Reading preferences
Optional display controls need JavaScript. All reading content and navigation work without it.
Source file content/set-theory/spine/spine.tex
Source file content/set-theory/spine/idea.tex
Defining the Stages as the sources
In chapter “Ordinals”, we defined well-orderings and the (von Neumann) ordinals. In this chapter, we will use these to characterise the hierarchy of sets itself. To do this, recall that in section “Successor and Limit Ordinals” in chapter “Ordinals”, we defined the idea of successor and limit ordinals. We use these ideas in following definition:
Definition one in this chapter
noindent This will be a definition by transfinite recursion on the ordinals. In this regard, we should compare this with recursive definitions of functions on the natural numbers.Footnote: Cf.\ the definitions of addition, multiplication, and exponentiation in section “Dedekind Algebras” in chapter “Infinite Sets”. As when dealing with natural numbers, one defines a base case and successor cases; but when dealing with ordinals, we also need to describe the behaviour of limit cases.
This definition of the sources will be an important milestone. We have informally motivated our hierarchy of sets as forming sets by stages. The sources are, in effect, just those stages. Importantly, though, this is an internal characterisation of the stages. Rather than suggesting a possible model of the theory, we will have defined the stages within our set theory.
Source file content/set-theory/spine/recursion.tex
The Transfinite Recursion Theorem(s)
The first thing we must do, though, is confirm that definition one in chapter “Stages and Ranks” is a successful definition. More generally, we need to prove that any attempt to offer a transfinite by (transfinite) recursion will succeed. That is the aim of this section.
Warning: this is tricky material. The overarching moral, though, is quite simple: Transfinite Induction plus Replacement guarantee the legitimacy of (several versions of) transfinite recursion.Footnote: A reminder: all formulas and terms can have parameters (unless explicitly stated otherwise).
Definition two in this chapter
Let source be a term; let source be a function; let source be an ordinal. We say that source is an source-approximation for source iff both source and source.
Lemma: Bounded Recursion
[Bounded Recursion] For any term source and any ordinal source, there is a unique source-approximation for source.
Proof
We will show that, for any source, there is a unique source-approximation.
We first establish uniqueness. Let source and source (respectively) be source- and source-approximations. A transfinite induction on their arguments shows that source for any source. So our approximations are unique (if they exist), and agree on all values.
To establish existence, we now use a simple transfinite induction (theorem “Simple Transfinite Induction” in chapter “Ordinals”) on ordinals source.
The empty function is trivially an source-approximation.
If source is a source-approximation, then source is a source-approximation.
If source is a limit ordinal and source is a source-approximation for all source, let source. This is a function, since our various sources agree on all values. And if source then source.
This completes the proof by transfinite induction.
If we allow ourselves to define a term rather than a function, then we can remove the bound source from the previous result. In the statement and proof of the following result, when source is a term, we let source.
Theorem: General Recursion
[General Recursion] For any term source, we can explicitly define a term source, such that source for any ordinal source.
Proof
For each source, by lemma “Bounded Recursion” in chapter “Stages and Ranks” there is a unique source-approximation, source, for source. Define source as source. Now:
noting that source for all source, as in lemma “Bounded Recursion” in chapter “Stages and Ranks”.
noindent Note that theorem “General Recursion” in chapter “Stages and Ranks” is a schema. Crucially, we cannot expect source to define a function, i.e., a certain kind of set, since then source would be the set of all ordinals, contradicting the Burali-Forti Paradox (theorem “Burali-Forti Paradox” in chapter “Ordinals”).
It still remains to show, though, that theorem “General Recursion” in chapter “Stages and Ranks” vindicates our definition of the sources. This may not be immediately obvious; but it will become apparent with a last, simple, version of transfinite recursion.
Theorem: Simple Recursion
[Simple Recursion] For any terms source and source and any set source, we can explicitly define a term source such that:
Proof
We start by defining a term, source, as follows:
By theorem “General Recursion” in chapter “Stages and Ranks”, there is a term source such that source for every ordinal source; moreover, source is a function with domain source. We show that source has the required properties, by simple transfinite induction (theorem “Simple Transfinite Induction” in chapter “Ordinals”).
First, source.
Next, source.
noindent Now, to vindicate definition one in chapter “Stages and Ranks”, just take source and source and source. At long last, this vindicates the definition of the sources!
