# Difference between revisions of "ORD is Mahlo"

m (moved Levy scheme to ORD is Mahlo) |
|||

Line 1: | Line 1: | ||

+ | The assertion ''ORD is Mahlo'' is the scheme expressing that the proper class [[REG]] consisting of all regular cardinals is a [[stationary]] proper class, meaning that it has elements from every definable (with parameters) [[closed unbounded]] proper class of ordinals. In other words, the scheme asserts for every formula $\varphi$, that if for some parameter $z$ the class $\{\alpha\mid \varphi(\alpha,z)\}$ is a closed unbounded class of ordinals, then it contains a regular cardinal. | ||

− | + | * If $\kappa$ is [[Mahlo]], then $V_\kappa\models\text{ORD is Mahlo}$. | |

+ | * Consequently, the existence of a Mahlo cardinal implies the consistency of ORD is Mahlo, and the two notions are not equivalent. | ||

+ | * Moreoever, since the ORD is Mahlo scheme is expressible as a first-order theory, it follows that whenever $V_\gamma\prec V_\kappa$, then also $V_\gamma$ satisfies the Levy scheme. | ||

+ | * Consequently, if there is a Mahlo cardinal, then there is a club of cardinals $\gamma\lt\kappa$ for which $V_\gamma\models\text{ORD is Mahlo}$. | ||

− | + | A simple compactness argument establishes that ORD is Mahlo is equiconsistent over ZFC with the existence of an [[inaccessible reflecting cardinal]]. On the one hand, if $\kappa$ is an inaccessible reflecting cardinal, then since $V_\kappa\prec V$ it follows that any class club definable in $V$ with parameters below $\kappa$ will be unbounded in $\kappa$ and hence contain $\kappa$ as an element and consequently contain an inaccessible cardinal. On the other hand, if ORD is Mahlo is consistent, then every finite fragment of the theory asserting that $\kappa$ is an inaccessible reflecting cardinal (which is after all asserted as a scheme) is consistent, and hence by compactness the whole theory is consistent. | |

− | + | ||

− | + | ||

− | + | ||

− | + | ||

− | + | ||

− | + | ||

− | + | ||

− | + | ||

− | + |

## Revision as of 18:43, 29 December 2011

The assertion *ORD is Mahlo* is the scheme expressing that the proper class REG consisting of all regular cardinals is a stationary proper class, meaning that it has elements from every definable (with parameters) closed unbounded proper class of ordinals. In other words, the scheme asserts for every formula $\varphi$, that if for some parameter $z$ the class $\{\alpha\mid \varphi(\alpha,z)\}$ is a closed unbounded class of ordinals, then it contains a regular cardinal.

- If $\kappa$ is Mahlo, then $V_\kappa\models\text{ORD is Mahlo}$.
- Consequently, the existence of a Mahlo cardinal implies the consistency of ORD is Mahlo, and the two notions are not equivalent.
- Moreoever, since the ORD is Mahlo scheme is expressible as a first-order theory, it follows that whenever $V_\gamma\prec V_\kappa$, then also $V_\gamma$ satisfies the Levy scheme.
- Consequently, if there is a Mahlo cardinal, then there is a club of cardinals $\gamma\lt\kappa$ for which $V_\gamma\models\text{ORD is Mahlo}$.

A simple compactness argument establishes that ORD is Mahlo is equiconsistent over ZFC with the existence of an inaccessible reflecting cardinal. On the one hand, if $\kappa$ is an inaccessible reflecting cardinal, then since $V_\kappa\prec V$ it follows that any class club definable in $V$ with parameters below $\kappa$ will be unbounded in $\kappa$ and hence contain $\kappa$ as an element and consequently contain an inaccessible cardinal. On the other hand, if ORD is Mahlo is consistent, then every finite fragment of the theory asserting that $\kappa$ is an inaccessible reflecting cardinal (which is after all asserted as a scheme) is consistent, and hence by compactness the whole theory is consistent.