Set Theory

Stages and Ranks

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 VαV_\alphasources

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

V=Vα+=(Vα)for any ordinal αVα=γ<αVγwhen α is a limit ordinalV_\emptyset &\defis \emptyset\\ V_{\ordsucc{\alpha}} &\defis \Pow{V_\alpha} & & \text{for any ordinal }\alpha\\ V_{\alpha} &\defis \bigcup_{\gamma < \alpha} V_\gamma & & \text{when }\alpha\text{ is a limit ordinal}source

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 VαV_\alphasources will be an important milestone. We have informally motivated our hierarchy of sets as forming sets by stages. The VαV_\alphasources 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 τ(x)\tau(x)source be a term; let ffsource be a function; let α\alphasource be an ordinal. We say that ffsource is an α\alphasource-approximation for τ\tausource iff both dom(f)=α\dom{f} = \alphasource and (βα)f(β)=τ(fβ)(\forall \beta \in \alpha)f(\beta) = \tau(\funrestrictionto{f}{\beta})source.

Lemma: Bounded Recursion

[Bounded Recursion] For any term τ(x)\tau(x)source and any ordinal α\alphasource, there is a unique α\alphasource-approximation for τ\tausource.

Proof

We will show that, for any γα\gamma \leq \alphasource, there is a unique γ\gammasource-approximation.

We first establish uniqueness. Let ggsource and hhsource (respectively) be γ\gammasource- and δ\deltasource-approximations. A transfinite induction on their arguments shows that g(β)=h(β)g(\beta) = h(\beta)source for any βdom(g)dom(h)=γδ=min(γ,δ)\beta \in \dom{g} \cap \dom{h} = \gamma \cap \delta = \min(\gamma, \delta)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 δα\delta \leq \alphasource.

The empty function is trivially an \emptysetsource-approximation.

If ggsource is a γ\gammasource-approximation, then g{γ,τ(g)}g \cup \{\tuple{\gamma, \tau(g)}\}source is a γ+\ordsucc{\gamma}source-approximation.

If γ\gammasource is a limit ordinal and gδg_\deltasource is a δ\deltasource-approximation for all δ<γ\delta < \gammasource, let g=δγgδg = \bigcup_{\delta \in \gamma} g_\deltasource. This is a function, since our various gδg_\deltasources agree on all values. And if δγ\delta \in \gammasource then g(δ)=gδ+(δ)=τ(gδ+δ)=τ(gδ)g(\delta) = g_{\ordsucc{\delta}}(\delta) = \tau(\funrestrictionto{g_{\ordsucc{\delta}}}{\delta}) = \tau(\funrestrictionto{g}{\delta})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 α\alphasource from the previous result. In the statement and proof of the following result, when σ\sigmasource is a term, we let σα={β,σ(β):βα}\funrestrictionto{\sigma}{\alpha} = \Setabs{\tuple{\beta, \sigma(\beta)}}{\beta \in \alpha}source.

Theorem: General Recursion

[General Recursion] For any term τ(x)\tau(x)source, we can explicitly define a term σ(x)\sigma(x)source, such that σ(α)=τ(σα)\sigma(\alpha) = \tau(\funrestrictionto{\sigma}{\alpha})source for any ordinal α\alphasource.

Proof

For each α\alphasource, by lemma “Bounded Recursion” in chapter “Stages and Ranks” there is a unique α\alphasource-approximation, fαf_\alphasource, for τ\tausource. Define σ(α)\sigma(\alpha)source as fα+(α)f_{\ordsucc{\alpha}}(\alpha)source. Now:

σ(α)=fα+(α)=τ(fα+α)=τ({β,fα+(β):βα})=τ({β,fβ+(β):βα})=τ(σα)\sigma(\alpha) &= f_{\ordsucc{\alpha}}(\alpha) \\&= \tau(\funrestrictionto{f_{\ordsucc{\alpha}}}{\alpha}) \\&= \tau(\Setabs{\tuple{\beta, f_{\ordsucc{\alpha}}(\beta)}}{\beta \in \alpha}) \\&= \tau(\Setabs{\tuple{\beta, f_{\ordsucc{\beta}}(\beta)}}{\beta \in \alpha})\\&= \tau(\funrestrictionto{\sigma}{\alpha})source

noting that fβ+(β)=fα+(β)f_{\ordsucc{\beta}}(\beta) = f_{\ordsucc{\alpha}}(\beta)source for all β<α\beta < \alphasource, 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 σ\sigmasource to define a function, i.e., a certain kind of set, since then dom(σ)\dom{\sigma}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 VαV_\alphasources. 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 τ(x)\tau(x)source and θ(x)\theta(x)source and any set AAsource, we can explicitly define a term σ(x)\sigma(x)source such that:

σ()=Aσ(α+)=τ(σ(α))for any ordinal ασ(α)=θ(ran(σα))when α is a limit ordinal\sigma(\emptyset) &= A\\ \sigma(\ordsucc{\alpha}) &= \tau(\sigma(\alpha)) && \text{for any ordinal }\alpha\\ \sigma(\alpha) &= \theta(\ran{\funrestrictionto{\sigma}{\alpha}})&& \text{when }\alpha\text{ is a limit ordinal}source

Proof

We start by defining a term, ξ(x)\xi(x)source, as follows:

ξ(x)={Aif x is not a function whosedomain is an ordinal; otherwise:τ(x(α))if dom(x)=α+θ(ran(x))if dom(x) is a limit ordinal\xi(x) = \begin{cases} A &\text{if $x$ is not a function whose}\\ &\hspace{1em}\text{domain is an ordinal; otherwise:}\\ \tau(x(\alpha)) & \text{if $\dom{x} = \ordsucc{\alpha}$}\\ \theta(\ran{x}) & \text{if $\dom{x}$ is a limit ordinal} \end{cases}source

By theorem “General Recursion” in chapter “Stages and Ranks”, there is a term σ(x)\sigma(x)source such that σ(α)=ξ(σα)\sigma(\alpha) = \xi(\funrestrictionto{\sigma}{\alpha})source for every ordinal α\alphasource; moreover, σα\funrestrictionto{\sigma}{\alpha}source is a function with domain α\alphasource. We show that σ\sigmasource has the required properties, by simple transfinite induction (theorem “Simple Transfinite Induction” in chapter “Ordinals”).

First, σ()=ξ()=A\sigma(\emptyset) = \xi(\emptyset) = Asource.

Next, σ(α+)=ξ(σα+)=τ(σα+(α))=τ(σ(α))\sigma(\ordsucc{\alpha}) = \xi(\funrestrictionto{\sigma}{\ordsucc{\alpha}}) = \tau(\funrestrictionto{\sigma}{\ordsucc{\alpha}}(\alpha)) = \tau(\sigma(\alpha))source.

Last, σ(α)=ξ(σα)=θ(ran(σα))\sigma(\alpha) = \xi(\funrestrictionto{\sigma}{\alpha}) = \theta(\ran{\funrestrictionto{\sigma}{\alpha}})source, when α\alphasource is a limit.

noindent Now, to vindicate definition one in chapter “Stages and Ranks”, just take A=A = \emptysetsource and τ(x)=(x)\tau(x) = \Pow{x}source and θ(x)=x\theta(x) = \bigcup xsource. At long last, this vindicates the definition of the VαV_\alphasources!

Source file content/set-theory/spine/stagesbasics.tex

Basic Properties of Stages

To bring out the foundational importance of the definition of the VαV_\alphasources, 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

The set AAsource is potent iff x((yA)xyxA)\forall x((\exists y \in A)x \subseteq y \lif x \in A)source.

Lemma two in this chapter

For each ordinal α\alphasource:

  1. Each VαV_\alphasource is transitive.

  2. Each VαV_\alphasource is potent.

  3. If γα\gamma \in \alphasource, then VγVαV_\gamma \in V_\alphasource (and hence also VγVαV_\gamma \subseteq V_\alphasource by item 1 of lemma two in chapter “Stages and Ranks”)

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 β<α\beta < \alphasource.

The case of α=\alpha = \emptysetsource is trivial.

Suppose α=β+\alpha = \ordsucc{\beta}source. To show item 3 of lemma two in chapter “Stages and Ranks”, if γα\gamma \in \alphasource then VγVβV_\gamma \subseteq V_\betasource by hypothesis, so Vγ(Vβ)=VαV_\gamma \in \Pow{V_\beta} = V_\alphasource. To show item 2 of lemma two in chapter “Stages and Ranks”, suppose ABVαA \subseteq B \in V_\alphasource i.e., ABVβA \subseteq B \subseteq V_\betasource; then AVβA \subseteq V_\betasource so AVαA \in V_\alphasource. To show item 1 of lemma two in chapter “Stages and Ranks”, note that if xAVαx \in A \in V_\alphasource we have AVβA \subseteq V_\betasource, so xVβx \in V_\betasource, so xVβx \subseteq V_\betasource as VβV_\betasource is transitive by hypothesis, and so xVαx \in V_\alphasource.