Source file content/set-theory/spine/stagesbasics.tex
Basic Properties of Stages
To bring out the foundational importance of the definition of the sources, we will present a few basic results about them. We start with a definition:Footnote: There's no standard terminology for “potent”; this is the name used by Tim Button (2021).
Definition three in this chapter
Lemma two in this chapter
For each ordinal source:
Proof
We prove this by a (simultaneous) transfinite induction. For induction, suppose that item 1 of lemma two in chapter “Stages and Ranks”--item 3 of lemma two in chapter “Stages and Ranks” holds for each ordinal source.
The case of source is trivial.
Suppose source. To show item 3 of lemma two in chapter “Stages and Ranks”, if source then source by hypothesis, so source. To show item 2 of lemma two in chapter “Stages and Ranks”, suppose source i.e., source; then source so source. To show item 1 of lemma two in chapter “Stages and Ranks”, note that if source we have source, so source, so source as source is transitive by hypothesis, and so source.
Suppose source is a limit ordinal. To show item 3 of lemma two in chapter “Stages and Ranks”, if source then source, so that source by assumption, hence source. To show item 1 of lemma two in chapter “Stages and Ranks” and item 2 of lemma two in chapter “Stages and Ranks”, just observe that a union of transitive (respectively, potent) sets is transitive (respectively, potent).
Lemma three in this chapter
Proof
By transfinite induction. Evidently source.
If source, then source; and since source by lemma two in chapter “Stages and Ranks”, we have source. Conversely: if source then source
If source is a limit and source, then source for some source; but then also source so that source by lemma two in chapter “Stages and Ranks” (twice). Conversely, if source for all source, then source.
Corollary one in this chapter
Proof
Lemma two in chapter “Stages and Ranks” gives one direction. Conversely, suppose source. Then source by lemma three in chapter “Stages and Ranks”; and source, for otherwise we would have source and hence source by lemma two in chapter “Stages and Ranks” (twice), contradicting lemma three in chapter “Stages and Ranks”. So source by Trichotomy.
noindent All of this allows us to think of each source as the sourceth stage of the hierarchy. Here is why.
Certainly our sources can be thought of as being formed in an iterative process, for our use of ordinals tracks the notion of iteration. Moreover, if one stage is formed before the other, i.e., source, i.e., source, then our process of formation is cumulative, since source. Finally, we are indeed forming all possible collections of sets that were available at any earlier stage, since any successor stage source is the power-set of its predecessor source.
In short: with source, we are almost done, in articulating our vision of the cumulative-iterative hierarchy of sets. (Though, of course, we still need to justify Replacement.)
Source file content/set-theory/spine/foundation.tex
Foundation
We are only almost done---and not quite finished---because nothing in source guarantees that every set is in some source, i.e., that every set is formed at some stage.
Now, there is a fairly straightforward (mathematical) sense in which we don't care whether there are sets outside the hierarchy. (If there are any there, we can simply ignore them.) But we have motivated our concept of set with the thought that every set is formed at some stage (see stageshier in section “The Story in More Detail” in chapter “Steps towards Z”). So we will want to preclude the possibility of sets which fall outside of the hierarchy. Accordingly, we must add a new axiom, which ensures that every set occurs somewhere in the hierarchy.
Since the sources are our stages, we might simply consider adding the following as an axiom:
Definition four in this chapter
Regularity. source
This would be a perfectly reasonable approach. However, for reasons that will be explained in the next section, we will instead adopt an alternative axiom:
Axiom: Foundation
[Foundation] source.
With some effort, we can show (in source) that Foundation entails Regularity:
Definition five in this chapter
For each set source, let:
noindent The name “transitive closure” is apt:
Proposition one in this chapter
Proof
Evidently source. And if source, then source for some source, so source.
Lemma four in this chapter
If source is a transitive set, then there is some source such that source.
Proof
Recalling the definition of “source” from definition nine in chapter “Ordinals”, define two sets:
Suppose source. So if source, then there is some source such that source and, by the well-ordering of the ordinals, source; hence source and so source by lemma two in chapter “Stages and Ranks”. Hence source, as required.
So it suffices to show that source. For reductio, suppose otherwise. By Foundation, there is some source such that source. If source then source, since source is transitive, and since source, it follows that source. So now let
Theorem three in this chapter
Regularity holds.
