INTRODUCTION TO AXIOMATIC SET THEORY
SYNTHESE LIBRARY
MONOGRAPHS ON EPISTEMOLOGY,
LOGIC, METHODOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY
OF SCIENCE,
SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCE AND
OF
KNOWLEDGE,
AND
ON THE MATHEMATICAL
METHODS OF
SOCIAL AND
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Editors:
DONALD DAVIDSON, Rockefeller University and Princeton University J AAKKO HINTIKKA, Academy of Finland and Stanford University GABRIEL NUCHELMANS, University of Leyden WESLEY C. SALMON, Indiana University
JEANLOUIS KRIVINE
D. REIDEL PUBLISHING COMPANY / DORDRECHTHOLLAND
THEORIE AXIOMATIQUE DES ENSEMBLES
First published by Presses Universitaires de France, Paris Translated/rom the French by David Miller
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 71146965
ISBN13: 9789027704115 DOl: 10.1007/9789401031448
eISBN13: 9789401031448
All Rights Reserved Copyright © 1971 by D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1971 No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher
INTRODUCTION
This book presents the classic relative consistency proofs in set theory that are obtained by the device of 'inner models'. Three examples of such models are investigated in Chapters VI, VII, and VIII; the most important
of these, the class of constructible sets, leads to G6del's result that the axiom of choice and the continuum hypothesis are consistent with the
rest of set theory [1]I.
The text thus constitutes an introduction to the results of P. Cohen concerning the independence of these axioms [2], and to many other relative consistency proofs obtained later by Cohen's methods. Chapters I and II introduce the axioms of set theory, and develop such parts of the theory as are indispensable for every relative consistency proof; the method of recursive definition on the ordinals being an import ant case in point. Although, more or less deliberately, no proofs have been omitted, the development here will be found to require of the reader a certain facility in naive set theory and in the axiomatic method, such as should be achieved, for example, in first year graduate work _{(}_{2} e _{c}_{y}_{c}_{l}_{e}
de mathernatiques).
The background knowledge supposed in logic is no more advanced; taken as understood are such elementary ideas of firstorder predicate
logic as prenex normal form, model of a system of axioms, and so on. They
first come into play in Chapter IV; and though, there too, all the proofs (bar that of the reduction of an arbitrary formula to prenex normal form) are carried out, the treatment is probably too condensed for a reader previously unacquainted with the subject. Several leading ideas from model theory, not themselves used in this book, would nevertheless make the understanding of it simpler; for example, the distinction between intuitive natural numbers and the natural numbers of the universe, or between what we call formulas and what we call expressions, are easier to grasp if something is known about
1 Numbers in brackets refer to items of the Bibliography, which is to be found on
p.98.
VI
INTRODUCTION
nonstandard models for Peano arithmetic. Similarly, the remarks on p. 44 will be better understood by someone who knows the completeness theorem for predicate calculus. All these ideas can be found for example in [4] (Chapters I, II, III) or [5] (Chapters I, II, III). The approach of the book may appear a little odd to anyone who thinks that axiomatic set theory (as opposed to the naive theory, for which, per haps, this is true) must be placed at the very beginning of mathematics. For the reader is by no means asked to forget that he has already learnt some mathematics; on the contrary we rely on the experience he has acquired from the study of axiomatic theories to offer him another one:
the theory of binary relations which satisfy the Zermelo/Fraenkel axioms. As we progress, what distinguishes this particular theory from other axiomatic theories gradually emerges. For the concepts introduced naturally in the study of models of this theory are exactly parallel to the most fundamental mathematical concepts  _{n}_{a}_{t}_{u}_{r}_{a}_{l} _{n}_{u}_{m}_{b}_{e}_{r}_{s}_{,} _{f}_{i}_{n}_{i}_{t}_{e} _{s}_{e}_{t}_{s}_{,} _{d}_{e}_{n}_{u}_{m}_{e}_{r}_{a}_{b}_{l}_{e} _{s}_{e}_{t}_{s}_{,} and so on. And since standard mathematical vocabulary fails to provide two different names for each idea, we are obliged to use the everyday words also when referring to models of the Zermelo/Fraenkel axioms. The words are thereby used with a completely different meaning, the classic example of this being the 'Skolem paradox', which comes from the new sense that the word 'denumerable' takes when interpreted in a model of set theory. Eventually it becomes obvious that even the everyday senses of these words are by no means clear to us, and that we can perhaps try to sharpen them with the new tools which are developed in the study of set theory. Had this problem been posed already at the beginning of the study it would have been tempting to shirk it, by saying that mathematics is merely the business of manipulating meaningless symbols. It is an open question how much set theory can do in this field; but it seems likely that what it can do will be of interest beyond mathematical logic itself.
Note: This translation incorporates a number of additions and correc tions to the original French edition.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 
v 

Chapter I: 
The ZermelojFraenkel Axioms of Set Theory 
1 

Chapter II: Ordinals, Cardinals 
13 

Chapter 
III: 
The Axiom of Foundation 
35 

Chapter 
IV: 
The Reflection Principle 
48 

Chapter 
V: 
The Set of Expressions 
56 

Chapter 
VI: Ordinal Definable Sets. Relative Consistency of the Axiom of Choice 
63 

Chapter VII: FraenkelfMostowski Models. Relative Consistency of the Negation of the Axiom of Choice (without the Axiom of Foundation) 
70 

