4 vues

Transféré par Wellington Migliari

Ackermann's Set Theory

- George David Birkhoff, Ralph Beatley - Basic Geometry - Manual for Teachers (2000, American Mathematical Society).pdf
- On some Smarandache determinant sequences
- Partee Set Theory
- lec15-dm09
- Coalition Proofness in a Class of Games With Strategic Substitutes
- Discrete Mathematics
- Godels Incompleteness Theorem
- 35_1_sets
- lipschitz_cond.pdf
- Chapter0
- Saharon Shelah- Models of Expansions of N with No End Extensions
- A class of fusion rules based on the belief redistribution to subsets or complements
- Introduction_to_algorithms_A_creative_approach (1).pdf
- IJETTCS-2014-06-10-079
- 9783662448076-c2
- chapter09.pdf
- Secure Function Evaluation Using Garbled Ciruits Built From Propositional Formulae.
- Automated Reasoning FOL Handout
- ICSE Class VIII Mathematics Set Concepts - TopperLearning
- o que é ação cultural

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 61

1 8 9 - 2 4 9

William N,REINHARDT

Boulder. Colorado

Section 0

! ritroduction

summary of the history of work on the theory. Section 0.2 contains a

summary of the results of tlais paper. Sections 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5 contain

preliminaries for the later sections (notation, etc.). All notions used in

0.1 and 0.2 will be fully defined in 0.3, 0.4, 0.5.

The set theory of Ackermann is formulated in a first order language

wittl one binary relation symbol ~, and one individual constant V. The

objects the variables range over are referred to as classes, 'x E y ' is read

'x is a member of y', and 'x ~ V' is read 'x is a set'. Tiros the theory dis-

tinguishes between sets and classes; every set is a class but some classes

are not sets. (It is not assumed that every member of a class is a set.)

The axioms are the universal closures of

* This paper contains a major part of the author's doctoral dissertation. 1 wish to thank the fol-

lowing people for helpful conversations eoncc'.ning this work: R.L.Vaught, my thesis advisor

(who also brougl~t to my attention most of fl~e y~ ~blems considered), J.Malitz, A.Levy, and

J.Silver. I also xvish to thank the Danforth Foundation for encouragement and support. Part

of this work was supported by NSF grants, including GP 12209, GP 7387.

190 A ct,'ermaml "s set thcorr equcls ZF

A1. (Extensionality)

Vz A t ( t ~ z * - - ~ t ~ V ^ ® ) ,

A3. (Strong completeness of V)

-* V z ~ V A t ( t E z ÷ ~ O ( x , y , t))

where the free variables of 0 are x, ~', t, and V does not occur in O.

from A by adding the universal closure of the axiom.

x~V^Vu(u~x)

--, Vt~(u ~ x / x A t ( t ~ x -, t q~ , ) ) .

helpful. Our discussion will center on A4; AI, A2 are familiar and A3

says that any member of a set is a set, and that any subclass of a set is a

set. Ackermann interpreted the 'definite' in Cantor's well known defi-

nition ("By a set we understand any collection of definite distinct ob-

jects ... into a whole" [31, p. 282) as requiring t~:at in order for a col-

lection of sets to be a set, "what belongs to the collection and what

does not belong to it must be sufficiently shaprly delimited". (Acker-

mann [ t ], p. 337.) Ackerl~aann considered that the concept of set

itself" is thoroughly open, however, and thus not sharply delimited. The

basis for A4 appears to be the idea that sufficiently sharply delimited

collections of sets are sets. The hypothesis of A4 assures that the prop-

In m~ductiol~ 191

erty 't is a set such that ,;(,v, y, t)' is in a certain sense independent of

the (extension of t h e ) c o n c e p t of set, and may be regarded as giving a

sufficient condition for a collection to be sharply delimited. (A further

dis,,:ussion of these ideas is contained in Section 5.~

Tile intuitive ideas leading to Ackermann's theory are thus seen to

be quite different from those which lead to Zermelo-Fraenkel se~

theory (ZF). In that theory, of course, there are a number of set con-

struction principles, and there is an appeal to the intuitive principle

that a collection which is equivalent in power to a set must be a set.

Thus it is not obvious how the two theories compare.

It should bc remarked that the construction !~rinciples of ZF were

originally fornmlated to reflect the practice of mathematicians; rather

than starting from first principles and deriving set theory, one started

with set theory (a'- it had been developed historically) and tried to find

principles adequate to develop th,: theory which did not yield the

known paradoxes: no attempt was made to provide a philosophical

explanation of the source of the principles, or a clarification of their

intuitive basis (see E.Zemaelo 12! l P. 26t, 262). For a contemporary

discussion of intuitive ideas which, provide a basis for Zermelo's axiom's,

see Kreisel 122], pp. 100-105.

Much of the work that has been done on Ackermann's theory has

been directed toward comparing A and ZF.

the retativizations to V of all of the axioms of Zermelo's theory (Z)

(except for the regularity axiom) could be proved in A. He also stated

that the replacement schema of ZF (relativized to V) can be proved in

A (compare (2) below). An error in Ackermann's proof of this asser-

tion was found by Levy [81, however, and the question remained open.

Ackermann also introduced an extension Aoo of A which appears much

stronger than A: instead of a class V of all sets, there is for each natural

number n a class V,z of sets of 'type n', together with appropriate

axioms (for a version of Ao~ see Chapter 4).

(11) A.kevy showed (18]) that if there is an inaccessible cardinal, then

there is a natural model of A (that is, one oi the Corm ( RCL e, Ra>,

where ~ </3 are ordinals and R/3 consists ot the sets of rank less than t3).

He also proved that

192 A ckermann's set theory equals ZF

o is provable in ZF,

thus showing that A* gives us no more information about the sets than

ZF does. These results were also proved (with appropriate modifications)

for Aoo. Levy proved a number of theorems within A, and in particular

showed that a strong reflection principle holds in A*. Thus Levy showed

that (the relativizations to V of) very strong theorems of ZF could be

proved in A*, and he raised the question whether the converse of (1)

holds.

(1II) Levy and Vaught [10l developed the theory of A* further, show-

ing that still larger classes of (the relativizations to V of) tt'eorems of

ZF could be proved in A*.

(IV) In his thesis [6], R.Grewe succeeded in obtaining a partial con-

verse to (1): he showed that in every natural model (R/3, c, Rc~>of A,

(R0~, e) ~ ZF (thus answering Levy's question for the case of natural

models of A*). This result is included in the paper [6a].

Grewe also introduced a methof of interpreting extensions of A within

A.

(V) Levy [ 10] showed that (the relativization to V of) the complete

reflection schema of ZF (which may be used instead of the replacement

schema in axiomatizing ZF) holds for A 1t formulas (in t.he hierarchy of

formulas developed in [ 101 .)

0.2. Results

The main result of this paper is t~le converse of (1):

in A*.

This, in conjunction with (1), shows that A* and ZF give the same in-

formation about sets, and answer; the question of Levy mentioned

above. It should perhaps be remarked that the proofs of both ( l ) and

(2) are finitary, Recall that Ackermann originally stated that the re-

placement schema of ZF (relativized to V) can be proved in A. Notice

that (2) establishes this with A replaced by A*, i.e. assuming the axiom

In trod~tc tion 193

same way that ZF is consistent relative to ZF without regularity, this

shows that Ackermann's statement is correct in the universe of "regular"

sets and classes. 1 do not know whether the assumption of regularity is

necessary (see question 4.24 and preceding discussion there).

The proof o~" (2) is contained in Section 3. Actually the following

stronger assertion is proved (Corollary 3.11 ).

If F is any finite set of formulas involving only ~ and having one flee

variable x, and q, is one such formula, then

A /~ AXE V lO v ~ 0 v'] ).

~-~ E !:

naries. In these sections, a n-amber of ki~own results which will be used

in Section 3 are collected. In Section 1 it is also shown that a certain

weak form of flae schema of replacement holds in A* (theorem 1.10).

This result does not seem to have been observed before, and plays an

important role ill Section 3. Section 2 contains some general observa-

tions concerning what can be proved in A* about the class of all ordi-

nals which are sets. These observations enable us to apply in A* certain

theorems which are known in Z. In particular, we apply Grewe's ~-esult

on natural models of A [6, 7] (see theorem 2.8 of this paper; for the

particular version we need, see theorem 2.12). it should be mentioned

that the author's original proof of (2) made use of Grewe's method of

interpreting theories in A, but that he subsequently found the simpler

proof presented here which avoids use of these interpretations.

Ic Section 4 we prove some additional results related to Ackermann's

theory, and mention some questions that remaia open. We prove (I)

A* is essentially not finitely axiomatizable over the theory whose

axioms are the instances of A2. (II) The theorems of A * (which is ob-

tained from A~o by adding for each V n the regularity axiom A5 with V

replaced by V n) involving only e and V 0 are exactly tl~e theorems of

A* (when V is identified with V0). This shows that A * is an extension

194 A ckermann Y set theory equals ZF

is a proper second order e x t e n s i o n o f ( Ra, e) (Re < 2 RI3 and c. E/3), ~"

then (R/3 + 1, e, Ra) is a m o d e l o f A*. We m e n t i o n a related question

o f Levy and Vaught (unpublished% Can there be ordinals a E ~ less than

the first inaccessible cardinal such that Ra -< 2 R~? A partial answer is

k n o w n (Tharp [ 24] ; see also Reinhardt [ 15a] ), namely, if the axiom o f

constructibility (V = L in the n o t a t i o n o f GOdel [ 5 ] ) holds, then ~ is

2nd order indescribable (in the sense o f Hanf and Scott [ 7 ] ) and hence

inaccessible. We m e n t i o n here only t w o o f the questions raised in Sec-

tion 4. (A) Suppose (Rt~+l , e, R~) is a m o d e l o f A. Is there an ordinal 3'

(a < 7 ~< t3) such that R e .<2 Rv ? (B) Is A + Z finitely axiomatizabIe

over A? It should be n o t e d that (assuming the consistency o f ZF) the

consistency o f A (when suitably formalized in A + Z) cannot be proved

in A + Z; thus k n o w n m e t h o d s o f obtaining a negative answer fail. A

positive answer, however, seems quite unlikely.

