I am confused about Jech's notations $ M[X] $ and $ V[A] $.

Let us begin with exercise 13.34 (see [Jec02, p. 199]).

Let $ \mathbf{M} $ be a transitive model of $ \mathsf{ZF} $ containing all the ordinals and let $ X $ be a subset of $ \mathbf{M} $. Then there is a least model $ \mathbf{M}[X] $ of $ \mathsf{ZF} $ such that $ \mathbf{M} \subseteq \mathbf{M}[X] $ and $ X \in \mathbf{M}[X] $ and, if $ \mathbf{M} \models \mathsf{AC} $, then $ \mathbf{M}[X] \models \mathsf{AC} $.

One must realize that this is really a theorem schema as we are talking about proper classes: In fact, for each formula $ \phi(x) \equiv x \in \mathbf{M} $ we have to find another formula $ \psi(x, X) \equiv x \in \mathbf{M}[X] $ such that ...

Q1: Can someone give me a hint more helpful than Jech's one?

This leads to my next question. As far as I understand, forcing over $ V $ and the notation $ V[G] $ (where $ G \notin V $ is a generic filter for some forcing poset $ P \in V $) is just a sloppy notation. More precisely, one should always use a large enough finite fragment $ \mathsf{ZFC}^* $ and some c.t.m. $ M $ for $ \mathsf{ZFC}^* $ (i.e. a set model) as $ G \notin V $ is nonsense from a formalist's point of view.

Q2: So, how can I formalize Jech's results Lemma 15.40 up to Lemma 15.43 (see [Jec02, p. 247]) using the c.t.m. approach?

I am particularly puzzled as the analogue of exercise 13.34 for set models seems to fail.

[Jec02] Thomas Jech: "Set Theory: The Third Millennium Edition, revised and expanded". Springer, 2002


1 Answer 1


It is way too late to post an answer but let me take a crack at it anyways. So let $M$ be an inner model of $\text{ZF}$. We want to show that there exists a least inner model $M[X]$ of $\text{ZF}$, where $X\subseteq M$ and such that $M\subseteq M[X]$ and $X\in M[X]$.

We use relative constructibility over sets. For every $\alpha\in \text{ORD}$, define $L_0((V_{\alpha}\cap M) \cup \{X\})=(V_{\alpha}\cap M)\cup \{X\}$. At successor stages let $L_{\alpha+1}((V_{\alpha}\cap M) \cup \{X\})=Def_{\mathcal{P}}(L_{\alpha}((V_{\alpha}\cap M) \cup \{X\}))$ (definable power set). At limit stages $\gamma$, let $L_{\gamma}((V_{\alpha}\cap M) \cup \{X\})=\bigcup_{\alpha<\gamma}((V_{\alpha}\cap M) \cup \{X\})$. Then let $L((V_{\alpha}\cap M) \cup \{X\})=\bigcup_{\gamma\in\text{ORD}}L_{\gamma}((V_{\alpha}\cap M) \cup \{X\})$.

Finally define $M[X]=\bigcup_{\alpha\in\text{ORD}}L((V_{\alpha}\cap M) \cup \{X\})$. Doing this ensure that $M\subseteq M[X]$, because $M[X]$ contains every chunk of $M$, as these are contained in the $L((V_{\alpha}\cap M) \cup \{X\})$. Since also $\{X\}\subseteq M[X]$ then $X\in M[X]$. $M[X]$ satisfies $\text{ZF}$. If $M\models \text{AC}$, then wellorder $X$. Then for every $\alpha, L((V_{\alpha}\cap M) \cup \{X\})\models \text{AC}$ (which is not true in general). Feel free to add to this, I did it very quickly.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your reply. I accept it (although it does not answer the whole question) because it is not of interest for me any more (too long ago and I don't understand it anymore). $\endgroup$
    – Justus87
    Jan 4, 2018 at 10:23
  • $\begingroup$ I re-read your question. Sorry for not answering the second question. Let me try to give you some quick intuition for your second question. In forcing theory, people who follow the $V$ and $V[G]$ notation realize that there is no real meaning in writing $V[G]$. What this notation really is, is just a shorthand for writing what one can write with the forcing language and using the definability of the forcing in the ground model $V$. In this context what one must then do is define a new forcing relation $\Vdash^*$ by recursion without referring to any specific model. This is the approach taken.. $\endgroup$ Jan 5, 2018 at 2:45
  • $\begingroup$ ...by Kunen in his book. With regards to your comment following Joel David Hamkins answer on the fact that it is consistent that there may not be a smallest, let me add the following observation: assume that $M$ is a countable transitive model of $ZFC$ and let $\mathbb{P}=Fn(\omega,2)$, also referred as $Add(\omega,1)$, the forcing notion for a Cohen real. Then there is a filter $G$ on $\mathbb{P}$ such that there is no transitive set model $M\subseteq N$ such that $G\in N$ and $N\models ZF-Power Set Axiom$ and $o(N)=o(M)$ where $o(M)$ is the ordinal height of $M$... $\endgroup$ Jan 5, 2018 at 2:58
  • $\begingroup$ ...the reason why there cannot be be any such $N$ is the same as the arguments given by Joel David Hamkins. $G$ codes a wellorder of $\omega$ of order type larger $M$, revealing that all ordinals in $M$ are countable. Why this does not apply to Jech's exercise that you mentioned above is because one important assumption in Jech's exercise is to have $X\in M[X]$. But in this counterexample (as in Hamkins' counterexample) we have $G\notin M[G]$, $G$ cannot be generic. $\endgroup$ Jan 5, 2018 at 3:02
  • $\begingroup$ If you have other questions about set theory don't hesitate to ask! $\endgroup$ Jan 5, 2018 at 3:03

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.