Difference between revisions of "Wholeness axioms"

From Cantor's Attic
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{DISPLAYTITLE: The Wholeness Axiom}}
 
{{DISPLAYTITLE: The Wholeness Axiom}}
  
The wholeness axioms, proposed by Paul Corazza <cite>Corazza2000:WholenessAxiomAndLaverSequences</cite> <cite>Corazza2003:GapBetweenI3andWA</cite>, occupy a
+
The wholeness axioms, proposed by Paul Corazza <cite>Corazza2000:WholenessAxiomAndLaverSequences, Corazza2003:GapBetweenI3andWA</cite>, occupy a
 
high place in the upper stratosphere of the large cardinal
 
high place in the upper stratosphere of the large cardinal
 
hierarchy, intended as slight weakenings of the [[Kunen inconsistency]], but similar in spirit.  
 
hierarchy, intended as slight weakenings of the [[Kunen inconsistency]], but similar in spirit.  

Revision as of 06:57, 5 January 2012


The wholeness axioms, proposed by Paul Corazza [1, 2], occupy a high place in the upper stratosphere of the large cardinal hierarchy, intended as slight weakenings of the Kunen inconsistency, but similar in spirit.

The wholeness axioms are formalized in the language $\{\in,j\}$, augmenting the usual language of set theory $\{\in\}$ with an additional unary function symbol $j$ to represent the embedding. The base theory ZFC is expressed only in the smaller language $\{\in\}$. Corazza's original proposal, which we denote by $\text{WA}_0$, asserts that $j$ is a nontrivial amenable elementary embedding from the universe to itself. Elementarity is expressed by the scheme $\varphi(x)\iff\varphi(j(x))$, where $\varphi$ runs through the formulas of the usual language of set theory; nontriviality is expressed by the sentence $\exists x j(x)\not=x$; and amenability is simply the assertion that $j\upharpoonright A$ is a set for every set $A$. Amenability in this case is equivalent to the assertion that the separation axiom holds for $\Delta_0$ formulae in the language $\{\in,j\}$. The wholeness axiom WA, also denoted $\text{WA}_\infty$, asserts in addition that the full separation axiom holds in the language $\{\in,j\}$.

Those two axioms are the endpoints of the hierarchy of axioms $\text{WA}_n$, asserting increasing amounts of the separation axiom. Specifically, the wholeness axiom $\text{WA}_n$, where $n$ is amongst $0,1,\ldots,\infty$, consists of the following:

  1. (elementarity) All instances of $\varphi(x)\iff\varphi(j(x))$ for $\varphi$ in the language $\{\in,j\}$.
  2. (separation) All instances of the Separation Axiom for $\Sigma_n$ formulae in the full language $\{\in,j\}$.
  3. (nontriviality) The axiom $\exists x\,j(x)\not=x$.

Clearly, this resembles the Kunen inconsistency. What is missing from the wholeness axiom schemes, and what figures prominantly in Kunen's proof, are the instances of the replacement axiom in the full language with $j$. In particular, it is the replacement axiom in the language with $j$ that allows one to define the critical sequence $\langle \kappa_n\mid n\lt\omega\rangle$, where $\kappa_{n+1}=j(\kappa_n)$, which figures in all the proofs of the Kunen inconsistency. Thus, none of the proofs of the Kunen inconsistency can be carried out with WA, and indeed, in every model of WA the critical sequence is unbounded in the ordinals.

The hiearchy of wholeness axioms is strictly increasing in strength, if consistent. [3]

If $j:V_\lambda\to V_\lambda$ witnesses a rank into rank cardinal, then $\langle V_\lambda,\in,j\rangle$ is a model of the wholeness axiom.

If the wholeness axiom is consistent with ZFC, then it is consistent with ZFC+V=HOD.[3]

References

  1. Corazza, Paul. The Wholeness Axiom and Laver sequences. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic pp. 157--260, October, 2000. bibtex
  2. Corazza, Paul. The gap between ${\rm I}_3$ and the wholeness axiom. Fund Math 179(1):43--60, 2003. www   DOI   MR   bibtex
  3. Hamkins, Joel David. The wholeness axioms and V=HOD. Arch Math Logic 40(1):1--8, 2001. www   arχiv   DOI   MR   bibtex
Main library