Section 5 has t w o parts. 1'he first part e x t e n d s the main result of

Section 3 to certain extensions o f Z and A. The second contains an

analysis o f the intuitive ideas behind A c k e r m a n n ' s theory. This analysis

suggests the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f an e x t e n s i o n A + o f A. Further extensions

o f A + and related axioms for set theory will be studied in a n o t h e r paper.

These axioms are c o m p l e t e reflection principles which seem natural and

plausible.

"fie use the usual n o t a t i o n for m e m b e r s h i p (~), inclusion, ( c ) , un-

ordered pairs ({x, y } ), ordered pairs ((x,)'>)9 power set (Sx), union

over a set ( u x), cartesian p r o d u c t (x x y). difference (x -- y), and

union o f two sets (x u y). We write { t : P(t) } for the set of all t such

that P(t) (when such a set exists), and { (x, y ) : P(x, 3')} for { t : there

are x , y such that t = (x,v) and P ( x , y ) } . We put Ex = {(u, v) : u E v

and u, v 6 x } ; we will write (x, e) instead o f ( x , ex). Functions are

taken to be sets o f ordered pairs in the usual way; Xy is the set of all

functions with d o m a i n x and range included in y. We will occasionally

w r i t e r : x --, y f o r f ~ Xy. I f x is in the d o m a i n of)'; the value o f f a t x

is written f ( x ) (we will also write l)c or Ix occasionally); if x is not in

the d o m a i n o f f , we put f ( x ) = 0. l f x , y are sets, we say x is (set theo-

lntroductio~ 195

r e t i c a l l y ) e q u i v a l e n t to y in case t h e r e is a f l m c t i o n ) " : x ~ .v w h i c h is

1 -- 1 and o n t o y . We say x is transitive iff y ~ z ~ x implies y ~ x. We

d e f i n e o r d i n a l s in t h e usual w a y as transitive sets w h i c h are well o r d e r e d

u n d e r t h e e r e l a t i o n : the n a t u r a l n u m b e r s are the o r d i n a l s w h i c h in addi-

t i o n are well o r d e r e d by t h e c o n v e r s e r e l a t i o n . We let w be t h e set o f all

n a t u r a l n u m b e r s : t h e e m p t y set 0 is t h e first n a t u r a l n u m b e r . If u, 13 are

ordinals, c~ +/3 is t h e o r d i n a l s u m o f u and/3, a n d we w r i t e a < / 3 for

~ ~, o~ </3 f o r o~ </3 o r ~ =/3. An o r d i n a l is called a c a r d i n a l in case it

is n o t e q u i v a l e n t to a n y smaller ordinal. A f u n c t i o n w h o s e d o m a i n is a

n a t u r a l n u m b e r is called a finite s e q u e n c e . I f / ' i s a f u n c t i o n , t h e n

.f()i> = ( . f ~ { (.x,.fx> } ) u {O,', .v> }. If a is an o r d i n a l a n d t h e r e is a f'anc-

tion .f s u c h t h a t for every/3 < a a n d an3 t, t ~ ,f/3 iff for s o m e 3' ~ 13.

t c .t7, t h e n we w r i t e Ro~ =/ix (= sets o f :~'ank < c~). We w r i t e R a + n = R ( a + n ) .

0 . 4 . 5 ) ' n t u c t i c a l n o ta tioll

We will be c o n c e r n e d w i t h first o r d e r language w i t h variables

v o, v I . . . . . t h e usual !ogical s y m b o l s =, ~ , A, a n d A, p r e d i c a t e s y m b o l s ,

o p e r a t i o n s y m b o l s , a n d individual c o n s t a n t s , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e usual

rules o f f o r m a t i o n . O u r p r i m a r y c o n c e r n will be w i t h a l a n g u a g e w i t h

o n e b i n a r y p r e d i c a t e s y m b o l e (we w r i t e e~--e o r e = ~ if it will c a u s e

n o c o n f u s i o n ) , a n d o n e individual c o n s t a n t V. In t h e a b s e n c e o f indica-

tion to t h e c o n t r a r y , (9, ,,, q, will be f o r m u l a s , a n d ( t o simpli;'y n o t a -

t i o n ) ,c, y , z,/3 . . . . will be r e s p e c t i v e l y t h e variables v 0, v 1 , .... In t h e

usual w a y , we will w r i t e -(9/~ ~ f o r t h e c o n j u n c t i o n o f (9 w i t h ~', ~ (3

for t h e n e g a t i o n o f ®, etc. Also we will w r i t e A u E v(9 f o r A u ( u ~ v -~

0 ) , u. v ~ w for u ~ w A v e w, etc. I f O a . . . . , 0 . _ 1 are f o r m u l a s , t h e n

/Ik ~bn, will be t h e cot~iunction 0 0 A...A ( 9 , ~ : similarly f o r t h e dis-

m E n

.tl ~ 11

t e r m , b,: O(,,

- " ) we u n d e r s t a n d t h e f o r m u l a o b t a i n e d f r o m O b y r e p l a c i n g

all free o c c u r r e n c e s o f it b y v, a n d c h a n g i n g t h e b o u n d variables o f ,I, t o

avoid collisions if n e c e s s a r y (all o c c u r r e n c e s o f an individual c o n s t a n t

are free o c c u r r e n c e s ) . We m a k e t h e c o n v e n t i o n t h a t if x 0, x l , -.., x n - l

are terms., O ( x 0, ..,, x , I ) will be t h e s i m u l t a n e o u s substittation o f

x 0 , •.... ~,z-l f o r v 0, ..., o , l r e s p e c t i v e l y (again c h a n g i n g b o u n d

variables if n e c e s s a r y ) . By t h e f o r m u l a O ~ we u n d e r s t a n d t h e f o r m u l a

196 Ackermann 's set theory equals ZF

Au(~0(u) ~ ~ ) ) ; i f u is a term, we will write 0 u for 0 tx ~ ' ~ . We will say

t h a t 4 is an e-formula if the o n l y non-logical c o n s t a n t o c c u r r i n g in 0 is

e; if we wish to e m p h a s i z e t h a t a f o r m u l a m a y involve b o t h e and V, we

will refer to it as an e, V-formula.

The following n o t a t i o n is n o t s t a n d a r d but will be very useful in

sections 1 - 3 . If 0 is a f o r m u l a and o a variable or an individual con-

stant, t h e n UoO is the f o r m u l a

O A Ao'(O(o°,) -* o = o')

N o t e : v is n o t b o u n d hi UoO. UoO has all the free variables ~ has (as

well as v), and asserts that 'o is the u n i q u e v such that O'. W" will write

V!uO for V u U u • , and V!u ~ oO for V ! u ( u E o ^ O) (where u is any

variable and o any term).

If X; is a set o f sentences, and o is a s e n t e n c e , X; t- o will m e a n o is

derivable f r o m X; (in the usual first o r d e r logic with equality (=)). We

will write t- o ip case 0 i- o. X; is a t h e o r y if for every s e n t e n c e o ( o f

the language o f ~), if ~ I-- o t h e n o ~ 1~. If O is not a sentence, we will

u n d e r s t a n d Y. i- O to m e a n that if o is any universal closure o f ( ~ , t h e n

I-- o. If S and T are theories, S I-- T v m e a n s that for every o ~ T,

S I-- o v .

If T, S are sets o f sentences we will write T + S for the t h e o r y

{ o : T u S I- o } ; if o is a s e n t e n c e we will write T + o for T + { o }.

The set t h e o r y Z o f Z e r m e l o ) f o r m u l a t e d in a language with one

b:~aary predicate s y m b o l e ) has the axioms o f pairing, p o w e r set, sum-

se t, f o u n d a t i o n , and infinity (for f o r m u l a t i o n s o f these a x i o m s see for

example Fraenkel and Bar-Hillel [41 ) and the c o m p r e h e n s i o n schema

VzAt(t~z ~ ; t~x^O)

t h e o r y ( Z F ) has in a d d i t i o n the r e p l a c e m e n t schema

A u V!t~o -* V z A t ( t E z ~ V u E x~o)

Introduction 19 7

A x V y V r ( R n O ' , r) Ax ~ r) ;

plicit definition see Chapter !, p. l ). We also will w'ant to c o n s i d e r a

w e a k e n e d version Z - o f Z; Z is the same as Z except t h a t the com-

prehension schema o f Z is replaced by the weak c o m p r e h e n s i o n schema

VzAt(t~z~-,t$,x AO y )

We will write '.)l t-:- ¢ [ x ] in case ?( is a structure, ~0 is a f o r m u l a o f a

language appropriate to ?1, x is an assignment to the free variables o f ~0

taking values in the universe o f ?1, and ~0 is satisfied in '~1 by the assign-

m e n t x. If o is a sentence v~e write ?! ~ o if for every assignment x,

',~1 ~ o[x].

If ?l, ~ are two structures of the same type, ',~1-- ~ will m e a n t h a t for

all sentences o (appropriate to that t y p e ) ?11= o iff 2~ l= o, and Pl < '.~

('.)1 i~ an e l e m e n t a r y s u b s t ; u c t u r e o f ~ ) will m e a n t h a t for all f o r m u l a s

® (appropriate to that t y p e ) and all assignments x to the free variables o f

O taking values in the universe o f ')|,

,.~( ~ o [x t i f f ,~, ~ ~ [ x l .

there 'k~ is an arith:netical e x t e n s i o n o f ')l' is used for ".~l is an elemen-

tary substructure o£ ~ ' . )

198 Ackermann "s set theory equals ZF

,Section 1

of i~l later chapters, discuss the absoluteness of these formulas, and col-

lect a number of basic results of the theory A.

mulas, These are taken directly from Levy-Vaught [ 111, p. 1047.

