, $F(F(x))$ may not be a set and hence $R$ wouldn't be set-like. This reasoning seems to apply to any set $B$, since $A \cup F(A)$ must be cointained in $B$ in order for the transitive closure to include $F(A)$.

As an specific example, consider the set $\mathbb{N}$ of natural numbers and the formula $\phi(x,y)$ "$y$ is $\mathbb{N}$ if $x$ is a natural number and, $y$ is $\{w: w=w\}$ if $x$ is $\mathbb{N}$". Clearly while $R$ is set-like in $\mathbb{N}$, it is not set-like in $\mathbb{N} \cup F(\mathbb{N})$, and in general I can't modify $\phi(x,y)$ as to exclude the $x$s in $F(A)$, as they may be part of $A$, too.

So, how can we prove it?


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.