

Line 1: 
Line 1: 
−  {{DISPLAYTITLE: Transitive model of $\text{ZFC}$}}
 +  #REDIRECT [[ZFC#Transitive models]] 
−  A ''transitive model of $\text{ZFC}$'' is a [[transitive]] set $M$ such that the structure $\langle M,\in\rangle$ satisfies all of the [[ZFC$\text{ZFC}$]] axioms of set theory. The existence of such a model is strictly stronger than [[Con ZFC  $\text{Con(ZFC)}$]] and stronger than an iterated [[Con ZFC#Consistency hierarchy  consistency hierarchy]], but weaker than the existence of an [[worldly]] cardinal, a cardinal $\kappa$ for which $V_\kappa$ is a model of $\text{ZFC}$, and consequently also weaker than the existence of an [[inaccessible]] cardinal. Not all transitive models of $\text{ZFC}$ have the $V_\kappa$ form, for if there is any transitive model of $\text{ZFC}$, then by the LöwenheimSkolem theorem there is a countable such model, and these never have the form $V_\kappa$.
 +  
−   +  
−  Nevertheless, every transitive model $M$ of $\text{ZFC}$ provides a settheoretic forum inside of which one can view nearly all classical mathematics taking place. In this sense, such models are inaccessible to or out of reach of ordinary settheoretic constructions. As a result, the existence of a transitive model of $\text{ZFC}$ can be viewed as a large cardinal axiom: it expresses a notion of largeness, and the existence of such a model is not provable in $\text{ZFC}$ and has consistency strength strictly exceeding $\text{ZFC}$.
 +  
−   +  
−  == Minimal transitive model of $\text{ZFC}$ ==
 +  
−   +  
−  If there is any transitive model $M$ of $\text{ZFC}$, then $L^M$, the constructible universe as computed in $M$, is also a transitive model of $\text{ZFC}$ and indeed, has the form $L_\eta$, where $\eta=\text{ht}(M)$ is the height of $M$. The ''minimal transitive model of $\text{ZFC}$'' is the model $L_\eta$, where $\eta$ is smallest such that this is a model of $\text{ZFC}$. The argument just given shows that the minimal transitive model is a subset of all other transitive models of $\text{ZFC}$.
 +  
−   +  
−  == Omega model of $\text{ZFC}$ ==
 +  
−   +  
−  An ''$\omega$model'' of $\text{ZFC}$ is a model of $\text{ZFC}$ whose collection of natural numbers is isomorphic to the actual natural numbers. In other words, an $\omega$model is a model having no nonstandard natural numbers, although it may have nonstandard ordinals. (More generally, for any ordinal $\alpha$, an $\alpha$model has wellfounded part at least $\alpha$.) Every transitive model of $\text{ZFC}$ is an $\omega$model, but the latter concept is strictly weaker.
 +  
−   +  
−  == Consistency hierarchy ==
 +  
−   +  
−  The existence of an $\omega$model of $\text{ZFC}$ and implies [[Con ZFC  $\text{Con(ZFC)}$]], of course, and also [[ Con ZFC#Consistency hierarchy  $\text{Con(ZFC+Con(ZFC))}$]] and a large part of the iterated [[ Con ZFC#Consistency hierarchy  consistency hierarchy]]. This is simply because if $M\models\text{ZFC}$ and has the standard natural numbers, then $M$ agrees that $\text{Con(ZFC)}$ holds, since it has the same proofs as we do in the ambient background. Thus, we believe that $M$ satisfies $\text{ZFC+Con(ZFC)}$ and consequently we believe $\text{Con(ZFC+Con(ZFC))}$. It follows again that $M$ agrees with this consistency assertion, and so we now believe $\text{Con}^3(\text{ZFC})$. The model $M$ therefore agrees and so we believe $\text{Con}^4(\text{ZFC})$ and so on transfinitely, as long as we are able to describe the ordinal iterates in a way that $M$ interprets them correctly.
 +  
−   +  
−  == Transitive models of $\text{ZFC}$ fragments ==
 +  
−   +  
−  Every finite fragment of $\text{ZFC}$ admits numerous transitive models, as a consequence of the [[reflection theorem]].
 +  
−   +  
−  == Transitive models and forcing ==
 +  
−   +  
−  Countable transitive models of set theory were used historically as a convenient way to formalize [[forcing]]. Such models $M$ make the theory of forcing convenient, since one can easily prove that for every partial order $\mathbb{P}$ in $M$, there is an $M$generic [[filter]] $G\subset\mathbb{P}$, simply by enumerating the dense subsets of $\mathbb{P}$ in $M$ in a countable sequence $\langle D_n\mid n\lt\omega\rangle$, and building a descending sequence $p_0\geq p_1\geq p_2\geq\cdots$, with $p_n\in D_n$. The filter $G$ generated by the sequence is $M$generic.
 +  
−   +  
−  For the purposes of consistency proofs, this manner of formalization worked quite well. To show $\text{Con}(\text{ZFC})\to \text{Con}(\text{ZFC}+\varphi)$, one fixes a finite fragment of $\text{ZFC}$ and works with a countable transitive model of a suitably large fragment, producing $\varphi$ with the desired fragment in a forcing extension of it.
 +  
−   +  
−  == Transitive model universe axiom ==
 +  
−   +  
−  The ''transitive model universe axiom'' is the assertion that every set is an element of a transitive model of $\text{ZFC}$. This axiom makes a stronger claim than the [[reflecting#The Feferman theory  Feferman theory]], since it is asserted as a single firstorder claim, but weaker than the [[universe axiom]], which asserts that the universes have the form $V_\kappa$ for inaccessible cardinals $\kappa$.
 +  
−   +  
−  The transitive model universe axiom is sometimes studied in the background theory not of $\text{ZFC}$, but of [[ZFCP]], omitting the power set axiom, together with the axiom asserting that every set is countable. Such an enterprise amounts to adopting the latter theory, not as the fundamental axioms of mathematics, but rather as a background metatheory for studying the [[multiverse]] perspective, investigating how the various actual settheoretic universe, transitive models of full $\text{ZFC}$, relate to one another.
 +  