Chapter VIII: Constructible Sets. 
Relative 
Consistency 
of the 

Generalized Continuum Hypothesis 
81 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 
98 
CHAPTER I
THE ZERMELO/FRAENKEL AXIOMS OF SET THEORY
When we formulate the axioms of set theory, we have to rely on an intuitive understanding of sets, in much the same way that we develop the axioms for a vector space from commonsense ideas about threedimensional space. Despite this, once we have the axioms of set theory written down we are free to study any other structure in which they hold, just as we study many vector spaces over and above the Euclidean space R3. Thus set theory is no different from any other axiomatic theory familiar to the reader. It is, like the theories of groups, rings, fields, vector spaces, lattices, and so on, an abstract theory. A structure satisfying the axioms of set theory is called a universe. A universe tW is basically a collection of objects called sets. We do not say 'a set of objects', since what we are going to call sets are just those objects of which tW is a collection. It is a straightforward precaution when defining vector spaces, for example, not to use the same word both for the vector space and for a vector in it. The same applies here. Also involved in tW is a single undefined binary relation, a relation which links some of the objects of tW with others. It is called the member ship relation, and is denoted by E. We read the expression 'x E y' as 'x belongs to y', or 'the set x belongs to the set y', or 'x is a member of y', or 'x is an element of y', or even 'the set y contains the element x'. Since E is a relation on the universe tW, it holds only between sets. The symbol'E' and the words 'belong', 'contain', 'member', and 'element' will be used only when this particular relation is intended; and should we ever use any of these words in their everyday senses, we shall state this explicitly. For example, we will not normally say 'the object xis an element of the collection tW', but' x is in tW'.
So a universe can be pictured as a
graph of the kind shown in figure 1 ;
the arrow indicates that the object at its head is an element ofthe one at its tail. For example, b E a, C E c. Nothing said so far imposes any restriction on the binary relation E. In order to do just this we now begin to list the axioms of set theory.
_{2}
INTRODUCTION TO AXIOMATIC SET THEORY
e
f
Fig. 1.
1. AXIOM OF EXTENSIONALITY
No two distinct sets in r1lt have the same elements. We write this as
'v'x'v'y['v'Z(Z E x _
Z E y) ~ X = y].
This axiom is not satisfied by the binary relation shown in the figure; for band c are different, yet each has c as its only element. A useful 'axiom' to put down now, though we will not number it since it turns out to be a consequence of later ones, is the pairing axiom. Given two sets a and b, this axiom guarantees the existence of a set c containing a and b as its only elements. By the axiom of extensionality there is only one such set c. We write the pairing axiom as
'v'X'v'y3Z'v't[tEzt=X v t=y].
We write {a, b} for the set c whose only elements are a and b. A special case is when a and b are the same set; it follows from the axiom that there is a set {a} containing a, and a alone.
THE ZERMELO!FRAENKEL AXIOMS
_{3}
If a=/=b we call {a, b} a pair. The set {a} is sometimes called a singleton
or unit set.
From two sets a and b three applications of the pairing axiom yield the set {{a}, {a, b }}, called the ordered pair of a and b and usually denoted by (a, b). The following theorem justifies this definition.
THEOREM: If(a, b)=(a', b') thena=a' andb=b'.
PROOF: If a =
b then (a, b) = {{a}},
and so (a, b) has only one element.
Thus (a', b') is also a singleton, which means that a' =b'. It follows that
{{a}} = {{a _{'} }}, and so a=a ' ; thus b=b' too.
When a=/=b, (a, b) is a pair, and so (a', b' ) must also be one. This can only be true if a' =/= b'.
But as {{a}, {a, b}} = {{a'l, {a', b'}}, either
{a} = {a', b' } and {a, b} = {a'l 

