NORTH-HOLLAND MATHEMATICS STUDIES 51 Notas de Matematica (78) Editor: Leopoldo Nachbin Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro and University of Rochester Axiomatic Set Theory Impredicative Theories of Classes ROLANDO BASIM CHUAQUI Instituto de Matemética Universidad Catélica de Chile Santiago, Chile NH cpa NORTH-HOLLAND PUBLISHING COMPANY ~ AMSTERDAM * NEW YORK * OXFORDNorth-Holland Publishing Company, 1981 All rights reserved. No part ofthis publication may be reproduced, stored ina retrieval system, ortransmined, in any form or by any means. electronic, mechanical. photocopying. recording ‘or otherwise, without the prior permission af he copyright owner. ISBN: 0 444 86178 5 Publishers: NORTH-HOLLAND PUBLISHING COMPANY AMSTERDAM® NEW YORK * OXFORD Sole distributors for the U.S.A. and Canada: ELSEVIER NORTH-HOLLAND. INC. $2 VANDERBILT AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017 Libary of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Chuaqui, R. ‘Axiomatic set theory. (North-Holland mathematics studies ; 51) (Notas de matenatica ; 78) Bibliography: p. Includes index. A. Axdomatic set theory., I, tle. IT. Series. IIT, Series: Notas de matenética (North-Holland ee ce 1 81-46 QAL.NE6” no. 7 $10s [522.322] 81-4632 ISBN O-bb-66178-5 AACR PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDSPREFACE This book contains axtomatic presentations in first-order logic of ver sions of Set Theory based on an impredicative axiom of class specification. This axiom asserts the existence of the class of all sets which satisfy a given arbitrary first order formula, This axiom is impredicative because the defining formula may contain quantification over arbitrary classes, in- cluding the class being defined, (cf, A. Fraenckel, Foundations of Set The- ory, North-Holland Pub. Co, pp 138-140), All theorems in the book can be deduced from an elegant and very strong axiomatic system BC of Bernays, which uses a reflection principle. However, for most of the book a weaker system (Morse-Kelley-Tarski or MKT) is suf. ficient. The theory based on this latter system has a complicated history; probably the first exposition was by A.P, Morse. His axiom system, however, is not standard. The first axiomatic version presented as a standard first- order theory is that appearing in the appendix to Kelley's book General To- pology, The axioms used in the present book are basically due to A. Tarski, The presentation owes much to Tarski's courses on Set Theory at the Univer- sity of California, Berkeley. The impredfcative comprehension axiom for classes is stronger than the corresponding principles in the usual theories of Zermelo-Fraenckel and von Neumann-Bernays-G8del. I have tried to use this extra strength as much as possible in order to simplify the development and thus show the technical advantages of impredicative theories, In order to isolate this feature, I have deviced a subtheory of MKT which I call General Class Theory (G). This weak theory is slightly stronger than one with the same name which appears in may papers Chuaqui 1978 and 1980. Other presentations of impredicative theories have appeared in print; for instance, that of Monk 1969, Monk's book, however covers less material and has a different approach than this one. This book can be used as a textbook for a graduate or advanced under~ graduate course. The material could be covered in two semesters or two quarters. An earlier version has been used as a textbook at the Catholic University of Chile by the author and other teachers for several years. The viiviii PREFACE main requirements for the study of this book are mathematical maturity and some knowledge of Elementary Logic. This knowledge can be provided, for in- stance, by Enderton 1972 Chapters 1-2. Acquaintance with set theory at Teast on the level of Halmos 1965 or Enderton 1977 is also necessary al- though not strictly required from a formal point of view. The formal style of this book would make it difficult to understand without previous ac- quaintance with the intuitive notions, The scope of Set Theory clearly cannot be covered in one book of rea- sonable length, Thus, it was necessary to make a selection, The principles guiding this selection have been the following, First, metamathematical questions and subjects that can be best treated metamathematically have been avoided. Second, I have tried to include all subjects which I believe have a better presentation in an impredicative theory of classes. Third, I have avoided the discussion of ali entities whose existence cannot be de- duced form BC. The main subjects excluded are Descriptive Set Theory, the Partition Calculus, and those large cardinals that can be better treated metamathema- tically or whose existence cannot be proved in BC, Good presentations of these subjects are to be found in Kuratowski-Mostowski 1978, Jech 1978 or Lévy 1979. Another peculiarity of the book is its separate presentation of the theories without the axiom of choice. This has permitted an extensive treatment of what can be proved for cardinals without choice. I believe that one of the main features of this book is the extensive use of strong principles of definition by recursion. Thus, for instance, the rank function is defined recursively before ordinals, which on thei turn, are obtained as the values of this function. This procedure is due 2 Tarski; it was adapted by me for theories without the Axiom of Founda- jons. In fact, my main indebtedness is to Alfred Tarski. The core of the book had its origin in a course on Set Theory given by him in Berkeley in the Academic Year 1936-64, His influence can be especially seen in the axioms and the definitions by recursion already mentioned, plus the treat- ment of cardinals without choice and the arithmetic of ordinals. A few words are in order with respect to the style of presentation