Proof
Fix source; now source by proposition one in chapter “Stages and Ranks”, which is transitive. So there is some source such that source by the lemma on Transitive Well Founded
These results show that source proves the conditional source. In proposition “working in set theory Z F minus plus Regularity” in chapter “Stages and Ranks”, we will show that source proves source. As such, Foundation and Regularity are equivalent (modulo source). But this means that, given source, we can justify Foundation by noting that it is equivalent to Regularity. And we can justify Regularity immediately on the basis of stageshier.
Source file content/set-theory/spine/zf.tex
source and source: A Milestone
With Foundation, we reach another important milestone. We have considered theories source and source, which we said were certain theories “minus” a certain something. That certain something is Foundation. So:
Definition six in this chapter
The theory source adds Foundation to source. So its axioms are Extensionality, Union, Pairs, Powersets, Infinity, Foundation, and all instances of the Separation scheme.
The theory source adds Foundation to source. Otherwise put, source adds all instances of Replacement to source.
Still, one question might have occurred to you. If Regularity is equivalent over source to Foundation, and Regularity's justification is clear, why bother to go around the houses, and take Foundation as our basic axiom, rather than Regularity?
Setting aside historical reasons (to do with who formulated what and when), the basic reason is that Foundation can be presented without employing the definition of the sources. That definition relied upon all of the work of section “The Transfinite Recursion Theorem(s)” in chapter “Stages and Ranks”: we needed to prove Transfinite Recursion, to show that it was justified. But our proof of Transfinite Recursion employed Replacement. So, whilst Foundation and Regularity are equivalent modulo source, they are not equivalent modulo source.
Indeed, the matter is more drastic than this simple remark suggests. Though it goes well beyond this book's remit, it turns out that both source and source are too weak to define the sources. So, if you are working only in source, then Regularity (as we have formulated it) does not even make sense. This is why our official axiom is Foundation, rather than Regularity.
From now on, we will work in source (unless otherwise stated), without any further comment.
Source file content/set-theory/spine/rank.tex
Rank
Now that we have defined the stages as the source's, and we know that every set is a subset of some stage, we can define the rank of a set. Intuitively, the rank of source is the first moment at which source is formed. More precisely:
Definition seven in this chapter
For each set source, source is the least ordinal source such that source.
Proposition two in this chapter
Proof
Left as an exercise.
Exercise one in this chapter
noindent The well-ordering of ranks allows us to prove some important results:
Proposition three in this chapter
Proof
If source then source, so source as source is potent (invoking lemma two in chapter “Stages and Ranks” multiple times). Conversely, if source then source, so source; now a simple transfinite induction shows that source.
Exercise two in this chapter
Complete the simple transfinite induction mentioned in proposition three in chapter “Stages and Ranks”.
Proposition four in this chapter
Proof
noindent Using this fact, we can establish a result which allows us to prove things about all sets by a form of induction:
Theorem: the membership relation-Induction Scheme
Proof
We will prove the contrapositive. So, suppose source. By Transfinite Induction (theorem “Transfinite Induction” in chapter “Ordinals”), there is some non-source of least possible rank; i.e.\ some source such that source and source. Now if source then source, by proposition four in chapter “Stages and Ranks”, so that source; i.e.\ source.
noindent Here is an informal way to gloss this powerful result. Say that source is hereditary iff whenever every element of a set is source, the set itself is source. Then source-Induction tells you the following: if source is hereditary, every set is source.
To wrap up the discussion of ranks (for now), we'll prove a few claims which we have foreshadowed a few times.
Proposition five in this chapter
Proof
Let source. By proposition four in chapter “Stages and Ranks”, source. But if source then source, so that source by proposition three in chapter “Stages and Ranks”, and hence source, i.e., source. Hence source.
Corollary two in this chapter
Proof
Suppose for transfinite induction that source for all source. Now source by proposition five in chapter “Stages and Ranks”.
Finally, here is a quick proof of the result promised at the end of section “Foundation” in chapter “Stages and Ranks”, that source proves the conditional source. (Note that the notion of “rank” and proposition four in chapter “Stages and Ranks” are available for use in this proof since---as mentioned at the start of this section---they can be presented using source.)
Proposition: working in set theory Z F minus plus Regularity
[working in source] Foundation holds.
Proof
Fix source, and some source of least possible rank. If source then source by proposition four in chapter “Stages and Ranks”, so that source by choice of source.