or 

{a} = 
{a'l and {a, b} = 
{a', b' }. 
The former possibility is ruled out simply because {a} is a singleton whilst
{a', b'} is a pair. Thus {a} = {a'l and so a=a _{'} and {a, b}={a', b' } and
sob=b'·1
If a, b, c are sets, the set (a, (b, c» and is denoted by (a, b, c).
is called the ordered triple of a, b, c,
THEOREM: If(a, b, c) = (a', b', c') thena=a _{'} , b=b', c=c'.
PROOF: From the identity of (a, (b, c» and (a', (b', c'» we get a=a'
and (b,
c)=(b _{'} , c'). Thus also b=b' and c=c'.1
In the same way we can define the ordered quadruple (a, b, c, d)
by
(a, b, c, d) =
(a, (b, c, d»,
and for any n>O the ordered ntuple (ao, ai'
(ao, a _{1}_{,}
...
, ani) = (ao, (a1'
...
, ani) by , an 1»·
...
The previous theorems generalize.
THEOREM:.if (ao, a1'
...
' ani) = (a~, a~,
_{a}_{,}_{,}_{}_{l} =a,,_~.
PROOF: Obvious by induction on n.1
...
, an~) then ao =a~, a1=a~,
...
,
4
INTRODUCTION
TO AXIOMATIC SET THEOR Y
It should be noted that, given three distinct sets a, h, c in the universe <11, we do not yet have any way of proving the existence of a set d containing just a, h, and c as members. The next axiom fills this gap.
2. UNION AXIOM (OR SUMSET AXIOM)
According to this axiom, to every set a there corresponds a set h whose members are precisely the members of the members of a. We write this formally as
Vx3yVz [z E y +dt(t E x
A
Z E t)].
The set b, called the union of the members of a (or, more briefly, the union of a) and denoted by U x (or Ua), is unique; for any set h' having the
xea
same property would necessarily have the same elements as, and so be identical with, b. This axiom solves the problem posed above. For if a, h, and c are sets,
the set d = U {{a, h}, {c}} contains a, h, and c, and nothing more besides. We write the set d as {a, b, c}.
More generally, any finite number of sets ao, a1,
...
, a _{l}_{l}  _{1} can
be
collected together into a set {ao, a1,
...
, a _{n} _{} _{1}_{}} containing them and them
only. This is easily proved by induction on n; we need only observe that
U {{a _{O}_{,}_{a}_{1}_{,} 
,a,,2}, {a _{l}_{l}  _{1}_{}}_{}} has the desired property for n if 
{a _{o}_{,} a1, , a _{l}_{l}  _{2}_{}} has it for nl. 
If a and b are sets, then the union of {a, h} is called the union of a and h, and written a u b.1t is trivial that a u (b u c)=(a u b) u c=(h u a) u c= = the union of the set {a, b, c}.
The same applies for
any finite number of sets ao,
a1'"'' a _{l}_{l}  _{1}_{;} the
union of the members of {ao, a1'
...
, a _{l}_{l} 1} is called the union of ao, a1>
and
...
, and a,,l and written a _{o} u a _{1} u
...
u
a,,l .
3. POWERSET AXIOM
Let a and b be sets in <11. The statement Vx(x E a
+ x E b) is abbreviated
a
c: b, and read 'a is included in b' or 'a is a subset of b'.
The powerset axiom tells us that, given a
set a,
there exists a
set b
whose members are just a's subsets; in symbols it becomes
Vx3y'f/z [z E y Ho Z c:
x].
THE ZERMELO/FRAENKEL AXIOMS
_{5}
By the axiom of extensionality only one set b can have this property. It is called the powerset of a and written gJ(a). It is worth emphasizing at this point that we shall now use the words 'subset' and 'include' only in the sense given them above, to express a relation between two objects of the universe. This sense is quite different from the usual one (when we say, for instance, that a class is included in the universe). We call it the formal sense of the word 'include' (or 'subset'), and the usual one will be called the intuitive sense. To avoid from the start any possible confusion that might arise, let us agree that when we use the words 'subset' and 'include' without qualification, we are using them in their formal senses; any use of these words in their intuitive senses will be noted as such explicitly. For instance: each set a defines a subset (in the intuitive sense) of the universe <?t, namely the part A composed of the elements of a. Now if b is a set included in a, then the corresponding B is included (in the intuitive sense) in A. But there may be  and indeed often are  subsets (in the intuitive sense) of A to which no object of the universe corresponds; to which, that is, there is no corresponding subset of a.
Before giving the remaining axioms of set theory we must discuss how relations, over and above those we already have, can be defined on <?to At present we have only the membership relation x E y, and the equality relation X=y (which is satisfied by a and b if and only if a and b are the same object). The following rules allow us to define others. I. Given a relation (of three arguments, for instance) R(x, y, z), and an object a in <?t, then we can define a binary relation R(a, y, z), to be satisfied by the objects band ciff R(a, b, c) holds. II. Given a relation (three arguments, say) R(x, y, z), then we can define a binary relation R(x, x, z); this is satisfied by a and b iff R(a, a, b) holds. III. Given any relation (say of two arguments) R(x, y), we can define .R(x, y), a relation satisfied by a and b iff R(a, b) does not hold. Likewise from two relations (of three arguments again) R(x, y, z) and S(u, x, v) we can define a relation R( x, y, z) v S(u, x, v) offive arguments satisfied by a, b, c, d, e iff one or other of R(a, b, c) and Sed, a, e) holds. IV. Again, from a ternary relation R(x, y, z) we can define a binary relation 3yR(x, y, z) which is satisfied by a and c iff R(a, b, c) holds for somebin 'W.
_{6}
INTRODUCTION TO AXIOMATIC SET THEORY
Starting from the two binary relations x E y and x = y we can, by repeated applications of these rules, obtain relations of any number of argu ments. Suppose that R(x, y) and 8(y, z) are two binary relations; then the
relation
...
,
R
v
8
is written
R + 8.
The relation
...
,
(
...
,
R
v
...
,
8)
is
written R A 8; it is satisfied by a, b, and c iff R(a, b) and 8(b, c) both hold. Similarly, R ++ 8 abbreviates (R + 8) A (8 + R), and is satisfied by a, b, c iff R(a, b) and 8(b, c) either both hold or both fai1.
Likewise, the singulary relation
...
,3x
...
,R(x,
y), written VxR(x, y) is
satisfied by b iff R(a, b) holds for every object ain 0/1. Relations constructed from x E y and x=y by rules IIV are thus defined by formulas composed (though not in an arbitrary fashion) from
the symbols =, E, ...
"
v, 3, the variables x, y, z, u, v,
, and objects in Cl/I.
... It is clear that further relations on 0/1 can be defined by other methods.
But we shall not consider them in this book.
A relation R(x) of a single argument is usually called a class. A class is a subcollection (intuitively speaking) of the universe _{C}_{l}_{/}_{I}_{.} For example, the formula
Vu[uEx+3v[VEX A Vt(tEV++t=U v tEU)]]
defines a class; the formula
uEx+3v[VEX A Vt(tEV++t=U v tEU)]
defines a binary relation R(u, x). namely
So if a is
in 0/1, the formula R(a, x),
aEx+3v[VEX A Vt(tEV++t=a v tEa)],
defines a class. Objects of 0/1 which appear in a formula E are called the parameters of E. R(u, x), for example, has no parameters; R(a, x) has the object a as its sole parameter. A formula of no arguments at all, a closed formula or sentence as it is called, is either true or false in the universe. For example, the formula 3x3y[Vz(z ¢ y) AyE X A VuR(u, x)] (where the relation R is defined above) is a sentence without parameters (it will later turn up in a slightly different form as the axiom of infinity). The theorems of set theory (and the axioms in particular) are all closed formulas without parameters.
THE ZERMELO!FRAENKEL AXIOMS
_{7}
Equivalence Relations: A binary relation R(x, y) is an equivalence relation
if, whatever objects a, b, c might be,
R(a, b) ~ R(a, a) R(a, b) ~ R(b, a); 
A 
R(b, b); 

R(a, b) 
A R(b, c) ~ R(a, c). 
The class R(x, x) is called the domain of the equivalence relation. R(a, b) is also written a",b (mod. R). For any set a in 0/1, the class R(a, y) is
_{c}_{a}_{l}_{l}_{e}_{d} _{t}_{h}_{e} equivalence class of a.
Ordering Relations (in the weak sense): A binary relation R(x, y) is an ordering relation (or, briefly, an ordering) in the weak sense if for every ^{a}^{,}^{b}^{,}^{a}^{n}^{d}^{c}
R(a, b) ~ R(a, a) 
A 
R(b, b); 

R(a, b) A R(b,a)~a=b; 

R(a, b) 
A R(b, c) ~ R(a, c). 
The class R(x, x) is the domain of the ordering. R(a, b) is also written
a~b (mod.
(mod.R).
R);
R(a, b)
A b¥=a may similarly be abbreviated as a<b
R is a (weak) linear (or simple, or total) ordering if, over and above all this, one or other of R(a, b) and R(b, a) holds for any two objects a, b in R's domain.
Ordering Relations (in the strict sense): A binary relation R(x, y) defines astrict ordering on a class D(x) if for all a, b, c,
R(a, b) + D(a) 
A 
D(b); 

, (R(a, b) A 
A R(b, a»); 