Suppose α\alphasource is a limit ordinal. To show item 3 of lemma two in chapter “Stages and Ranks”, if γα\gamma \in \alphasource then γγ+α\gamma \in \ordsucc{\gamma} \in \alphasource, so that VγVγ+V_\gamma \in V_{\ordsucc{\gamma}}source by assumption, hence VγβαVβ=VαV_\gamma \in \bigcup_{\beta \in \alpha} V_\beta = V_\alphasource. 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

For each ordinal α\alphasource, VαVαV_\alpha \notin V_\alphasource.

Proof

By transfinite induction. Evidently VVV_\emptyset \notin V_\emptysetsource.

If Vα+Vα+=(Vα)V_{\ordsucc{\alpha}} \in V_{\ordsucc{\alpha}} = \Pow{V_\alpha}source, then Vα+VαV_{\ordsucc{\alpha}} \subseteq V_\alphasource; and since VαVα+V_\alpha \in V_{\ordsucc{\alpha}}source by lemma two in chapter “Stages and Ranks”, we have VαVαV_\alpha \in V_\alphasource. Conversely: if VαVαV_\alpha \notin V_\alphasource then Vα+Vα+V_{\ordsucc{\alpha}} \notin V_{\ordsucc{\alpha}}source

If α\alphasource is a limit and VαVα=βαVβV_\alpha \in V_\alpha = \bigcup_{\beta \in \alpha}V_\betasource, then VαVβV_\alpha \in V_\betasource for some βα\beta \in \alphasource; but then also VβVαV_\beta \in V_\alphasource so that VβVβV_\beta \in V_\betasource by lemma two in chapter “Stages and Ranks” (twice). Conversely, if VβVβV_\beta \notin V_\betasource for all βα\beta \in \alphasource, then VαVαV_\alpha \notin V_\alphasource.

Corollary one in this chapter

For any ordinals α,β\alpha, \betasource: αβ\alpha \in \betasource iff VαVβV_\alpha \in V_\betasource

Proof

Lemma two in chapter “Stages and Ranks” gives one direction. Conversely, suppose VαVβV_\alpha \in V_\betasource. Then αβ\alpha \neq \betasource by lemma three in chapter “Stages and Ranks”; and βα\beta \notin \alphasource, for otherwise we would have VβVαV_\beta \in V_\alphasource and hence VβVβV_\beta \in V_\betasource by lemma two in chapter “Stages and Ranks” (twice), contradicting lemma three in chapter “Stages and Ranks”. So αβ\alpha \in \betasource by Trichotomy.

noindent All of this allows us to think of each VαV_\alphasource as the α\alphasourceth stage of the hierarchy. Here is why.

Certainly our VαV_\alphasources 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., VβVαV_\beta \in V_\alphasource, i.e., βα\beta \in \alphasource, then our process of formation is cumulative, since VβVαV_\beta \subseteq V_\alphasource. Finally, we are indeed forming all possible collections of sets that were available at any earlier stage, since any successor stage Vα+V_{\ordsucc{\alpha}}source is the power-set of its predecessor VαV_\alphasource.

In short: with ZF\ZFminussource, 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 ZF\ZFminussource guarantees that every set is in some VαV_\alphasource, 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 VαV_\alphasources are our stages, we might simply consider adding the following as an axiom:

Definition four in this chapter

Regularity. AαAVα\forall A \exists \alpha\, A \subseteq V_\alphasource

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] (A)(BA)AB=(\forall A \neq \emptyset)(\exists B \in A)A \cap B = \emptysetsource.

With some effort, we can show (in ZF\ZFminussource) that Foundation entails Regularity:

Definition five in this chapter

For each set AAsource, let:

cl0(A)=A,cln+1(A)=cln(A),trcl(A)=n<ωcln(A).\text{cl}_0(A) &= A,\\ \text{cl}_{n+1}(A) &= \bigcup \text{cl}_n(A),\\ \text{trcl}(A) &= \bigcup_{n < \omega} \text{cl}_{n}(A).source

We call trcl(A)\text{trcl}(A)source the transitive closure of AAsource.

noindent The name “transitive closure” is apt:

Proposition one in this chapter

Atrcl(A)A \subseteq \trcl{A}source and trcl(A)\trcl{A}source is a transitive set.