"x is included in y'. We will frequently omit the dot.

b. Cp(x) is

c. So(x) is

Cp(x) A ( A y , z ) ( z ~ y A v ~ x ~ z E x )

d. Ord(x) is

^ (Au, v ~ x ) ( V w C_ x ) A t ( t ~ w ~ t ~ u A t ~ v)

'X is an ordinal'.

e. Db(x, y, z) is

At(tEz ~ ~ t=xvt=y)

f. Oc(x, y, z) is

(Vv, w G z)(Db(x, x, o) A Db(x, y, w)A Db(v, w, z))

Section 1 199

o Rl(x v , z ) is

V v(Oc(x, y, v,' ,, v E- z)

h. Rn(x, y )is

R n k ( x , y, z ) is

A u ( u ~ x ~ V ~ Rl(u, v, z)) A

i. lira(x) is

Ord(x) A A t ( t E x -~ V u ( t ~ u 6 x))

formulas are absolute, so we begin w~th some l e m m a s on absoluteness.

o f T whose o n l y free ,;ariable is x. ~, f o r m u l a o is said to be absolute

with respect to U over T i f f

T I - U v 0A Uv I ^...A U ~ _ l - + l O + - - , O U] ,

spect to the f o r m u l a x ~ V, we will say absolute with respect to V. We

witl say that 0 is absolute w h e n we m e a n that 0 is absolute w i t h respect

to Ux over T, where U is a u n a r y predicate n o t o c c u r r i n g in O, and T is

the t h e o r y (in the language a p p r o p r i a t e to 0 and U) whose o n l y axiom

is

200 Ackermann's set theory equals ZF

Ax A t ( U x ^ (t c_ x v t ~ x) -~ U t ) .

O is absolute over A (resp. A*) will mean that O is absolute with respect

to V over A (resp. A*).

only free variable is x.

a. I r a f o r m u l a ® is absolute with respect to U over T, and

lute with respect to U over T.

b. Suppose

T I-- A x A t ( U x A (t C_ X V t ~ X) -* U t ) .

all atomic formulas, and is closed under negation, dis/unction, and

b o u n d e d quantification. That is, i f 0 and ~oare in I', then so are 6) A ~o,

"" O, VX(X ~ y ^ 0 ) , and V x ( x c_ y v 0 ) .

Sc U I- Db(x, y, z) A Uz -* Ux A Uy

Sc U I- Rl(x, y, z) A Uz ~ Ux z U y ,

Corollary 1.4. The f o r m u l a s c_, Cp, Sc, Ord, Db, Oc, RI, Rnk, and lim

are absolute.

basic results of the theory A.

Section 1 201

A3 yields t c x e V ~ t e V, so A4 says the p o w e r set o f x is in V.)

and Oc is absolute over A, by 1.5 A I- x, y e V ~ Vz e V Uz Oc(x, y, z).

e x t e n s i o n a l i t y (A I) we see that

A b Vx Ux At(te x ~ t e VA O r d I t ) ) ;

A P Uc~ A t ( t ~ c~ ~ t e V ^ Ord(t)) .

T h e o r e m 1.6.

a. H Rn(x y ) - ~ S o ( y ) ,

b. k- Rn(x. y ) ^ x ' ex ~ u ' ( R n ( x ' , y ' ) ^ y' e y ) ,

c. A 2 i - R n ( x , y ) A x C- V - ~ x C _ y ,

d. A t-- Ord (c~),

e. A t - A x ( O r d ( ~ ) - * x e a v x = ~ v a e x ) ,

f. A I - - A x e ~ v v~VRn(x,y),

g. A ~- A x < a ( O r d ( x ) ~ V y C V U y R n ( x , y ) ) ,

O

All o f a - h are easily proved (Proofs o f some or all can be f o u n d in

Levy [ 8 ] , Levy-Vaught [ 1 1 ] , or G r e w e [6] .) We r e m a r k d t h a t part e

appears to be sensitive to the particular form~Jla c h o s e n for Ord, and

that this is the reascan for the clause

A u , v c_ x V w c x A t ( t e w ~ t e u A t ( ~ ~)

in the d e f i n i t i o n o f Ord.

202 Ackermmm "s set theory equals ZF

u n a r y o p e r a t i o n s y m b o l R a n d assuming

T h e o r e m 1.7. (Levy).

a. (Non-definability o f ~)

AI--~[y~VAUs®(~,y)] ,

A I-y E V A (7,~)(ot, y ) ~ V x E a 0 ( x , y ) ,

A* I - y E *V A l ~ ( V , y ) ~ Vz~Z V O(2,y),

A t-- y ~ VA O ( ~ , y ) ~ VX[~ ~ X O ( x , y ) ] .

a. Assume y ~ V A Uo~ ®(a, y); apply'ing A4 to the formula

Vx(t ~ x A O(X, y ) ) we o b t a i n a ~ V. But t h e n a ~ ~,, which c o n t r a d i c t s

Ord(~).

b. Using the fact that A I--- A x ( O r d ( x ) -+ x ~ ~ v x = a v a ~ x), one

easily see:~ that (in A)

A O(~,y)A "" V X E ~ O ( x , y ) ] .

c. follows by applying b to the f o r m u l a

Vz V r [ R n ( x , r ) Az ~ rA O ( z , y ) ] ,

Section 1 203

A* F- Rn(e~, V)

and

A t- A x ¢ c~ V y e V U y Rn(x, .v)).

Remark. One can easily see that replacing the schema A4 by the reflec-

tion principle for V yields an alternative axiomatization o f A* (see Levy-

Vaught [1 l l , p. 1057).

Rnk that

^ x , y 6 V --, Rl(x, .v, z')). Now applying T h e o r e m 1.7c we get

so evidently 1 ) follows.

Proof. Recall that Z + = Z + Q. We are to see t h e n that

A* I-- [ A x Vy V r ( R n ( y , r) ^ x ~ r)] v . Since A* F- x ~ V

Vr(Rn(c~, r) ^ x E r), by the reflection principle (! .7b) we obtain

204 Aekermann's set theory equals ZF

Corollary 1.8, the t h e o r e m follows.

Let ~o be an e-formula with free variables among x, y, u, t. Then

Vz ~ V Ate V [ t ~ z ~-~ Vu ~ x ~ o ] .

o n l y in that ~o is n o t relativized to V.

by A3 we also have t h e n x c_ V. Using the reflection principle 1.7c we

c o n c l u d e that for some z' ~ V,

Evidently z c_ z' E V (if u c x ^ t E V ^ ~0(u, t), t h e n by 1 ) we may

choose t' ~ z' c_ V so that ~o(u, t'); o u r h y p o t h e s i s on ~ assures that

t = t', so t ~ z'), so by A3, z 6 V. The t h e o r e m follows i m m e d i a t e l y

f r o m the definition o f z.

play an i m p o r t a n t role in Section 3.

Theorem 1.11. Let T be a theory (in the language with e) such that

A * I T v , (i.e., for every sentence o, T t- o implies A* I- o V ) a n d let 0 be

any e-formula who,~.e only free variable is x.

N o w if O isabsolute over A* and valid in T (i.e., A* I- A x

E v [ o V ( x ) ~ , O(x)] a n d T ~ A x ® ( x ) ) , d w n A* I- ®(cx).

Section 1 205

which follows from (the contrapositive of) the reflection principle for

(l.7b).

m i n e d by: the interpretation o f x ~ y is x E y, :he interpretation o f V~c ..

is V x . . . . and the intetT)retation o f V is R~.

be useful later on.

Definition 1.13.

a. Ct(x, y, z) is

b. G(x, y, z, w) is

A t [ t E w ,--> ( O c ( y , z , t ) v

c. F ' ( x , y , z ) is

Vu(Ct(y, z, u)^ x ~ u) ^

d. Nn(x) is

206 Ackermann's set theoo' ecuals ZF

e. Ffx, y ) is

Vz(Nn(z) ^ F'(x, z, y ) ) ,

Theorem 1.14.

a. The f o l l o w i n g are p r o v a b l e in A*:

1. x , y E V - ~ Vz~VUzCt(x,y,z),

2. x , y , z E V -+ V w -~ V U w G ( x , y , z, w ) ,

3. N n ( x ) ~ x ~ V ,

4. V z ~ V Uz A t ( t ~ z ~. ; N n ( t ) ) ,

5. y , z E V A F ' ( x , y , Z ) - > x E V ,

6. y c _ V A F ( x , y ) - - > x a V .

and

2) G ( x , y , z, w ) A G ( x , y , z , w')--> w = w' .

-~ V z Uz Oc(x, y, z) assures that

absolute. Now

Using Lemma 1.3 again, and the fact that

Sectkm 1 207

(a3, a4) Sihce A t-- Ay' ~ ~ Vt ~ a (y' ~ t), it is clear that

A t- a c_ ,- . ~ Nn(x). Thus by 1.6e (comparability of ordinals with a)

A t-- Nn(x) -- x ~ o~, and a3 holds. Since all quantifiers in Nn are

bounded, by 1.3, Nn is absolute. Now a4 follows from a3 (using 1.5

and the abso!uteness of Nn) and the fact that Z t- V z A t ( t ~ z ~ Nn(t)).

(b) We have proved the absoluteness of Ct, G and Nn by the way.

Since A t-- x ~ V .,x RI(y', z', x) ~ z' ~ V and RI is absolute,

Uz' RI(y', -', x) is absolute. Thus using al and the absoluteness of Ct, F'

is absolute. Since Nn is also absolute, a3 enables us to apply 1.3 to ob-

tain the absoluteness of F.

(a5) By the definition of F',

(a6) Observe that

It is easy to check that the formula in 1) is absolute: F, Rn, and lira are

absolutc (by a3, 1.4, and 1.8), A* I--- Rn(/3, y) -~/3 ~ y, and (by a3, a5,

a~ad the definition of F) A* t-- F(x, y) Ay ~ V - 3- ~ V, so Lemma 1.3

applies. Thus Theorem 1.1 1 applies and we have

On the basis of Theorem 1.14, we may introduce individual con-

stants ,~ and (for each n c ~ } ix n , and a binary operation symbol Val

such that

A* I- A t ( t ~ Co, , N n ( t ) ) ,

A*I-- A t ( t ~ A o ~ t ¢ t) ,

208 Ackermann 's set theory equals ZF

A* I- x , y ~ V ^ Uz RI(y, z, x)-* V a l ( x , y ) = z .

Section 2 209

Section 2

certain sentences o f the f o r m ,I, (c~)are provable in A*. The s e n t e n c e s in

questio~ express k n o w n results, so we will merely sketch the proofs in-

formally in Z+, and take care to notice that the notions involved in the

t h e o r e m s are absolute.

2, 1. Semantic and syntactic notions in Z. It is well k n o w n t h a t all syn-

tactic notiol~s are expressible in first o r d e r arithmetic as properties o f

(ol o p e r a t i o n s on) natural n u m b e r s , so there is a natural way o f for-

realizing all syntactic n o t i o n s in Z using formulas o f the for:-, 5) R~ ,

where O is an e-formula. Since A* F- Rw 6 V, evidently every sv ,~

formula is absolute over A*. in particular, we m a k e the followir defi-

nition"

the informal definition (given in Section 0) of 'x is an axiom o f ZF'.