RCa, b) 
R(b, c) ~ R(a, c). 
_{R}_{(}_{a}_{,} _{b}_{)} may again be written a<b (mod. R). It is obvious that if R(x, y) is a strict ordering, then the relation R(x, y) v [D(x) A D(y) A X= y] is a weak one, with domain D. A strict ordering R on D is linear if for any objects a and b in the class
D, either R(a, b) or R(b, a) or a= b.
Functional Relations: Consider by way of illustration a ternary relation
R(x, y, z). We will call it afunctional relation of two arguments if
VxVyVzVz' [R(x, y, z) A
R(x, y, z') + z = z'].
_{8}
INTRODUCTION TO AXIOMATIC SET THEORY
The binary relation 3zR(x, y, z) is then called the domain of the func
tional relation R. The class 3x3yR(x, y,
z) is called the range of the
functional relation R. For any (for example binary) functional relation defined everywhere (in other words, a functional relation with domain _{x} _{=} _{x} _{A} Y _{=}_{y}_{)} we can introduce a new symbol <P, and write the functional relation as z= <P(x, y).
Then, for any formula E(u, v, w), the formulas
3z[R(x, y, z) A 
E(z, v, w)] 
'v'z[R(x, y, z) + E(z, v, w)] 

E[ <P(x, y), v, w]. 
^{a}^{n}^{d}
(which are equivalent to one another) can be written simply as
For example, the functional relation
'v't[tezoHt=x v t=y]
is written z = {x, y}; thus the equivalent formulas
3z['v't(tezoHt=x v t=y) A zea]
'v'z [Wet e z oH t =
x
v
t = y) + z e a]
can both be abbreviated by {x, y} Ea. We can now go on to state the other axioms of set theory.
4.
AXIOM SCHEME OF REPLACEMENT
(OR SUBSTITUTION)
Suppose a formula E(x, y,
ao,
...
, ak _{1} )
with parameters a _{o}_{,}
...
, akl
defines a singulary functional relation; and let a be any set. Then we shall postulate that the universe I7It contains a set b whose elements are just the images under this functional relation of those elements of a within its domain. The demand on I7It that it satisfy this condition for any singulary functional relation is known as the axiom scheme of replacement. The scheme is rendered symbolically by the following infinite list of sentences:
'v'xo
...
'v'Xkl {'v'x'v'y'v'y' [E(x, y, xo, ,." Xkl)
A
E(x, y', xo,
...
, Xkl) + y = y']
+'v't3w'v'v[vewoH3u[uet A E(u,v,xO,
...
,Xkl)]]}'
Here E(x, y, xo,
..
" Xkl) may be any parameterfree formula with at
least two free variables x and y.
THE ZERMELO/FRAENKEL AXIOMS
_{9}
The axioms 1,2,3, the scheme 4, and the axiom of infinity (introduced on p. 29 below) make up the set theory of Zermelo and Fraenkel, usually abbreviated ZF. Easily derived from the scheme of replacement is the following scheme.
Scheme o/Comprehension: If ais a set, and A (x, a _{o} ,
...
, akl) any formula
of one free variable (and parameters ao,
...
, akl)' we can establish that
there is a set whose elements are exactly those elements of a for which A
holds. This is the content of the comprehension scheme, which consists of the following infinite list of sentences:
'Vxo
...
'Vxt_ _{1} 'Vx3y'Vz [z e y ++ (z e x
A A(z, xo,
...
, Xkl))]'
Here A(x, xo,
...
, Xkl) is any parameterfree formula of at least one free
variable x. To derive any instance of the scheme from the scheme of
replacementitisenoughtonotethattheformulay=x A A (x, ao,
...
, ak _{l} )
defines a singulary functional relation F whose domain is the class
A(x, ao,
...
, akl)' By replacement then, there is a set b whose elements
are just the images under F of those members of a in F's domain; it is
immediate that b is the set whose existence we set out to prove. The set b is usefully represented by the notation
{x e a I A (x, ao,
...
, akl)}'
THEOREM: There is one and only one set without elements.
PROOF: Let a be any set at all. We apply the comprehension scheme to
the set a and the formula x::/:x to get a
set b={x e a I x::/:x},
which is
obviously without elements. That there cannot be more than one such set follows at once from the axiom of extensionality .• The set just defined is called the empty set and is denoted by 0.
Let us give a derivation of the pairing axiom from axiom 3 and the scheme 4. First of all, every subset of 0 is empty, so that &(0) has 0 as its only element; thus {0} exists. This latter set is a singleton, so if a c: {0} then a=0 or a= {0}. So &({0}) has just two distinct elements, 0 and {0};
thus
{0, {0}} exists. Now let a and b be any sets you like. It is apparent
that the relation (x=0 A y=a) v (x={0} A y=b) is a singulary func tional relation, so we can apply the replacement scheme to it and consider
10
INTRODUCTION TO AXIOMATIC SET THEORY
the image of the set {0, {0}} thereunder. {a, b}, and thus the pairing axiom is proved.
This
turns out to
be the
set
We say that a class A (x) corresponds to a set (or even, twisting language a bit, is a set) if there is a set a such that Vx(x E a +* A (x)). More generally, a relation (of three arguments, for example) A (x, y, z) corresponds to a set, or even is a set, if there is a set a for which we have VxVyVz[ <x, y, z) E _{E} a +* A (x, y, z)J.
It is not true that every class corresponds to a set; for example, the
class x ¢ x does not. If it did, indeed, we would for some a have that
Vx(x E a +* x ¢ x);
so, in particular,
a E
a +* a if; a, which is evidently
false. (This is Russell's paradox.) The class X=X (the universe 0Zt, in other words) also fails to correspond to a set. For were there any set a such that Vx(x E a) were true, we could, by using the comprehension scheme, produce a set b such that Vx(x E b +*
+* X E a 1\ x ¢ x); that is, Vx(x E b +* X turn up all over again.
¢ x). So Russell's paradox would
Cartesian Product of two sets: Consider the formula X(z) abbreviated by
3x3y[z=<x,y) 1\ xea 1\ yeb].
To write this out in full we would first have to use the definition of the functional relation _{Z}_{=} <x, y), obtaining
3x3y3u3v[z = {u, v} 1\ U = {x}
1\
V = {x, y} A xEa
A yeb].
The braces could then be eliminated with the definition of the functional relation Z= {u, v}, leaving
3x3y3u3v[Vt(tez+*t=u v t=v)
A 
Vt f (tf e u +* tf = x) 

