Tarski3,052407

# We define ms to be dkks where dkk is as above we

This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Minimality, note that at exact upper bound for ∅, and incomparable. Thus (D,>) has elements. But all x Œ D have every stage we introduce an these exact upper bounds are a proper class of minimal a set of strict predecessors. For Dk, note that (Dk,>k) has minimal elements introduced at every stage a < k. Let x Œ Da, a < k. Then any minimal element introduced at any stage ≥ a will not be < x. QED Note also that for every x Œ D, we introduce some y minimally > x at every stage after x is introduced, and y remains minimally > x at every later stage. This also applies to (Dk,>k), for limit ordinals k. Now fix S to be a nonempty set of limit ordinals, with no greatest element, whose union is k. We define M[S] to be (Dk,>k,>>S), where Dk,>k is as above. We define x >>S y if and only if x,y Œ Dk Ÿ (\$a,b Œ S)(a < b Ÿ y Œ Da Ÿ ("w Œ Db)(x > w)). LEMMA 7.2. M[S] satisfies Basic. Proof: x >> y Æ x > y. Let x,y Œ Dk. Let a,b Œ S, a < b, y Œ Da, ("w Œ Db)(x >k w)). Since y Œ Db, x >k y. x >> y Ÿ y > z Æ x >> z. Let x,y,z Œ Dk. Let a,b Œ S, a < b, y Œ Da, ("w Œ Db)(x >k w), y >k z. Then z Œ Da, and so x >>S z. x > y Ÿ y >> z Æ x >> z. Let x,y,z Œ Dk. Let a,b Œ S, a < b, z Œ Da, ("w Œ Db)(y >k w), x >k y. Then ("w Œ Db)(x >k w), and so x >>S z. 9 (\$x)(x >> y,z). Let a,b Œ S, a < b, y,z Œ Da. Let x Œ Da+1 be the exact upper bound of Da introduced in Da+1. Then x >>S y,z. x >> y Æ (\$z)(x >> z Ÿ z is minimally > y). Let a,b Œ S, a < b, y Œ Da, ("w Œ Db)(x >k w)). Let y Œ Dg, g < a. Let z Œ Dg+1 be minimally >k y. Note that x >>S z. QED LEMMA 7.3. MK proves that there exists a set ordinals, with no greatest element, with the indiscernibility property. For all a < b < g have the same first order properties over V, any parameters from V(a). S of limit following from S, b,g relative to LEMMA 7.4. Let n < w. ZF proves that there exists a set S of limit ordinals, with no greatest element, with the following indiscernibility property. For all a < b < g from S, b,g have the same first order properties over V, with at most n quantifiers, relative to any parameters from V(a). LEMMA 7.5. Let S to be a nonempty set of limit ordinals, with no greatest element. In M[S], x >> y if and only if ("w Œ Db)(x > w), where b is the least ordinal in S after a, and a is the least ordinal in S such that y Œ Da. LEMMA 7.6. Suppose S has the indiscernibility property in Lemma 7.3. Then M[S] satisfies Basic + Minimal + Existence + Amplification. Proof: By Lemmas 7.1 and 7.2, we need only verify Amplification. Let y >k x, and j(x) true in M[S], using >k,=, and >>S x. Let a be the least element of S such that x Œ Da. Let b be the least element of S after a. Let a’ be the least element of S such that y Œ Da’. Let b’ be the lea...
View Full Document

## This note was uploaded on 08/05/2011 for the course MATH 366 taught by Professor Joshua during the Fall '08 term at Ohio State.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online