On the otiier h a n d there is no d o u b t that it could be m a d e quite precise

by explicitly exhibiting such a fo~'mula, and also no d o u b t that the

effort w o u l d not be very rewarding: Definition 2.1 will be sufficiently

precise for our purposes.

b. I f o is an a~:ioni, o f ZF, then Z I- ZF(Ao).

i~.g (z, e> ~ y [ x ] ) such that

1 ) If v~ is an e-formula, and the free variables o f ~0 are included

a m o n g o0, .... °,7 - l, t h e n

m E !l

(Sat(a. A , z) ~ soz )

210 A ckermann 's set theory c ( r~clt ZF

We w o u l d like to have the additional i n f o r m a t i o n that Sat is absolute

over A*. ]'his is quite readily obtainable, since in any o f the usual for-

mulas we w o u l d take for Sat, all quantificatiol, is b o u n d e d (by simple

functions o f z, such as S z or S S S z ) . F o r example, one possible defini-

tion o f Sat would have it c o r r e s p o n d to the following informal defini-

tion o f sati,,~faction Jn e-structures:

iff

2) a) y is an e-formula,

b) there is n E ~o such t h a t x ~ " z and the free variables o f y are

anaongt, 0, ..., on_ 1 (that is, for every variable u o c c u r r i n g free

in y there is m ~ n such that u is the ruth variabl,- (u = v m )),

c) there is a relation s b e t w e e n subformulas o f y and m e m b e r s o f

n z (so s ~ ~ × n z ) such that ( x , y ) ~ s and

d) for every a ~ nz, and all s u b f o r m u l a s q s ¢, so', o f ) , , and all

rn, n E to such that v m , v** o c c u r in y, we have

1. if ,1, = so ^ so', the', (,I,, a) E s iff (so, a) ~ s and (so', a) ~ s;

2. if ,I~ = ~ so, then (q,, a) ~ s iff (~o, a) ~ s;

3. if ,I, = A v m so, t h e n (q,, a) E s iff for all t E z, (so, a(t2)) E s;

4. if q' = o m E u n , t h e n ~,I,, a) E s i f f a ( m ) E a(n).

and h e n c e absolute over A* w i t h respect to V (such as 'u = v m ',

'q' = so ^ so", 'y is an e-formula', etc.) or else have been formalized and

s h o w n to be absolute in section 1. F o r example, ' a ( m ) E a ( n ) ' is forma-

lized by

1) Vu Vv (Rl(m, u, a ) ^ Rl(n, v , a ) ^ u E v ) ,

'for all t E z, (SO,a(t~)) E s' by

2) A t ~ z A b ( G ( a , m , t, b ) -~ RI(so, b, s ) ) ,

'a E nz' by F'(a, n, z), and s c_ ~ × '*z by

3) A t E s V m V f ( N n ( m ) ^ F ' ( j , n z) ^ Oc(m, j~ t)).

use o f the l e m m a o a absoluteness (1.3) and T h e o r e m 1.14. Of course all

quantifiers over ~o or formulas preserve absoluteness, so (writing

~I,(.~, n, z) for the formula displayed in 3)) Sat(x, y, z) has the form

Secnon 2 211

where F', ¢0, ~p, and ~1 are absolute. Now Sat is easily seen to be ab-

solute using Lemma 1.3 and the following fact:

4) A* H n , z ~ V A ~I,(s, n, z)-* s e V .

A * H n, z ~ V A q , ( s , n , z ) ~ s~ V,

As(q,(s, n, z) -~ s ~ V)

S a t ( x , y , z)A z 6 V ~ x , y 6 V .

malizing clause 2) of Definition 2.3.

Remark. This is the last vague definition, All remaining definitions are

given precisely in terms of Sat and ZF. In particular all that is needed in

Section 3 is that there are e-formulas Sat and ZF such that Theorem

2.12 holds.

b. Sat is" a b s o l u t e o v e r A*.

c. I f ¢ is an e-form,d,~, a n d t h e f r e e ~ariables o f ~ are i n c l u d e d a m o n g

v O, ..., vn_ 1, the~l

212 Ackermann "s set theoo' equals ZF

m ~n 'P'

the notions i n t r o d u c e d above. A f t e r stating and proving the t h e o r e m s

we w a n t informally, we will again r e t u r n to the q u e s t i o n o f fomaaliza-

tion and absoluteness over A*.

and a ~ h R . t and a is the u n i q u e e l e m e n t in R v such that (R.~, e)

~0[a (°)], we will say t h a t 0~ is definable in (R v, e) by the f o r m u l a

u n d e r the assignment a; in case a takes values in a set A we will say that

a is definable in (R~t, e) using p a r a m e t e r s f r o m A.

<Ra, e> -< <R'r, e>, then <Ra, e> is a m o d e l o f ZF.

k n o w 2.7 can be proved in Z ÷ we include here a sketch o f the proof.)

If 7 = # + 1, t h e n # is definable in W,7, e~ as the last ordinal. Hence ~ is

also the last ordinal in (Ra, e), i.e./~ + 1 = c~. Thus 7 must be a limit or-

dinal; this assures t h a t (Ra, e~ is a m o d e l o f Z, so it suffices to c h e c k the

r e p l a c e m e n t schema.

Evidently for ar~y c-formula O whose free variables are a m o n g x, y

we have

2) (RT, e, Re) N A x , y ( x E y E V - - , x E V ) ,

holds relativized to V. N o w using 2), the h y p o t h e s i s o f the r e p l a c e m e n t

a x i o m relativized to V is o f the f o r m

Section 2 213

3) x, y E V A Au ~ x V! t E V cv (u, t, y ) ,

where the free variables of ~p(tt, t, y) are anaong tl, t, y. Now we fix x, y

satisfyipg 3). Applying 1 ) to ¢, we see

SO

consequently

5) VuCxs0V(u,t,y)~ tE z E V .

(RT, e~ is a model of ZF.

of our main result (Theorem 3.1). It will be used in our proof of 3.1.

In understanding Theorem 2.8, it may be helpful to notice that

<R~, e, Ra) is a model of A iff a ~ t3 and a is not definable in iRe, e)

using parameters from Ra.

definable in (R/3, e) using parameters f r o m Ra. Then there is a 7 such

that ~ E 7 <- ~ and

214 Ackermann's set theory equals ZF

(Rt~, e) using p a r a m e t e r s f r o m R a , we m a y c h o o s e 3" to be t h e l e a s t s u c h

o r d i n a k o t h e r w i s e we m a y t a k e 3" = (3.

Sketch of Proof. (See Grewe [61 for a detailed proof.) Assume tim

hypothesis and let 3' be chosen as in the theorem. Evidently the choice

of 3' assures that the schema

1) x 0 . . . . . Xn_ 1 E V A O r d ( f ) A U 6 0 ( 5 ) ~ 5 EV

holds in (R't, e, Ra) (in other words, every ordinal definable in (Ry, e)

using parameters from Ra is in Ro~) because

from Ra ,

and 7 is an ordinal definable in (R~, e) in terms o f parameters

from R a ,

then 6 is definable in (Rt3, e) in re'ms of parameters from R~.

Z and the axiom

V u 0 - ~ V6U~5[ Vu V r ( R n ( 6 , r ) A u ~ r A O ) A

(R3', e. RcO.

Now from 2) it is easily seen and well-known that (Ra, e) -< (Ry, e),

as desired.

Section 2 215

Theorems 2.7 and 2.8 and make some remarks on the absoluleness of

the formulas involved. For this pthpose we introduce some notation.

Sat is the formula of Definition 2.4.

(hi ModzF(x)is the e-formula

{c) S(x, y, z, u) is the e-formula

realizes "b = x(',' }".

S(x,,7, z, u) formalizes'(Ru, e) ~ y[X(z0)] ,. Thus UzS(x, y z, u) for-

realizes 'z is definable in (Ru, e) by the formula y under the assignment

X ~"

(d) D ( x , y ) is the e-formula

D(x, y) formalizes "x is definable in (Ry, e> using paran ;ers from

Rx'.

Proof, To see that E, Modzv, S, UzS, and D are absolute, apply the

lemma on absoluteness of section I, making use of the tbllowing facts:

1. Sat, Rn, ZF, and G are absolute.

216 Ackermann's set theory equals ZF

2. A* I-- Z F ( x ) ~ x ~ V .

3. A* i - x ~ V v Sat(a, ~0, x ) ~ a , ¢ ~ V.

4. A* t-- Rn(x, r) ^ x E V --> r ~ V .

5. A* I-- S ( x , y , z , u ) ~ z ~ u .

Theorem 2.11.

a. Z + I- a ~ ~ ^ E(a, t3) --> Vr[ R n ( e , r) A MOdzF (r)l ;

f o r any e-jbrmula ® whose only free variable is x.

c o n s e q u e n c e o f T h e o r e m s 2.2 and 2.5 (c). and d. is also a c o n s e q u e n c e

o f 2.5(c).

Theorem 2.12.

a. A* t-- A x ( x ~ a A ~ D(x, a ) - V r I R n ( x , r ) A MOdzF(r)]) •

where O ( t ) is any e-)brmula whose only free variable is t.

Section 2 217

Theorem 2.11 (considered as properties of ~, that is, leaving/3 free but

universally quantifying all other free variables) are absolute over A*.

Thus Theorem 1.11 applies and we conclude that in A* o~has ti~e prop-

erties considered. This proves 2.1 2 c and 2.1 2 d. 2.12 b follows because

A* I- Ord(~), and 2.12a then follows from 2.12b.

218 Ackermann's set theory equals ZF

Section 3

ZF i f f ov is a theorem o f A*.

The implication from right to left was proved by Levy [8] (for a

sketch of the proof see Theorem 4.18); we will prove the reverse impli-

cation. We begin with an important lemma. Recall that U/3O says tha t/3

is the unique/3 such that O. In other words, that/3 is defined by O (in

terms of the parameters of 0).

the formalized version o f '~ is definable in (R/3, e) in terms o f param-

eters f r o m Rot' which was indicated in Section 2. )

finite sequence taking values in r', and S(a, ~, a,/3) is a formalized ver-

sion of 'if the first variable of ~ takes the value a, and the remaining

variables are assigned according to the sequence a, then ~ holds in

(R/3, e)'; thus UrnS(a, ~o, ~,/3) formalizes 'a is definable by ~ in (R/3, e)

using parameters ai'. The formalizations we have in mind were indi-

cated in Sections 1 and 2 (1.13, 2.9(; for the remainder of the proof,

however, S can be any quaternary e-formula, and all we need to know

about F is that A* I-- F(a, V) -~ a ~ V. Thus if we replace F(a, r) by

F'(a, t) = F(a, r) ^ a ~ r we obtain a result independent of the formali-

zations of Section 2.