A 
Vtff (tff e v +* tff = 
X 
V 
tff = 
y) 
AxeaAyeb]. So X(z) is just this last formula, and it clearly is the class of all ordered
pairs <x, y) such that x E a and Y E b. (We will not bother to carry out this sort of check in the future; but it is suggested that the reader try a few, to get himself used to the business of manipulating formulas.)
Now this class X is in fact a set; for if x E a and y e b then
(by the defini
THE ZERMELO/FRAENKEL AXIOMS
_{1}_{1}
tion of (x,y») (x,Y)E&(&(aub)). But then X(z) is equivalent to X(z) 1\ z e & (&(a u b), so that by the comprehension scheme X is a set. This set X is called the Cartesian (or direct, or cross) product ofthe sets
a, b, and it is written
a x b. The Cartesian powers a x a, a x (a x a), and so
on, are sometimes abbreviated a 2 _{,} a 3 , •••• A singulary functional relation R(x, y) whose domain is a set is itself a set. For suppose that the domain is a; then by the replacement scheme
there
is a set b consisting of the images of a under R. Consequently
R(x, y) is equivalent to
R(x, y) 1\ (x, y) E a x b, and this class is a set
f by the comprehension scheme. Such a set f is called a function defined
on a, with values in b, or a map from a to b, or afamily of sets indexed by a.
If a is a map we will sometimes write dom(a), rng(a) for its domain and range respectively. The formula 'fis a map from a into b', written more compactly f: a + b is therefore just the following formula:
f
c
a x b
1\ 'rfx'rfy'rfy' [(x, y) E f
1\
(x, y') E f
+
y =
y']
1\ 'rfx[xea+3y(yeb 1\ (x,y)Ef)].
We leave to the reader the task of eliminating the defined symbols c, x,
and (
).
If a and b are sets the class X of all maps from a into b is again a set. For
a map from a to b is a subset ofax b, and therefore a member of &(a x b). SO XU) is equivalent to XU) 1\ fE &(a x b). Comprehension yields the desired result. This set of maps is written abo
Union,
Intersection, and Cartesian Product of a family of sets: Let a be a
family of sets indexed by I; a is of course just a map whose domain is I, and to indicate this we will usually write a family as (ai)iEI' The union ofthefamity (ai)iEl> written Ua _{i}_{,} is the union of the range
iEI
of the map a. By the replacement scheme and union axiom it is a set b,
and we have 'rfx[ x E b
~ 3i(i E I
1\
X E ai)]'
Likewise the intersection of the family (aJiEl is the class X(x) defined
by 'rfi(i E I + X E a;). If 1=0, then X is the class of all sets, and so
not a
set itself. Otherwise, take any io E I; then X(x) is equivalent to x E aio 1\
12
INTRODUCTION TO AXIOMATIC SET THEORY
1\ Vi(i E I  X E ai), and X is seen to be a set, by comprehension. We write it _{n} _{a} _{i} _{•}
ieT
Now take the class X of map sf: 1 Ua _{i} such thatf(i) E ai for every
ieI
i 
E I. 
Such a map belongs to 
the set 
I( U aJ, so XU) ieI 
is equivalent to 

XU) 
1\ f 
E 
I ( U a) 
X is thus 
a set, called the Cartesian (or direct, 
or 

ieI cross) product of the family (ai)ieb and written X ai (or sometimes IT aJ 

ieT 
ieT 
Note that for the rest of the book we shall be using the words 'map' and 'function' in the sense defined above, which is by no means their every
day mathematical sense
(since here, for example, all maps _{f}_{:} a _{}_{4} _{b}
are in the universe). As we proliferate definitions the same thing will happen to nearly all the familiar words of mathematical language. If we ever use the words in their normal senses (and this will not happen often), we will, as we decided before, say so explicitly. For example: let a and b be two sets, and A, B be the corresponding parts of the universe. If f maps a into b there will correspondingly be a map (in the intuitive sense) from A to B. But there may well be, intuitively speaking, maps from A to B to which there are no corresponding maps from a into b.
CHAPTER II
ORDINALS, CARDINALS
Wellordering Relations: Let a be a set, all of whose elements lie in the domain of some linear ordering R(x, y). We say that a is well ordered by R if every nonempty subset of a has a smallest element (mod. R). It is immediate that if a is well ordered by R then every subset of a is also well ordered by R.
If rca x a then the pair (a, r) is said to be a wellordered system if a
is well ordered by the relation (x, y) E r.
Suppose that the set a is well ordered by the relation R. A subset s of a is said to be an initial segment of a if XES and y ~ x (mod. R) imply YES, for any x, yEa. For each Xo in a we write Sxo(a, R) (or Sxo(a) if there is
no danger of ambiguity) for
the
set {x E a I x<xo
(mod.
R)}, and this
set is evidently an initial segment of _{a}_{.}
Indeed, a subset sea is an initial segment of a iff s = a or s = some Xo Ea.
Sxo (a) for
This is easily proved by noting that if s is an initial segment of a, but not a itself, then the set a""'s = {x E a I x rf: s} is nonempty. Consequently, it has a least element xo; so if x<x _{o} , x must be in s; and conversely, if x~ xo, we cannot have XES (for that implies that Xo E s). An initial segment of a which is not just a itself is called a proper initial
segment of a.
If R is a linear ordering, and x is in the domain of R, let Sx(R) stand
for the class of y's in the domain of R which are
<x (mod. R). Then R
is called a wellordering (relation) if, for any x in its domain, the class
Sx(R) is a set, and is also well ordered by R.
If R is a wellordering with domain D, and T any nonempty subclass of D (that is, Vx( T(x) ~ D(x») /\ 3xT(x») , then Thas a least element (mod. R).
For Tis nonempty, so take Xo in T. Either Xo is the least element of T,
or else the class
T
/\ Sxo(R) is nonempty. This class is however a set
(since Sxo(R) is a set), and indeed a nonempty subset of Sxo(R), which is well ordered. It therefore has a least element, which is obviously also
the least element of T.
14
INTRODUCTION TO AXIOMATIC SET THEORY
(Our talk here of elements of the class T is to be understood as using 'element' in an informal way only.)
The Class of Ordinals: A set a is called transitive if every element of a is also a subset of ct; that is, if\fx(x E a + x c a). A set ct is called an ordinal if, in addition to being transitive, it is strictly well ordered by the member ship relation _{x} _{E} _{y}_{.} The class 'a is an ordinal' is written On(a); spelt out more or less in full this becomes
\fx\fy [x E a
AyE ct + X ~ Y v
Y ~ x]
A \fx\fy\fZ[XEct A YEa A ZEa
A
\fz[z c: ct A
Z #0 + 3X(XEZ
A
xEy
A
YEZ + XEZ]
A
\fx\fy [x
E ct
AyE
A \fY(YEZ + XEy V x=y))] X + YEa] .
(In this extensive formula there is no explicit mention of the fact that the ordering x E y is linear; however, no such clause is needed, since we have stated that every nonempty subset of a contains a smallest element, and a fortiori this applies to subsets of two elements.) Examples of ordinals that are easily shown to be such are 0, {0},
{0, {0}}.
Let ct be an ordinal. Then the initial segments of ct are a itself, and the elements of ct.
For a proper initial segment of ct is S~(a) for
= {11 E ct 111 < e} = {11 E ct 111 E e} = e n
ct.
some eE a; and S~(a)=
a,
this last term
But since
reduces to e, and the result is proved. Every element of an ordinal is an ordinal.
Take eE a; then e c ct, so membership wellorders e. Furthermore, if y E X and x E e then x E a (since e c ct); so x c ct, so yEa. Now membership strictly orders the elements of ct, so from y E X and x E ewe get y E e. Thus x E e implies that x c e, and the two conditions for e to be an ordinal are established.
For every ordinal ct, ct ~ ct. If e is any element of a, then e~ e, since E strictly orders ct. So if a is an element of a we must have a ~ ct. Thus ct ~ ct. For every two ordinals a, p, either ct = p, or p E ct, or ct E p,' moreover, the three cases are mutually exclusive.
ORDINALS, CARDINALS
_{1}_{5}
Put e=(X n p. Then e consists of all members ohthat are <P (mod. e), and so is an initial segment of (x. Thus e= (X or e e (x. Likewise e is an initial segment of p, so e= Por ee p. All in all then, there are four possibilities:
e 
= 
(X 
and 
e = p ; 
then 
(X = P. 

