Let $A$ denote Ackermann set theory, as laid out e.g. here. It is a standard result due to Levy and Reinhardt that $A$ and $ZF$ are mutually interpretable in conservative extensions of one-another.
How do we see that the empty class is a set in $A$?
Despite scanning the relevant papers I seem unable to find a simple argument laying out how $\emptyset\in\mathbb{V}$. Naively, my thought was to consider the predicate $$\phi\equiv\ "x\ \text{is a set}\wedge x\neq x"$$ and take $\emptyset$ to be the set guaranteed by the reflection schema (axiom $3$ above) together with $\phi$, but I am concerned that by writing '$x$ is a set' in the definition of $\phi$ I am implicitly allowing $\mathbb{V}$ to appear, since this is equivalent to $x\in\mathbb{V}$ -- this would obviously prevent us from defining $\emptyset$ in this fashion (unless I am misunderstanding what it means for a constant symbol to 'be a parameter' in a predicate).
Does this approach work, or is some other trick required? Any tips are appreciated.