We now argue informally in A*. Suppose that 1) holds. Now (in A)

Section 3 219

2) a, ~ e V ^ UaS(a, ¢, a, t3).

N o w the h y p o t h e s i s in L e m m a 3.2 is

3) x e V^ U~O(3, x).

4) x, a, ~0 e X, ^ Us Vt~(O(¢~, x) ^ S(a, ~, a, ~ ) ) ,

q u e n t l y 1) must fail, thus proving the lemma.

inside implies definable o u t s i d e " . Notice t h a t the hypothes~s o f the

formal assertion says that O provides an e-definition of/3 in terms o f a

p a r a m e t e r f r o m V. We k n o w that there is no e-definition o f ~ in terms

of p a r a m e ' e r s f l o m V = Ra (1.7a), and it is a techpical point ( w h i c h

h o w e v e r requires some care) to see that ( u n d e r the h y p o t h e s i s ) if

D(a, ~) i.e. 'a is definable in <R~, e> in terms of p a r a m e t e r s f r o m

Ra = V', t h e n we can find an e-formula defining a in terms of param-

eters from V. Of course, the passage to the outside adds new param-

eters.

T h e n D F * is the set o f all universal closures of formulas o f the f o r m

X O, . . . , Xn__ 1

e V ^ ,I, (t3) ^ Ord(13) A U~O(/3) ~ t3 e V ,

whose free variables are i n c l u d e d a m o n g x o , ..., X n _ l , Vo.

We will refer to D F * as the s c h e m a on definable ordinals ( o b t a i n e d

f r o m ,I, ). If q, is A x ( x = x ) , we will write DF for D F * . We have allowed

finitely m a n y variab!es x m in O; using the pairing axiom for sets (which

220 Ackermann's set theory ~quals ZF

(that is,

men

suffice.

For each e, V-formula O and each variable u, Q,I, u® is the f o r m u l a

A .-- V/3' E /ji[q'(~') ^ VU V r ( R n ( / f , r) A U E r ,~ O)1 } ,

!

A

Q * u o is to be t h o u g h t o f as a quantifier; Q * u® expresses 'There is

a u such that O(u), i n d e e d there is a u n i q u e minimal ordinal/~ such t h a t

q' (t3) and some u o f rank less t h a n # satisfies O(u)'.

Notice that the free variables o f Q * u o e x c l u d e u but o t h e r w i s e are

the same as those of O.

l¢or

l

each e-formula O, 0 9 is the eormula d e t e r m i n e d by the recursive

conditions

(U E o)Q = U ~ o , (~ o ) Q = ' ~ (O Q ) ,

pends on ,I, ; if necessary we will write OQ q' .

Notice that the free variables o f ®Q are the same as those o f O, and

t h a t o Q is an e-formula.

T h e o r e m 3.1.

Section 3 22 I

thot

A* 1-- q , ( ~ ) .

( R e c a l l t h a t ~ is an indn, i d u a l c o n s t a n t i n t r o d t t c e d so t,,~at

A* I- A x ( x ~ ~ ~ ~ O r d ( x ) A x e V).)

f o r each i n s t a n c e o o f D F 'v w e have

A "" D(a,/3) o c c u r s in t h e h y p o t h e s i s o f G r e w e ' s T h e o r e m 2.8.

P r o o f o f 3.7. Le~nma 3.7 is really a c o r o l l a r y o f L e m m a 3.2. T o see t h a t

3.7 follows f r o m 3.2. observe t h a t if o is an instance o f D F * , t h e n (with-

o u t loss o f g e n e r a l i t y we m a y a s s u m e ) --- o is t h e existential closure o f a

formula

we a s s u m e 1) and argue i n f o r m a l l y in A*. A t h e o r e m o f S e c t i o n 1

(1.6e) assures that

x~ V ^ Ut~O(t3, x ) - * a :~ ~ ,

222 Ackermann 's set theory equals ZF

where we make use o f the clause 'Ord(/3)' which appears in the defini-

tion o f D F * . ) E v i d e n t l y the Lemma 3.2 applies, so ~ D(0~,/3) and we

obtain the Corollary 3.7.

w I ( t

A x E x[ ~ D(x , x ) -~ V r ( R m x , r) A MOdzF(r))] . ,;

By Theoiem 2.12a, we see that A* i-- q'(a), so both lemmas (3.6, 3.7)

apply. The essential point here is that a is quite well behaved in the

e-part o f :~he theory A*, even though (fc, r example) Zennelo's theory Z

does not hold for the classes of A. Evidently by 3.7 and our choice of

q', for each instance o of DF* we have

A* + ~ o k- MOdzF (Ra)

1) A*+~o I-o~ .

On the other hand, using 3.6 and the weak replacement schema 1.1 O,

we see that for each axiom o 0 of ZF

the replacement schema holds relativized to V. Evidently this amounts

to

3) x , y ~ VA A s ~ V V t ~ V[~oV (x, y , s, t) ^

-~ V z ~ V A ~ V ( t ~ z < . ~ Vs~x~oV(x,y,s,t)).

Section 3 223

to 3). Since ¢0 is an ~-formula, 3) b e c o m e s an instance o f the weak re-

p l a c e m e n t schema. This c o m p l e t e s the p r o o f o f 2). F r o m 1) and 2) it

follows that for each a x i o m o o f ZF,

A* t- o v ,

w h i c h is the assertion o f T h e o r e m 3. !.

p r o o f is co,~tained in a s u b l e m m a :

A* t- q~(~). Then

X O , """ X n - I , and u.

D F * , Qu "or Qu 'v , etc.

Without loss of generality, we may suppose that v o does n o t o c c u r in

O. Then Qu@ is

w h e r e x is the e-formula

Xn_ 1 E V aI~d show Vu ~ V O ~ --~ QuO.

First suppese Vu ~ V O. In A*, Ra = V ^ Ord(~), and by h y p o t h e s i s

we also have , ' (a), so Vu ~ VO implies X(a). By the reflection prin-

ciple, VI3 E a X(~'). Using the class c o n s t r u c t i o n principle A2, we m a y

consider

224 Ackermann's set theory equals ZF

A = {3 ~ o~ " ×(3)} .

N o w A ~ 0, so since O r d ( a ) t h e r e is a m i n i m a l m e m b e r ~ o f A . Using

basic p r o p e r t i e s o f ordinals, o n e easily sees t h a t this # satisfies

^ O r d ( y ) -~ # ~ y v/3 = y v y ~/3.) This d i r e c t i o n o f t h e e q u i v a l e n c e

does n o t t se t h e s c h e m a DF.

N o w s u p p o s e Q u O , i.e. V#U~3[×(lJ) n ~ V#' ~- ~ × ( ~ ' ) ] . We are to s h o w

Vu ~ V O . Fix j3 such t h a t

Evidently

satisfied. T h u s # ~ V ^ X(~), so

~ V ^ Vr Vu[u ~ r ^ R n ( # , r ) ^ O l .

desi~'ed.

This c o m p l e t e s t h e p r o o f o f L e m m a 3.8.

P r o o f o f L e m m a 3.6. L e m m a 3.6 is n o w i m m e d i a t e f r o m t h e s u b l e m m a

(3.8) by i n d u c t i o n o n f o r m u l a s . We discuss o n l y t h e case w h e r e

(9 = Vu,p. By i n d u c t i o n we m a y a s s u m e

Section 3 225

-~ [ Vu ~ v ( ¢ Q ) , ,, Qu(¢Q)I

(by 3.8!, alld hence (by the definitions of 19v and O Q) we have

This completes the proof of 3.6, and he!ace Theorem 3. ! is proved.

obtained from A* by adding the axioms of Z and the axiom

Ax Vy Vr(Rn(y, r) A ,," ~ r) we can obtain a sharper result than 3.6,

namely

T + DF I- A x e V[6) v +--~-~9] .

This is because in T

v ~ V ,\ VxO(x, y) -~ Qx-O(x, y) ;

essential use of the comprehension schema of Z (to form

{/3' e ~3 : V r V x ( R n ( f J ' , r ) ^ x e r ^ ® ) } ) .

slightly stronger version.

there is an e-formula ~3 (whose only free variables are x and y) such that

226 Ackermann 's set the,~o' equals ZF

diately yields Theorem 3.1.

eter y from O. In the abstract [ 15 ], it is mistakenly claimed (Theorem

3. o~ [ 15] ) that the proof of Theorem 3.1 yields this stronger result.

Theorem 3. of [ 15] should be replaced by the above Theorem 3.9.

of A* in A in which Rt~ plays the role of V (Theorem 1.1 2), it will suf-

fice to, prove the theorem in A*. We will need the following:

pose there is a sequence @m " rn ~ n) o f e-formulas (each with free

variables x a n d y ) such that

tn ~ ti

Proof. Since

A*P-VyEV W A x E V [ O v ~ >%nl ,

m E n

evidently

A'P- Vy~VVuEVAxEV(O v, ;

m E n

so if we take (9(x, z) to be

Vu, y ( O c ( u , Y , Z ) ^ W [u =A m ^ % n ( x , y ) ] )

m En

Section 3 227

We n o w seek to satisfy the h y p o t h e s i s o f L e m m a 3.10. The idea is to

find (for each ® m e n t i o n e d in T h e o r e m 3.9) a f o r m u l a qs w h i c h we m a y

use in L e m m a 3.6 to obtain an e-formula @e such that

1) A * + D F ve D A x ~ - V [ O v ~ - ~ ® e ] .

w h i c h the c o n c h f 1 ) fellows. Wc wil~ c h o o s e ,Is so that we also

have, for each m . i ~ 2, formulas %,z ~ (with free variables x, y ) such

that

i~2

2n + 1, and setting ¢2n = ®Q), since

A*I--( W ~Om)V /~ om

m ~ n m ~ ~t

q,, and prove 2) for it.