e = 
(X 
and 
e e 
p ; 
then 
rx e p . 

e= 
p 
and 
ee 
rx ; 
then 
p E rx . 

ee (X 
and 
e e 
p ; 
then 
ee (X n p, so by the definition 
of e, ee e. But this is a contradiction, since eis an ordinal.
Furthermore, (X = P and rx E p together would imply that PEP; similarly,
if (X e p, then rx c
p, so if P E (X were also true, we would have PEP again.
But p ¢ p. Thus the three cases are mutually exclusive.
The membership relation on the class On (that is, the relation x E y 1\ On(x) 1\ On (y») isawellordering.
1\
We have just shown the relation in question to be a strict linear ordering.
So we need only note that since e<rx ++ ee rx, S,,(E)=rx for every ordinal
rx, and rx is well 
ordered bye. 

Observe that 
if rx, P f}re ordinals then 
rx ~ p ++ rx c 
p. 

On is not a set. 

Suppose On is a set a. Then a is well ordered by E. 
Moreover, every 

element of a is an ordinal, therefore a set of ordinals, therefore a subset 

of a. But then for ordinals. 
a qualifies as an ordinal; so a e a. But this is impossible 
If rx is an ordinal the least ordinal greater than rx is rx u {rx}. This is called the successor of rx, and written rx + 1.
It is easily checked that if rx is an ordinal then so is P=rx u
{rx}. Now
sincerx e p, wehaverx<p; andifa.<ythenrxey, sorx c y, sorx u {(X} c y. Thus p~y.
Since 0 c
rx for any (x, the ordinal 0 is the least ordinal of all. We call
it O. Its successor {0} is called 1; its successor 1 u {I} (that is, {0, {0}}) is called 2; and so on.
The union of any set of ordinals is the least upper bound of the set.
Let a be any set of ordinals, and P= U
"ea
rx. If x is a nonempty subset
of p, then for at least one rxo E a we will have x n (xo nonempty. Since rxo is well ordered, its subset x n rxo will therefore have a least element,
which is clearly also
the least element of x.
Since x was an arbitrary
nonempty subset of p, it follows that Pis well ordered bye. Now suppose
16
INTRODUCTION TO AXIOMATIC SET THEORY
that y E X 
and 
x E p. 
Then x E rx for some rx E a, 
so 
y 
E rx 
since 
rx is 
an 

ordinal. We conclude that YEP, and this establishes that P is transitive. 

