1
$\begingroup$

It is possible I am missing something exceedingly obvious. We know that $V_{\kappa} \vDash ZFC$ when $\kappa$ is strongly inaccessible.

Pretty much every proof of $ZFC \not \vdash "\exists$ inaccessible cardinals" goes like:

Suppose $ZFC \vdash "\exists$ strong inaccessibles" (I'll shorten this from now one as $\exists I$). Then pick the least such one, $\kappa$. $V_{\kappa} \vDash "\exists I"$. By standard absoluteness, what $V_{\kappa}$ thinks are strongly inaccessible will indeed be strongly inaccessibles, contradicting the choice of $\kappa$ as the smallest such cardinal.

And this argument is fine to me. But I don't see why we have to go through the trouble of estabilishing absoluteness, picking the smallest one and everything. Why can't we simply do:

Suppose $ZFC \vdash "\exists I"$. Since we may formalize model theory, the truth predicate for set models, consistency statements, etc, we have that $ZFC \vdash "\exists I" \rightarrow Con(ZFC)$ (by exhibiting a set model of $ZFC$). Then we have by basic modus ponens that $ZFC \vdash Con(ZFC)$. This contradicts Godel's incompleteness theorem and then we're done.

This argument seems fine to me, and more natural too. However, most arguments I can see seem to follow the first argument instead. And the first one isn't hard per se, but it makes me wonder why we're doing all these extra steps.

Am I missing something? Does the second argument not work?

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

They both work. However, I don't actually think that the second one is more natural: it involves first proving the second incompleteness theorem, which is nontrivial and not obviously relevant to the specific problem at hand.

By contrast, in the first approach we give a method for building models of $\mathsf{ZFC}$ + "There are no inaccessibles" from models of $\mathsf{ZFC}$. Moreover, this method "preserves niceness" in many senses, e.g. if the starting $\mathsf{ZFC}$-model is well-founded then the $\mathsf{ZFC\neg I}$-model is well-founded as well. Note that this is not something incompleteness can do for us alone - e.g. there is no nice way to take a well-founded model of $\mathsf{ZFC}$ and produce a well-founded model of $\mathsf{ZFC+\neg Con(ZFC)}$ since there are no well-founded models of $\mathsf{ZFC+\neg Con(ZFC)}$ in the first place.

So I think the first approach actually is the better one.

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the clarification! I was just worried something was wrong with the argument so I wanted to make sure. I suppose you're right about which argument is nicer. I guess I just disliked the first one because I'm not fully comfortable with absoluteness yet. $\endgroup$ Jan 19 at 2:31
  • $\begingroup$ Why is there no well founded model of $ZFC + \neg Con(ZFC)$? From what little I know, the only thing I can tell about a model of $ZFC + \neg Con(ZFC)$ is that it has non standard natural numbers $\endgroup$ Jan 19 at 2:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @WhyIsSetTheorySoHard If it's got nonstandard natural numbers, it's not well-founded! (The interesting situation is the converse: ill-founded $\omega$-models of $\mathsf{ZFC}$ exist and are quite fun beasties, but that's highly nontrivial.) $\endgroup$ Jan 19 at 2:32
  • $\begingroup$ I don't see how that follows :( I suspect I'm missing something stupid again. As I understand it, there will just be a bunch of $\mathbb{Z}$ chains after $\mathbb{N}$ which code "contradictions". $\endgroup$ Jan 19 at 2:34
  • $\begingroup$ By the same token, this line of thinking establishes that inaccessibles are strictly stronger than Con(ZFC), which is good to know. $\endgroup$ Jan 19 at 2:36

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.