Choose ,P to be the c o n j u n c t i o n o f the formulas

At E Rx'[ gRx' (t) ~+ ®RT(t)]).

f r o m R x " , E(x', x ) formalizes R R x ' , e~ is an e l e m e n t a r y s u b s t r u c t u r e of

(Rx, e)', and UyS(a, ~0, 3,, x ) formalizes '3' is definable in (Rx, e) by the

f o r m u l a ~, using p a r a m e t e r s ai'; 0 is the f o r m u l a o f T h e o r e m 3.9.

228 Ackerman,Fs set t h ~ o , equals ZF

use q, in L e m m a 3.6.

To show that 2) holds, we m a y suppose t h a t "-~ %: is ( t h e existential

closure of)

where the free variables o f O,n ([3, y ) are/3 and y. We will argue infor-

mally within A*. Assuming 1 ), e v i d e n t l y L e m m a 3.2 applies, se we have

o~ ~ ~ A ~ D(e~,/3). We c o n c l u d e using q~(~) that there are ¢, a, and "~

such that ~, a ,.=-V and either

or else

) = / 3 A A X E Ro~[® Ra ~ O R~t ] ,

so that eithe~-

or else

N o w we can collapse the three p a r a m e t e r s ~0, a, y into one p a r a m e t e r 3'

(for example using Val). Thus we obtain formulas ¢,,~ i (i = 0,1 ~ such ,tllat

A* -t-~ o

m

t-- W V y ~ V A x E V [ O v , , e r ai 1

i

Corollary 3.11. Let F be a finite set o f e-Jbrmulas with one free variable

x, and q, one such formula. Then

Section 3 229

^ ~ A x ~ V [ O v ~ ,~0 v ' ] ) .

® el:

~@F OEF

%, o 1 ). Now using the upward reflection principle (1.7d), we see that

OEF

closure of the conjunction of 1) and 2) is provable in A*; from this the

corollary follows at once.

effective way of proving in A the relativization to Ra of every axiom of

ZF. Tlms combining our results with Levy's results, we have a finitary

proof of

Corollary 3.1 2. ZF is c o n s i s t e n t if]" A is consistent.

mann's schema A J, by

-~ V z A t ( t e z ~ O(t, x, y ) ) ,

the ¢!ause

230 Ackermann •s set tlseor), equals ZF

the proof is essentially the same. The main difficulty is in proving the

elementary results (e.g. those collected in Theorem 1.6, especially

f.g.h.); one must be careful to check absoluteness in order to apply 1).

Thereafter most of the results we prove for A* hold for A', with the

reservation that in cerlain schemata involving ~ one must add 2) to the

antecedent.

Section 4 231

Section 4

i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t the strength o f A*. In 4.2, we discuss natural m o d e l s

o f A*. S o m e questions are posed in 4 . 3 - 4 . 5 .

Definition 4.1. Let T1, T 2 be arbitrary theories.

a. T l is said to be finitely axiomatizable over T 2 iff there is a sen-

tence o o f the language o f T l , such that "1"2 + T 1 = T 2 + o.

b. T I is said :0 be essentially n o t finit~iy axiomatizable over T 2 iff

there is no consistent t h e o r y T' including ]'1 w h i c h is finitely axioma-

tizable over T 2 .

construction schema A2.

mula with one free variable x). We will show that T is inconsistent. One

easily shows that

h e n c e as T t--- tg(V),

each instance ~(V) o f A2, we e v i d e n t l y have

T t- AX ~ o~ ¢(RX) ;

cally as

T(R~) ~ T(R~o).

232 Ackermann's set theory equals ZF

Now by i),

form O(V), this shows that A* is essentially not finitely axiomatizable

over A2.

cussed an extension Aoo of A. Aoo is based on the idea that there can be

sets of different "orders", so that something which appears as a class

from the poi:at of view o f "order o:ae" may be a set of "order two".

Thus A ~ has individual constants V 0, V l , .,,, ; the old sets (members of

V) become the sets of order zero (members of V0), and V l , V 2, ... cor-

respond to the sets of higher orders. Also a final class Voo is introduced

which includes all the lower orders. We give here Levy's form ot Ao,,

(see Levy [8i ), which is slightly stronger than Ackermann's originat

version.

binary predicate e, and individual constants V, (n ~ ~ ) and V ~ ) whose

axioms are the universal closures of A1 (er.tensionality),

A2' (class construction schema)

Vz At(t ~t z ~ , t ~ V=,^ O)

4t

A31~ (n _< ~, - strong completeness for V n) Sc(V,),

A4'n (n _< ~ - modified Ackermann schema),

Section 4 233

x, y ~ V,, ^ A t ( ~ ( t . x. y ) ~ t ~ V,,)

Vz e V At(t e z ~ ¢ ( t , x . v'D

o c c u r in ~,

A6' Vn C

- V,~ +I c- Voo (fornEco).

T h e o r e m 4.4. Aoo m a y be a x i o m a t i z e d by

A ( V , ) all sentences ~(V,,) such that ¢ ( V ) is an a x i o m o f A (where

A6 Vn ~ V +1 EVoo (wherenEco).

Proof. Evidently A,,o yields AI(V,,)= AI, A3(V,:), A4(V,z), and (using

A6') A 2 ( V , ) for each n < o~. To see that A6 holds, in A4' take t ~ V m

for ~ and m + 1 for n. and conclude (using V ~ ~ V m + 1 ) that

V m E V m + j . By A3'. V m+l E V ~ also, so A-3 holds.

In the o t h e r direction, A I , A2', ~3' are assumed, and A6' follows

t ,

from A6 using A3'. Now it is easy to see that A4 ( V , ) yields A4 n ,

t

A6 assures that the parameters Vi, i E n may occur in the ¢ of A4 n .

A* 1- o iff A * I--- o.

P r o o f . E v i d e n t l y A* b o i m p l i e s A * I- o. Let ¢ be a f o r m u l a w i t h one

free variable x, and suppose that ~(V) is provable in A * . Then by the

preceding t h e o r e m , there is a formula O with one free variable x such

that A * b O ( V ) and

234 A ckermaml's set tk,,ory equals ZF

mulas

(where A* I-- O(V), and n ~ co). ( N o w o 0 plays the role o f V~o, % that

o f V 1.) The p r o o f is by i n d u c t i o n on n. Assume the result for m . and

let "4, be the existential closure o f 1) (taking n = m). Then the induction

hypothesis yields

A* I-- q,(V)

completes the proof.

4.2. N a t u r a l m o d e l s o f A.

We now proceed to some rer.aarks on natural models o f A.

Definition 4.6. Let o~,/3 be ordinals, n ~ a ~/3. We write Ra -< R¢3 iff for

It

Remark. Ra -< R/3 iff Ra <: R/3, and Ra -< R/3 means that R/3 is a 2nd

0 1

order extension o f Ro~. We could as well write

in these structures.

The condition R, < R@and.0 E 0 is fairly strong, as will be shown in

1

Theorem 4.12, The next theorem shows that the condition is weaker

than certain conditions which have been discussed in the literature.

iff for every first order sentence u involving e and one additional unary

predicate symbol X, and every X C_Rp, if (Rp + n, E, X> l= 0 then there

isanordinalcxE@suchthat(Ror+n,e,Xn Ra>l=u.

For rt E Y, we say that ,8 is izth order indescribable iff for every

t)t E II, 0 &s m-indescribable.

there is 0 E K such that for every n E p, 0 is n-indescribable (Vaught

[ 20 I; also see Reinhardt-Silver [ 141 and Silver [ 161, ch. 4). The notion

of indescribability was introduced by Hanf and Scott in 171. It should

be remarked that p is 2nd order indescribable iff (R,IJ + 1, E) is a model

of Fernays strong set theory (see Bernays I2 I ). 0 is strongly inaccessible

iff 0 is O-indescribable.

such slutt

variable such that for every ordinal /3, every e-formula 8, and any

YE R,

,6 Ackermann's set theory equals ZF

such that

(y,O) E Xn Ra iff ( R a + n , e ) p 0 [ y ]

iff (R~+n,e)~0[yl ,

n

n

(R/~ + n, e, R a ) ~ A .

1) xE Ra^O(x,a)-* Vy~aO(x,y)

First observe that since (Ra, e) -< (RtLe), we certainly have

x, y E a implies x + y E ot

Let A(o o, v l) be a formula expressing

'Oo,O1 are ordinals, and there is an ordinal whose order

type is the ordinal sum vo + 01'.

Section 4 237

2) ( R ~ + n , e ) l= A [ x , n ] iff x e ~ .

holds in <Rt3 + n, e> (here Xo, ..., x m_) exhaust the free variables of ~o).

Evidently (by 2))

we get

so 2) yields

exist) that <R~, e, Rat I= A does not imply <Ra, e> -< <Rt3, e), and even

that <R~, e, Re> ~ A and <R#, e) ~ Z does not imply (R~, e> ~- ZF. For

suppose that Ra < R/~; then <Rt~ + 1, e, RcC ~ A, but evidently not

1

(Ra, e> -< (R/3 + 1, e>. Or suppose that Ra -< R/3; then <RE + ~ , e, Ra>

tO

238 Ackerm~m'~ set theory equals ZF

4.8. Theorem 4.12 is known (the proof for the c~se n = ! is carried out

in Tharp [24] ; the general statement is given in Reinhardt [ 15a] ); for

completeness we include the proof here. First a definition.

an ordinal, and A c_ R/3. We say that O well orders A in R/3 iff

is a well ordering of A.

orderings. In particular we will need

ordinal ~ >_ o~, there is an e-formula 0 such that 0 wel! orders R~ + 1 in

R~+l.

For proof see G6del [ 5 ].

mula which well orders R# + 1 in Rf3 + n. Tlten ~ and ~ are n-indescrib-

able.

Proof. To simplify the discussion we assume n = 1 ; all the ideas are con-

tained in this case.