It is 
thus 
an ordinal. 
Moreover rx ~ P for 
IX E a, 
so 
P is an upper 

bound of a. And if IX ~ Y for any IX E any a, then IX c 
y for any IX E a, so P c 
y, 
so P~ y. Thus Pis the least upper bound of a.
THEOREM: Let rx, P be ordinals, and /
an orderpreserving isomorphism
from rx on to p. Then rx=P, and/is the identity map.
PROOF: Suppose / is not the identity, and let ~ be the least member
of rx for which /(~)=I~. Then 11 E ~ + /(11)=1], so ~
c
p.
Being an
ordinal, ~ is an initial segment of p; but it is not P itself, for in that case
/would map a proper initial segment of rx on to the whole of p, which is not possible if/is an isomorphism. Thus ~ E p. Since / is orderpreserving, 11 <e + /(1]) </(~); by the definition of ~
therefore, 11</(e) for
every I] E e. Thus e c/(~), or,
equivalently,
e~/ (~). Equality is ruled out, so e</ (e). We now ask which element of IX is mapped by Ito ~ (which is in p, as proved above). It is easily seen
that there cannot be one, since x?:e +/(x»~ and x<e +/(x)<~; thus/is not an isomorphism from IX on to P.I
THEOREM: For each wellordered system u=<a, r) there exists exactly one (orderpreserving) isomorphism/rom a on to an ordinal.
PROOF: (Uniqueness) Suppose/maps a oneone on to IX, and g does the same on to p. Then go/ 1 is an isomorphism from IX on to p, and it can
only be the identity.
So/ = g.
(Existence) Put b = {x E a I S.,(a) is isomorphic to an ordinal}. By uniqueness no such Sx(a) can be isomorphic to more than one ordinal, so let P(x) be the ordinal that Sx(a) is isomorphic to. If YEb and x<y then x must be in b, and, indeed, P(x) <P(y); for under the isomorphism from Sy(a) on to P(y), the proper initial segment S,,(a) of Sy(a) becomes a proper initial segment of P(y), and therefore an ordinal less than P(y), therefore P(x). Thus b is an initial segment of a. By replacement we can form the set P of those ordinals P(x) where
x E b. Now ~ ~ P(x) implies that eis isomorphic to an initial segment of S,,(a), say Sy(a) for some y ~ x (so that ~ = P(y )). It follows that P is an initial segment of the ordinals, and therefore itself an ordinal. Thus the map sending x to P(x) is an isomorphism from b on to p.
ORDINALS, CARDINALS
_{1}_{7}
Our existence proof will be complete if we can show that b=a. And this is simply done. For suppose b=l=a; since b is an initial segment of a, it must be true for some Xo E a that b=Sxo{a). We have just proved that b is isomorphic to an ordinal, so it follows from the definition of b that Xo E b; but it is impossible that Xo E Sxo(a), by the very definition of initial segment. Thus b = a after all. I
Consider now any wellordering R(x, y) whose domain D is not a set; we shall define a functional relation J which establishes an isomorphism between D and On. The functional relation J{x)=rt is defined by the formula 'rt is an ordinalisomorphic to the segment Sx(R)'. This is a functional relation all right, and its domain is D; for whatever x we pick in D there is one and only one ordinal isomorphic to Sx{R). It is also an orderpreserving isomorphism. For if x <y (mod. R) then SxCR) is a proper initial segment of S,,(R). But Sy(R) can be isomorphically mapped on to J{y), and the image of Sx(R) under this mapping will form a proper initial segment of J(y),which is thus an ordinal J(x) <J(y). Furthermore, the range of J is an initial segment of On; for if P~ J(x) then when J(x) is mapped on to Sx(R), P is mapped on to an initial segment of the latter, S,,(R) say, for some y~x. Thus P=J(y). Since Jis oneone it has an inverse J 1 which maps the range of Jinto D. But D is not a set, so by replacement the domain of J 1 is not a set. Thus the range of J is some initial segment of On; but not a set. Under these circumstances it can only be On itself, which establishes that J is a surjection. Note that no other functional relation J' could be used to establish an isomorphism between D and On. For whatever x in D we choose, J'(x) is an ordinal isomorphic to Sx(R); only one ordinal has this property, and this is J(x). Thus J'{x)=J(x) at every point xin D.
Proof by Induction on the Ordinals: Let E(x) be some formula containing only the variable x free. If E( 01:) is to hold for every ordinal 01:, it is necessary and sufficient that E(OI:) holds whenever E(P) holds for every P <oc; more succinctly, that
VOl: [VP{P < rt + E(P») + E(rt)] holds generally.
18
INTRODUCTION TO AXIOMA TIC SET THEORY
The proof falls out at once.
If E(a.) is false for any ordinal at all,
we
let a be the least such ordinal. Then E({3) is true whenever (3 <a, and so
by hypothesis E( a) is true, which is a contradiction. This method of proof of VaE( a) is called proof by
induction.
Definition by Recursion on the Ordinals: Suppose that F is a functional
relation and T a subclass of F's domain. That functional relation y=
=F(x) 1\ T(x) 
which restricts F to 
T 
is 
written 
F 
t T; 
in particular, 
if a is a subset of the domain of F, then F ta represents a map, the re 