Proof

Evidently A=cl0(A)trcl(A)A = \text{cl}_0(A) \subseteq \text{trcl}(A)source. And if xbtrcl(A)x \in b \in \trcl{A}source, then bcln(A)b \in \text{cl}_n(A)source for some nnsource, so xcln+1(A)trcl(A)x \in \text{cl}_{n+1}(A) \subseteq \text{trcl}(A)source.

Lemma four in this chapter

If AAsource is a transitive set, then there is some α\alphasource such that AVαA \subseteq V_\alphasource.

Proof

Recalling the definition of “lsub(X)\supstrict(X)source” from definition nine in chapter “Ordinals”, define two sets:

D={xA:δxVδ}α=lsub{δ:(xA)(xVδ(γδ)xVγ)}D &= \Setabs{x \in A}{\forall \delta\ x \nsubseteq V_\delta}\\ \alpha &= \supstrict\Setabs{\delta}{(\exists x \in A) (x \subseteq V_\delta \land (\forall \gamma \in \delta)x \nsubseteq V_\gamma)}source

Suppose D=D = \emptysetsource. So if xAx \in Asource, then there is some δ\deltasource such that xVδx \subseteq V_\deltasource and, by the well-ordering of the ordinals, (γδ)xVγ(\forall \gamma \in \delta)x \nsubseteq V_\gammasource; hence δα\delta \in \alphasource and so xVαx \in V_\alphasource by lemma two in chapter “Stages and Ranks”. Hence AVαA \subseteq V_{\alpha}source, as required.

So it suffices to show that D=D = \emptysetsource. For reductio, suppose otherwise. By Foundation, there is some BDAB \in D \subseteq Asource such that DB=D \cap B = \emptysetsource. If xBx \in Bsource then xAx \in Asource, since AAsource is transitive, and since xDx \notin Dsource, it follows that δxVδ\exists \delta\ x \subseteq V_\deltasource. So now let

β=lsub{δ:(xb)(xVδ(γ<δ)xVγ)}.\beta = \supstrict\Setabs{\delta}{(\exists x \in b)(x \subseteq V_\delta \land (\forall \gamma < \delta)x \nsubseteq V_\gamma)}.source

As before, BVβB \subseteq V_\betasource, contradicting the claim that BDB \in Dsource.

Theorem three in this chapter

Regularity holds.

Proof

Fix AAsource; now Atrcl(A)A \subseteq \trcl{A}source by proposition one in chapter “Stages and Ranks”, which is transitive. So there is some α\alphasource such that Atrcl(A)VαA \subseteq \trcl{A} \subseteq V_\alphasource by the lemma on Transitive Well Founded

These results show that ZF\ZFminussource proves the conditional FoundationRegularity\emph{Foundation}\Rightarrow\emph{Regularity}source. In proposition “working in set theory Z F minus plus Regularity” in chapter “Stages and Ranks”, we will show that ZF\ZFminussource proves RegularityFoundation\emph{Regularity}\Rightarrow\emph{Foundation}source. As such, Foundation and Regularity are equivalent (modulo ZF\ZFminussource). But this means that, given ZF\ZFminussource, 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

Z\Zsource and ZF\ZFsource: A Milestone

With Foundation, we reach another important milestone. We have considered theories Z\Zminussource and ZF\ZFminussource, which we said were certain theories “minus” a certain something. That certain something is Foundation. So:

Definition six in this chapter

The theory Z\Zsource adds Foundation to Z\Zminussource. So its axioms are Extensionality, Union, Pairs, Powersets, Infinity, Foundation, and all instances of the Separation scheme.

The theory ZF\ZFsource adds Foundation to ZF\ZFminussource. Otherwise put, ZF\ZFsource adds all instances of Replacement to Z\Zsource.

Still, one question might have occurred to you. If Regularity is equivalent over ZF\ZFminussource 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 VαV_\alphasources. 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 ZF\ZFminussource, they are not equivalent modulo Z\Zminussource.

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 Z\Zminussource and Z\Zsource are too weak to define the VαV_\alphasources. So, if you are working only in Z\Zsource, 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 ZF\ZFsource (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 VαV_\alphasource'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 AAsource is the first moment at which AAsource is formed. More precisely:

Definition seven in this chapter

For each set AAsource, rank(A)\setrank{A}source is the least ordinal α\alphasource such that AVαA \subseteq V_\alphasource.

Proposition two in this chapter

rank(A)\setrank{A}source exists, for any AAsource.

Proof

Left as an exercise.