It is enough to see that for every e-formula O (with one free variable)

and every X c R~, we have

(R~ + 1, e) ~ O[X n Rc~].

and an X c_ R# such that

Section 4 239

holds in (Re + 1, e> w h e n x takes the value X. (Here we use the defina-

bility oft3 in (P,43 + 1, e); in the general case e n e can use the definability

o f # in (Rt3 + n, e, n>.) Let ",I,( x ) b e the formula displayed in 2). Then

since ~, well orders Re + 1 in R/3 + 1,

holds in ( R/3 + 1, e), and hence (since Re -< R/3) in <Ra + 1, e> ,also. Let

1

X' be the subset o f Re defined by 3) in (Re + 1, e), and X be the subset

of R/3 defined by 3) in ( R~ + 1, e). Since Re -< R/3, for each x ~ Ra we

1

have

x ~ X' iff x ~ X .

hence 0) in (R,~ + 1, e), so we have

1-indescribable. Since for each formula O, and every ordinal/3, the con-

dition

c o m p l e t e s the proof.

t

e is greater than the first inaccessible cardinal, thus settling a q u e s t i o n

o f Levy and Vaught in case V = L (the general question remains open).

240 Ackermann 's set theory equals ZF

We now raise some questions about definability in natural model~

which are related to Ackermann's set theory.

Theorem 4.9 generalizes a result of L~vy's (he obtained the case

n = I ). Is there a second order version o f Grewe's theorem 2.8?

Question 4.13. Let o~, fl be ordinals. Suppose that for every x ~ Ra, a is

not definable in (R~3 + 1, e, x). Is there a 7 <- # such that a ~ ~, and

Ro~ -< R3,?

l

Theorem 4.9 shows (assuming there are various indescribable cardi-

nals) that we can have a wide variety o f ordinals a, # such that

(R#, e, R~) ~ A but not Ra --- R~. The methods of proof do not seem

to answer the following question, however.

Question 4.14. Suppose that a,/3, ~, are ordinals,/3 ~ 7 and R/3 -< RT,

and for every x ~ Ra, o~ is not definable in ( R/3, e, x). Does it follow

that Ra -< R/3?

Ra -< R/3 if (RT, e, Ra), (RT, e, R G) are models of A with ~ <_/3. The

syntactic question corresponding to this is whether the schema

1) x ~ V 0 - , [O v o ~ e v~]

This question is related to Theorem 3.c~~, which says that (in A*) the

quantifier 'Vx ~ V' can be eliminated in favor of an expression (which

has a parameter y ~ V) involv!ng only e. Improving Theorem 3.9 to

read:

e) with one free variable x such that

A I - x ~_v-* [O v ~ ~ 0 ]

Section 4 241

typical ambiguity (see Specker [ 18] ) than to A, but seems to have the

flavor of the preceding questions.

Question 4.15. How large is the first ordir.al 3' such that there are

ordinals a i, i ~ ~ for which i < / - + ai < e / a n d

$V

[ 161, p. 78), then it is easy to see that 7 satisfies 3). (Silver's condition

is satisfied if 3' is a measvrable cardinal.) But the condition 3) is prob-

ably quite weak.

4.4. Q u e s t i o n s a b o u t f i n i t e axio.matizability.

Next we consider some questions about ffinite axiomatizability.

In most cases where we have a proof that a theory T is not finitely

axiomatizable over a theory S, the methods of proof yield a stronger

result, namely that if S c_ T' c_ T and T' is finitely axiomatizable over S,

then the consistency of T' is provable in T. (Of course a precise formu-

lation of the stronger result is sensitive to the way ' I " is consistent' is

expressed.) I would like to mention some examples of theories T, S

such that the consistency of S is not provable in I-, but it appears likely

that T is not finitely axiomatizable over S.

Conjecture 4.16.

a. A + Z is not finitely axiomatizable over A.

b. A + ZF is not finitely axi~matizable over A.

The weak comprehension schema of' Z - was introduced and studied

by Tarski. He showed that Z is essentially not finitely axiomatizable

over Z - , and that Z- is finitely axiomatizable (unpublished). I do not

even know whether A + Z- I-- Z. Of course b implies a. We can make

some conjectures even stronger than b. For this we need some defini-

tions.

with axioms A1, A2, A3, A5 and the following schema of complete

242 Ackermann "sset theory equals ZF

reflection:

x,y~V~[ov ,--~O]

connection with Ldvy's p r o o f of the consistency of A (see [ 8 ] ). For

completeness we mention the main result relating ZA and ZF.

Theorem 4.18.

a. F o r e-selztences o, ZA I-- o i l l Z F t- o.

b. Ac_ZA.

of Levy, Montague, Vaught. The proof that for e-sentences ZA I-- o im-

plies ZF I---o uses the reflection principle for ZF (Montague [ 12] ).

b. It is enough to check DF c_ ZA, as the reflection principle for V

(Theorem 1.7c) is contained in DF + ZF and implies Ackermann's

schema A4. (DF is defined by Definition 3.3.) Notice that a and b to-

gether show Levy's half of t h e o r e m 3.1.

We say T is neatly interpretable in S iff there is an e-formula ,p with one

free variable x such that

b. S ~- (x E y v x -C- y ) A ¢ ( y ) -~ ~p(>.),

c. S I - y C V--, ~0(y).

Conjecture 4.20.

ZA is not finitely axiomatizable over A + DF.

that Z is essentially not finitely axiomatizable over T?

Section 4 243

The last example seems in some sense more elementary. The theories

have infinite similarity type, but this defect may be removed by simply

considering the e-part of the theories.

individual constants V n (for each n ~ ~ ) . The axioms of T include (for

each n) the pairing, union, and power set axioms relativized to V n , the

schema A2 with V replaced by V n , and an axiom V n ~_ V n t 1. Is T + Z

finitely axiomatizable over T?

for V), and A* is firAtely axiomatizable over A by definition, the theo-

ries are of essentially the same strength (although it is easy to prove

that A* 4: A). Moreover the two theories have the same natural models.

Thus, both from the point ofvizw of relative consistency, and from the

point of view of natural models, questions about what is provable in A

without use of A5 are curiosities. For completeness, however, I mention

the following questions which 1 have not answered.

in A?

b. A ~ V z A t ( t ~ z ~ t =V)?

C. If we add the reflection principle for V (1.7c) to A do we obtain

A* ?

244 Ackermann "s set theory equals ZF

Section 5

This section has two parts. The first part extends the main result o f

Section 3 to certain extensions of ZF and A. The second contains an

analysis of the intuitive ideas behind Ackermann's theory. This ana2ysis

suggests the introduction of an extension A + of A.

to ZM and A~.

obtained from ZA (see Definition 4.17) by adding rhe axiom

e0 x~VAAu~x Vo~VRl(u,o,r)-+

VyEVAu~x Vo~y Rl(u,v,r)

accessible. ZM and stronger theories ZM A have been studied in the

literature. (See especially Levy [8, 9]. ZA is the theory Sb of [81 .)

Other characterizations of ZM are known; the one we have chosen for

5. la is due to Levy and will be convenient in the proof of 5.2. Results

analogous to 5.2 hold for ZM A , and indeed can be proved in the same

way.

Theorem 5.2.

A~l--o v iff Z M | - o .

~(V) is any theorem of ZA, then

It is enough to show that for any finite set F of axioms of ZA, we can

show

Section 5 245

o~F

Now the axioms of ZA are A1, instances of the schema A2, A3, and in-

stances of the complete reflection schema

3) Ax E V(Ov , . , O)

in A* now) for an7 V' such that V c- V' and Sc(V'), it is evident that all

instances of A2 hold relativized to v ' , and the relativizatiens to V' of

3) become

But now Corollary 3.11 allows us tc :hoose V' so that V E V' and

Sc(V') and any finite number of instances of 4) hold. This establishes

2) and hence 1).

Now evidently A~ c ZA + e 0, so if A~ l- ov then ZM I-- o. If

ZM I- o, then ZA I- e 0 -~ ov . By 1), we then have

and since

A*t-V~V'ASc(V')-~[%-~e ]^[(ov) v ~o vl ,

to an analysis o f the intuitive ideas behind Ackermann's theory.

It was mentioned in the introduction that the basis for Ackermann's

axioma schema A4 appears to be the idea that sufficiently sharply de-

limited collections of sets are sets. In this connection I would like to

suggest that it is helpful to think of " t h e collection of all sets (V) is not

sharply delimited" as meaning that there are various classes which are

possible interpretations of the collection of all sets, among which there

246 Ackermann "sset theory equals ZF

a variable which could d e n o t e any o f (say) V 0' V l , V 2 , .... (This sug-

gestion seems to be c o n s o n a n t with the theory Aoo considered by

A c k e r m a n n . ) In order to formulate the principle 'sharply d e l i m i t e d

collection o f sets are sets' we m u s t explain 'sharply d e l h n i t e d ' also for

(at least some) collections o t h e r than the collection o f all sets. If ~(t) is

any formula (with one free variable t) we explain the n o t i o n for the col-

lection o f sets satisfying ~0(t). This collection corresponds to the formula

,I,(V, t) = ~0(t) ^ t ~ V; thus it is natural to say that the collection is

sharply delimited if w h a t satisfies ,!, (V, t) is i n d e p e n d e n t o f the inter-

pretation o f V. In order to simplify the discussion let us assume there

are exactly t w o interpretations o f the collection o f all sets, V 0 and V l ,

and that V 0 c_ V 1" Now the formula

t

the interpretation o f V, i.e. { t : ,J.,(V, t) } is sharply delimited. T h e n the

principle'that sharply delimited collections o f sets are sets is expressed

by

t

3) At(~o(t) ~ t ~ V 0)

then

so that we have by 2)

K t ( ¢ ( t ) ~ t ~ V o) ~ Vz ~ V o A t ( t ~ z ~ ~ ~o(t)),

Section 5 247

h y p o t h e s e s o f 2).

These considerations suggest the following definition.

t w o individual constants V, V') whose axioms are

1. The axioms o f A* e x c e p t for A c k e r m a n n ' s schema A4.

2. VC_ V'.

3. The universal closures o f the following schema (in place o f A4)

t

and z does not occur in ~).

lowing schema o f indescribability is consistent:

i) x, yC_ V ^ @(V,x,y)--~ V v ~ _ V O ( v , x N v , y N o ) ,

be an appropriate representation o f intersection. For an indication of a

p r o o f see [15a; Chapter 5, p. 7 8 ] . The schema 1) was considered by

Vaught [20] and shown to be consistent with A* if ZF + ' t h e r e is a

measurable cardinal' is consistent. For a stronger result, see Reinhardt-

Silver [ 14] ; prools can be f o u n d in Silver [ 16]. It seems likely that A*

plus l ) is m u c h stronger than A + , but l k n o w no resultz, in this direc-

tion.