striction of Fto a. 
THEOREM: Let a be an ordinal,' A a class,' M the class of all maps defined on ordinals less than a, and taking values in A; and H a functional relation with domain M, and taking values in A. Then there exists one and only one
map f defined on afor which f ({3) = H(J
t (3)Jor every (3 E a.
PROOF: (Uniqueness) This is routine. Suppose distinct functions f and 9
both did the job required, and let (3 be the least ordinal in a where
f({3)=f:g({3). Then f(y)=g(y) for y<{3, so f t {3=g
t {3. But this means
thatf({3)= H(J t (3)=H(g t (3)=g«(3), which is impossible. (Existence) Let't' be the set of all {3 <a on which there is defined a map fp satisfying fp(Y)=H(Jp t y)for every y<{3. It is clear that 't' is an initial segment of a. By the uniqueness part of the theorem, indeed, we actually have /P=fp' t {3 for (3<{3' E't'. Thus
1: is an ordinal ~a, and we can define a
map/" on 't' as follows:/"({3)=
=H(/P), for every {3 E 1:. Suppose y E (3 E 1:; then!.(y) = H(!;) = H(Jp t y)=fp(y). Thus/p=/. t {3. Consequently,!.({3)=H(J. t (3) for all (3 E 1:. But this means that if 1: < a then it satisfies the defining property of 1: ; in other words that 't' E T, which is impossible. Thus T, which is an initial segment of a, is actually equal to a, and so/. is the function we are looking for ••
Let A be a class; M the class of all maps defined on ordinals, and taking values in A; and H afunctional relation with domain M, and taking values in A. We can now define a unique functional relation F with domain On, and taking values in A, which for every ordinal a satisfies F(a) = H(F t a).
The functional relation y=F(a) is supplied by the formula 'there is a
ORDINALS, CARDINALS
_{1}_{9}
map f,. defined on IX such that, for all fJ <IX, f,.(fJ) = H(j,. t fJ), and
y=H(f,.)'.
We have just proved that for each ordinal IX there is a unique map f,.
of this sort, and this establishes that the
relation just defined is a functional
relation with domain On. To prove that F has the right values, take fJ <IX. Thenfp = f,. t fJ simply because the latter map has all the properties definingfp' Thus
F (fJ) = H (lp) = H (I,. t fJ) = I,. (fJ)
for all fJ <IX. Manifestly then, f,.=F t IX; but F(IX)=H(f,.), so F(IX)= =H(F t IX).
That F is the only such functional relation is proved in the same way
as before. Suppose G is another, and let IX be the least ordinal where
F and G
differ (if there is one). Since F(fJ) = G(fJ) for all fJ < IX we must
have F t IX=G t IX, so H(F t IX)=H(G t IX). Thus F(IX)=G(IX),
a contra
diction. It follows that F and G are equal for every ordinal IX.
THE AXIOM OF CHOICE
The axiom of choice (AC for short) is the following assertion:
If a is a set 01 pairwise disjoint but nonempty sets, then there is a set whose intersections with elements of a are always singletons.
Spelt out more fully this becomes
'v'a{['v'x(xea + x #:0) A 'v'x'v'y(x e a
Aye a + (x = y v x n y = 0»)]
+ 3b'v'x3u(x e a + b n
x = {u})}.
Given the other axioms the following statements are equivalent to the axiom of choice.
ACt: For any set a there is afunction h mapping the set of all nonempty subsets of a into a in such a way that hex) e x for all nonempty
xc a.
A C": The
Cartesian product of a family of nonempty sets is itself non
empty.
ACt + AC: Let b= U a. We apply ACt to b. Every element x of a, being nonempty, is a nonempty subset of b. So take the function h that ACt guarantees, and consider {hex) I x e a}. This set has exactly one ele ment from each x e a, and is the set needed to establish A C.
20
INTRODUCTION TO AXIOMATIC SET THEORY
AC + AC": Let (ai)iEI be a family of nonempty sets, and putb _{i} = {i} x ai. Then the family (bi)iEI consists throughout of pairwise disjoint nonempty
sets. Let ~ be a set with just one element in each bi(i E I). Then ~ E X isI
ai'
by the definition ofX. AC" + AC': Take any set a and form the product X x. By AC" this
xCa
x",0
is not empty, so choose an element <po It is easily checked that <p(x) E x for every nonempty subset x of a. A further equivalent of the axiom of choice is the following statement.
ZERMELO'S THEOREM: Every set can be well ordered.
PROOF: AC' follows at once from this. For take some r c a 2 that well orders a and define a map h: &(a)".{0} + a by putting h(x)= the least element of x (mod. r). Conversely, suppose that AC' is true and that the map
h:&(a)". {0} + a
satisfies the requirement that hex) E x for every nonempty x c a. Define a second map
g:&(a)". {a} + a
by putting g(x)=h(a".x). Then this satisfies the requirement that
g(x)¢:xforanyproperx c
a.
Let () be some object that is not an element of a (since the class of all sets is not itself a set, there is no difficulty about finding such a 0). We
define by recursion a functional relation F: On + a u {O} by decreeing
F(IX) =
I g({F(f3) I f3
< IX})
{F(f3) I f3 < IX} C a '"
if
(that is, if it is in the domain of g);
ootherwise.
Suppose that Fnever takes the value 0; in other words, that F(IX) E a for
ordinal IX. Then {F(f3) I f3<IX} is in g's domain, whatever ordinal
every
IX is. But F(IX) cannot equal any F(f3) for f3 <IX, because
F «(X) = g ( { F (f3) I 13 <
(X}) ¢ {F (13) I 13 < (X}
by the definition of g. Thus F is an injection; On is its domain, and all its values are in a. Inverting F, therefore, and using replacement, we can
ORDINALS, CARDINALS
_{2}_{1}
infer that On is a set. Since this is false we must conclude that F(IX) is not alwaysina. Thus F(IX)=O for some ordinal IX, and we may suppose IXo to be the least such. In this case F(P) e a for every P <IXo, and so {F(fJ) I fJ <IXo} is a subset of a; yet it is not in the domain of g (since F( IX 0) = 0). By the definition of g, {F(P) I fJ <IXo} can then only be a itself; so the range of
F t OC _{o} is a.
But F t IXo is also an injection; for if P <oco, F(fJ)=g({F(y) I y <P}) ¢
¢ {F(y) I y <fJ},
so that (as before) F(fJ):f:F(y) when y <po
Thus F t IXo is a bijection from the ordinal IXo on to a, and conse quently a can be well ordered .• Note that what we have just proved can be stated as follows: whether
or not AC holds, a set can be well ordered if and only if there is a map h:
BP(a)"'{0} + afor which hex) E xfor every nonempty x c a.
DEFINITION: If R is an ordering and T a subclass of the domain D of R, then an object x of D is called an upper bound (respectively, a strict upper bound) of Tif, for every yeT, we have x~y (respectively, x>y). If Thas a strict upper bound we call it dominated. If the class of upper bounds of T has a smallest element under R, then this element is called the least
upper bound _{o}_{f} T.
An object x in D is called a maximal element of D if there exists no greater element of D (under the ordering R).
We now prove yet another equivalent of the axiom of choice.
ZoRN'S LEMMA: Let u be an ordered system, every wellordered subset of which has an upper bound. Then u has a maximal element.
PROOF: Put u=(a, r) where r c a Z is an ordering. Assuming the axiom of choice in the form AC' we have a map h: BP(a)"'{0} + a for which h (x) E X for every nonempty x c a. Let c be the set of all dominated subsets of a (subsets with strict upper bounds). We define amapmfrom cinto a by putting
m (x) = h (the set of strict upper bounds of x) .
Then for x E c, m(x) itselfis a strict upper bound of x, and so m(x) cannot be a member of x. Choose again some 0 which is not a member of a. As in the proof of
22
INTRODUCTION TO AXIOMATIC SET THEORY
Zermelo's theorem, we can define a functional relation F:
On
~
as follows:
m {F (P) I fi
F(a) = 0 otherwise
{F (P) I P <
< a}
if
a}
(that is, if {F(P) I P < a}
E
C ;
a u
Lebih dari sekadar dokumen.
Temukan segala yang ditawarkan Scribd, termasuk buku dan buku audio dari penerbitpenerbit terkemuka.
Batalkan kapan saja.