Exercise one in this chapter

Prove proposition two in chapter “Stages and Ranks”.

noindent The well-ordering of ranks allows us to prove some important results:

Proposition three in this chapter

For any ordinal α\alphasource, Vα={x:rank(x)α}V_\alpha = \Setabs{x}{\setrank{x} \in \alpha}source.

Proof

If rank(x)α\setrank{x} \in \alphasource then xVrank(x)Vαx \subseteq V_{\setrank{x}} \in V_\alphasource, so xVαx \in V_\alphasource as VαV_\alphasource is potent (invoking lemma two in chapter “Stages and Ranks” multiple times). Conversely, if xVαx \in V_\alphasource then xVαx \subseteq V_\alphasource, so rank(x)α\setrank{x} \leq \alphasource; now a simple transfinite induction shows that xVαx \notin V_\alphasource.

Exercise two in this chapter

Complete the simple transfinite induction mentioned in proposition three in chapter “Stages and Ranks”.

Proposition four in this chapter

If BAB \in Asource, then rank(B)rank(A)\setrank{B} \in \setrank{A}source.

Proof

AVrank(A)={x:rank(x)rank(A)}A \subseteq V_{\setrank{A}} = \Setabs{x}{\setrank{x} \in \setrank{A}}source by proposition three in chapter “Stages and Ranks”.

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

[\insource-Induction Scheme] For any formula ϕ\phisource:

A((xA)ϕ(x)ϕ(A))Aϕ(A).\forall A((\forall x \in A)\phi(x) \lif \phi(A)) \lif \forall A \phi(A).source

Proof

We will prove the contrapositive. So, suppose ¬Aϕ(A)\lnot \forall A \phi(A)source. By Transfinite Induction (theorem “Transfinite Induction” in chapter “Ordinals”), there is some non-ϕ\phisource of least possible rank; i.e.\ some AAsource such that ¬ϕ(A)\lnot \phi(A)source and x(rank(x)rank(A)ϕ(x))\forall x(\setrank{x} \in \setrank{A} \lif \phi(x))source. Now if xAx \in Asource then rank(x)rank(A)\setrank{x} \in \setrank{A}source, by proposition four in chapter “Stages and Ranks”, so that ϕ(x)\phi(x)source; i.e.\ (xA)ϕ(x)¬ϕ(A)(\forall x \in A)\phi(x) \land \lnot \phi(A)source.

noindent Here is an informal way to gloss this powerful result. Say that ϕ\phisource is hereditary iff whenever every element of a set is ϕ\phisource, the set itself is ϕ\phisource. Then \insource-Induction tells you the following: if ϕ\phisource is hereditary, every set is ϕ\phisource.

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

rank(A)=lsubxArank(x)\setrank{A} = \supstrict_{x \in A}\setrank{x}source.

Proof

Let α=lsubxArank(x)\alpha = \supstrict_{x \in A}\setrank{x}source. By proposition four in chapter “Stages and Ranks”, αrank(A)\alpha \leq \setrank{A}source. But if xAx \in Asource then rank(x)α\setrank{x} \in \alphasource, so that xVαx \in V_\alphasource by proposition three in chapter “Stages and Ranks”, and hence AVαA \subseteq V_\alphasource, i.e., rank(A)α\setrank{A} \leq \alphasource. Hence rank(A)=α\setrank{A} = \alphasource.

Corollary two in this chapter

For any ordinal α\alphasource, rank(α)=α\setrank{\alpha} = \alphasource.

Proof

Suppose for transfinite induction that rank(β)=β\setrank{\beta} = \betasource for all βα\beta \in \alphasource. Now rank(α)=lsubβαrank(β)=lsubβαβ=α\setrank{\alpha} = \supstrict_{\beta \in \alpha}\setrank{\beta} = \supstrict_{\beta \in \alpha}\beta = \alphasource 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 ZF\ZFminussource proves the conditional RegularityFoundation\emph{Regularity} \Rightarrow \emph{Foundation}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 ZF+Regularity\ZFminus + \text{Regularity}source.)

Proposition: working in set theory Z F minus plus Regularity

[working in ZF+Regularity\ZFminus + \text{Regularity}source] Foundation holds.

Proof

Fix AA \neq \emptysetsource, and some BAB \in Asource of least possible rank. If cBc \in Bsource then rank(c)rank(B)\setrank{c} \in \setrank{B}source by proposition four in chapter “Stages and Ranks”, so that cAc \notin Asource by choice of BBsource.