T h e o r e m 5.4.

a. A * ~ A + ,

b. A + t- V ~ V ' .

mally in A + . Let ~ range over ordinals, and V = Ra. If

248 Aekermann's set theoo' equals ZF

={x" Vfl~V'(xER/3CV')},

so t h a t RO~ V' a n d R/3 _~" R e . N o w a =/~ v ~ ~ a -~ R/~ C R a , so f o r this

/~, a ~ ~ a n d we h a v e V = R a ~ R/3 c_ V' as desired.

References

336- 345.

12] P.Bernays, Zur Frage der Unendlichkeitsschemata in der axiomatischen Mengenlehre,

Essays on the foundations of mathematics (Magnes Press, Jerusalem, 1961) 3-49.

[3] G.Cantor, Beitr~ige zur Begriindung der transfiniten Mengenlehre, Gesammelte A bhand-

kungen (Springer, Berlin, 1932) 282.

14] A.A.Fraenkel and Y.Bar-HiUel, Foundations of set theory (North-Holland, Amsterdam,

1958).

[5] K.G6del, The consistency of tile axiom of choice and of the generalized continuuva

hypothesis with the axioms of set theory, fovrth printing (Princeton, 1958) 69 Pl •

[6] R.Grewe, On Ackermann's set theory, Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los

Angeles, 1966.

[6al R.Grewe, Natural models of Ackermann's set theory. J. Symb. Logic 34 (1969) 48 ! ....

488.

[7] W.Hanf and D.Scott, Classifying inacceesible cardinals, Am. Math. Soc. Notices 12 (1965)

723.

[8] A.Levy, On Ackermann's set theory, J. Symb. Logic 24 (1959) 154-166.

[9] A.Levy, Axiom schemata of strong infinity in axiomatic set theory, Pacific J. Math. lf~

(1960) 223-238.

[ 101 A.Levy, A hierarchy of formulas it, set theory, Memoir Number 57, American Mathe-

matical Society (Providence, 1965).

[ 11 ] A.Levy and R.L.Vaught, Principles of partial reflection in the set theories of Zermelo and

Ackermann, Pacific J. Math. 11 (196t) 1045-1062.

[ 12] R.Montague, Two contributions to the foundations of set theory, Logic, Methodology

and Philosophy of Science. Proceedings of the ! 960 International Congress (Stanford,

1962) 94-110.

[ 13] R.Montague and R.L.Vaught, Natural models of set theory, Fund. Math. 47 (1959) 219-

242.

[ 14] W.N.Reinhardt and J.Sibmr. !. On some problems of Erdos and ltajnal, Am. Math. Soc.

Notices 12 (1965) 723.

[151 W.N.Reinhardt, Ackermann's set theory coincides with ZF, Am. Math. Soc. Notices 13

(1966) 727.

[ 15al W.N.Reinhardt, Topics in the metamathematics of set theory, Doctoral dissertation,

University of California, Berkeley, 1967.

References 249

[ 16] J.Silver, Some applications of model theory in set theory, Doctoral dissertation, Univer-

sity of California, Berkeley, 1966.

[ 17] R.Solovay. Real-v~ued measurable cardinals, Am. Math. Soc. Notices.

[ 18] E.Specker, Typical ambiguity, Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. Proceed-

ings of the 1960 International Congress (Stanford, 1962) pp. 116-124.

[ 19] A.Tarski and R.L.Vaught, Arithmetical extensions of relational systems, Compositio

Math. 13 (1957)

[ 20] R.L.Vaught, Inde~ribable cardinals, Am. Math. Soc. Notices 10 (1963) 126.

[ 21] E.Zermelo, Untersuchungen tiber die Grundlagen der Mengenlehre I., Mathematische

Annalen 65 (1907) 261-281.

[22] G.Kreisel, Mathematical logic, Lectures on Modern Mathematics, vol III, ed. E.Saaty

(Wiley, 1965).

[ 23] H.J.Keisler and A.Tarski, From accessible to inaccessible cardinals, Fund. Math. 53 (1964)

225--308.

[ 24] L.Tharp, On a set theory of Bernays, J. Symb. Logic 32 (1967) 319-321.

- George David Birkhoff, Ralph Beatley - Basic Geometry - Manual for Teachers (2000, American Mathematical Society).pdfTransféré parRaoul
- On some Smarandache determinant sequencesTransféré parDon Hass
- Partee Set TheoryTransféré parFaiz Ahmed
- lec15-dm09Transféré parDeepti Singh
- Coalition Proofness in a Class of Games With Strategic SubstitutesTransféré parIraKristinaTobing
- Discrete MathematicsTransféré parFH
- Godels Incompleteness TheoremTransféré parABFlier
- 35_1_setsTransféré parfatcode27
- lipschitz_cond.pdfTransféré parAbhishek Senapati
- Chapter0Transféré parKonstantinos Alexiou
- Saharon Shelah- Models of Expansions of N with No End ExtensionsTransféré parUwem356
- A class of fusion rules based on the belief redistribution to subsets or complementsTransféré parAnonymous 0U9j6BLllB
- Introduction_to_algorithms_A_creative_approach (1).pdfTransféré parJudyC.Guevara
- IJETTCS-2014-06-10-079Transféré parAnonymous vQrJlEN
- 9783662448076-c2Transféré parAleksandër
- chapter09.pdfTransféré parscribddmail
- Secure Function Evaluation Using Garbled Ciruits Built From Propositional Formulae.Transféré parbrainscauseminds
- Automated Reasoning FOL HandoutTransféré parJan Hula
- ICSE Class VIII Mathematics Set Concepts - TopperLearningTransféré paralokkumar001

- o que é ação culturalTransféré parapi-3827725
- Top ten books on international relations and foreign policyTransféré parWellington Migliari
- El Cuzary de Yehuda Ha Levi -ESPAÑOLTransféré parVictor Martinez Hernandez
- Tax system in NorwayTransféré parWellington Migliari
- A Questão da UniversidadeTransféré parLuiz Gabriel Lacerda
- 01 ChalmersTransféré pardafne keller
- The Swedish Banking Crisis Roots and ConsequencesTransféré parNguyễn Hiệp
- Livro Incompleto - Inimigos Internos Da DemocraciaTransféré parFábia Regina
- Brasílio Sallum Impeachment Collor.pdfTransféré parWellington Migliari
- boe-1939-1945-partii-chapterii.pdfTransféré parWellington Migliari
- 617191.pdfTransféré parWellington Migliari
- Aquaculture.pdfTransféré parWellington Migliari
- Paulo S. Pinheiro - Autoritarismoe transiçãoTransféré parEttore Dias Medina
- Os Mistérios Da InflaçãoTransféré parDanilo
- Chantal Mouffe - The Democratic ParadoxTransféré parMinBsb
- As Hienas e Os Vira Latas - Carta MaiorTransféré parWellington Migliari
- DEPOIMENTO_ Contradições de Mauricio Segall fizeram dele homem de exceção - 02_08_2017 - Ilustrada - Folha de S.pdfTransféré parWellington Migliari
- DEPOIMENTO_ Contradições de Mauricio Segall fizeram dele homem de exceção - 02_08_2017 - Ilustrada - Folha de S.pdfTransféré parWellington Migliari
- _O PT tem que fazer sua autocrítica, se explicar_. Entrevista com Olívio Dutra - Instituto Humanitas Unisinos - IHUTransféré parWellington Migliari
- 10 Outrageous Slums in Unexpected Places - ListverseTransféré parWellington Migliari
- Luiz Carlos MacielTransféré parWellington Migliari
- Luiz Carlos MacielTransféré parWellington Migliari
- ¡Viva en Chile! _ Vivienda _ EL PAÍSTransféré parWellington Migliari
- Marco de Evaluación Normativa en Materia de Planeamiento (Versión Final)Transféré parWellington Migliari
- Bolivia 3 claves del éxito económico del país que más crece en América del Sur - BBC MundoTransféré parWellington Migliari
- 'Tourists Go Home'_ Leftists Resist Spain's Influx - BBC NewsTransféré parWellington Migliari
- Puigdemont avisa que l'1-O segueix vigent perquè _cap tribunal el podrà tombar_Transféré parWellington Migliari
- Conselho de Defesa - UNASURTransféré parWellington Migliari
- Conselho de Defesa - UNASURTransféré parWellington Migliari

- Ado Dot NetTransféré parToshiyuki Takeda
- social studies learning differences lesson planTransféré parapi-341433651
- tabela nepravilnih glagolaTransféré parJovana Kojic
- Sparkcharts.sparknotes.com Lit Literaryterms Section6Transféré parvishwasandeep123
- Ppccbb Lomce High Five 2. EnglishTransféré parElenaArevalo
- educ stellaluna oral language activity-2Transféré parapi-302151781
- Redeeming Sima QianTransféré parPH2303327
- LINQTransféré parZekarias Behailu
- Netbeans and Spring AOPTransféré parTech
- Tips & TricksTransféré parVishwanath Todurkar
- 61006-141621-patni papersTransféré parNeha Mukhi
- Celtic Fairy TalesTransféré parJohn Walsh
- Introductory Reference to the IBM AS400Transféré parapi-26564177
- Algorithmics Theory and PracticeTransféré parMarlene Vásquez
- The Satanic KabalahTransféré parWill Maker 666
- Lesson My Papa’s WaltzTransféré paraekulak
- Thesis Tabulation.Transféré parMoni1983ga
- lesson plan managing moneyTransféré parapi-340989456
- Thematic Translation Installment 72 Chapter an-Nabaa'a (78) by Aurangzaib YousufzaiTransféré pari360.pk
- NASA World Wind Open Source Project.docTransféré parhansjenny
- Pharmaceutical Industry An2Transféré parDiana
- Syllabus - MTC Philosophy 101-A51 SPR12Transféré parPaul C. Graham
- MFSCV SquareSpace_092017.pdfTransféré parmsteele242185
- Freelisting.pdfTransféré parrks_rmrct
- 1998 Celce-murcia Dornyei Thurrell TqTransféré paraycagvn
- Object Oriented Programming (OOP) - CS304 Power Point Slides Lecture 31Transféré parSameer Hane
- Gates of MordorTransféré parbobbyb
- Faizan e بسم اللہ ( Kannada - Faizan e Bismillah ) Faizan e Sunnat vol.01 , Part.01Transféré parObaidRaza
- LicentaTransféré parDaniela E. Lixandru
- Teaching Listening SkillsTransféré parSubramaniam Kolandan