of the book, I have chosen to state theorems and definitions quite formally in first-order language. The proofs, however, are informal. In order to lighten the burden of understanding the formulas, I have generally added informal remarks explaining theorems and definitions. One of my friends has said to me that the book was written in the style of 1950 and not of 1980. I agree with this remark, but I believe that the 1950 style is bet- ter. I think that students should learn to read formulas, even complicated ones. There was a major advance in Mathematics when mathematicians learned to write and read equations. The reading and writing of logical formulas is also an advance, although perhaps not so crucial as that of equations.PREFACE ix Several people have helped me by reading the manuscript. I would like to especially thank Newton da Costa, Ulrich Felgner, Irene Mikenberg, Ma- nuel Corrada and Cesar Mizuno. The excellent typing job was done by M.Eliana Cabafias, whom I warmly thank. I would also like to thank the Regional Educational, Scientific and Technological Development Program of the Organization of American States for its financial support. R. Chuaqui santiago, 1981.GUIDE TO USE THIS BOOK a 2.1.1 - 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.2 - 2.7 3.11 - 3.1.3 3.2 - 3.4.1 = 3.4.2 Se 3.5.2 3.5.1 3.4.3 > 3.4.4 [3.5.3 3.6 —— 3.1.3 B.Te1 + 3.7.2 3.7.4 3.8.1 - 3.8.2 L 3.8.5 3.8.3 - 3.8.4 4.1 4.2 - 4.3 a 7 xvPART 1 Introduction CHAPTER 1.1 Informal background There are two main points of view with respect to axiomatic systems. According to the point of view that may be called algebraic, the axioms are true for a large number of concepts. In this case, the axioms themselves characterize the corresponding mathematical theory completely. For instance in Group Theory we define a Group as a set and operations on this set that satisfy the axioms of Group Theory. The point of view of this book is different. We assume that sets and classes are objects existing independently of our minds, We choose some sentences which are true of these concepts as axioms. From these axioms, we try to derive as many true sentences (our theorems) as possible. The ideal situation would be to derive all true sentences about sets and classes. We know that this is impossible (by Gédel's Incompleteness Theorem). Therefore we have to be content with deriving all what we need for the purpose at hand In order to proceed according to this second point of view, it will be necessary to present the basic concepts of the theory and explain them enough so as to be able to show that the chosen axioms are true. Ubviously, this will be an informal explanation not of a strictly mathematical charac- ter. The basic notions are those of set and class, and the fundamental re- lation between sets and classes is that of elementhood. It is necessary to delimit these notions because the informal notions of set and class are not clearly determined; at least in principle, there are several possible no-- tions of set or class, A ceass is an arbitrary collection of objects, which may be numbers, functions, physical objects, sets, etc. Since there are no restrictions with respect to the nature of these objects, we might think of a class as specified when, for each object , it is possible to determine whether it be- longs to the class or not. In particular, this would mean that to each pro- perty, defined in any way whatsoever corresponds the collection of those objects which have the given property. It is well known that this way of considering classes leads to Russell's paradox: Let us specify the class A by indicating that an object x_is a member of A if and only if x is a class and x is not a member of x, Then, Ais a member of A if and only if A is not a member of A. This is a contradiction, Therefore, we cannot consider classes as extensions of arbitrary properties. The course we shall follow here is to limit class extensions to a giv-4 ROLANDO CHUAQUI en universe or domain ¥, All the elements of this universeare also classes, the sets. It is also possible to include elements that are not classes (the Urelemente), but we shall restrict our attention to the case of no Urele-- mente, Since classes are extensions, they are determined by their elements, Thus, classes with the same elements are equal. The main intuitive concepts which we shall formalize are those of ef- ement of ... and set of elements of ..., (i.e. Set of ...) where instead of +++ We put a given arbitrary class C, There is in V, our universe, an initial collection of elements u, the collection of Urelemente. In our case, since we are dealing with pure sets, awill be empty. V is closed under the two notions we want to study. When- ever a set a is in Vall elements of a, and all sets of elements of a (i.e, subsets of a) are also in ¥, Since classes are extensions of properties limited to ¥, all classes are subclasses of V; therefore every element of a class is in, V itself is, obviously, also a class. Thus, an object is in V if and only if it belongs toa class, That is, X is a set if and only if X belongs to a class. Classes that are not sets (i.e. that do not belong to any class) will be called proper classes. All objects dealt with in our theories, in particu- Tar sets, are also classes. The collection u of Urelemente is completely arbitrary. We only need that u be a well specified collection. Thus, once we have a domain V closed under the notions specified above, we can take this V as a set of Urelemente and close it to form another universe V'. This process can be repeated with V' instead of V and continued indefinitely. In the next section I shall introduce a strong axiomatic system (Ber- nays class theory BC) which suffices for proving all theorems in the book. Besides this system , three other systems will be developed. These systems have axioms which are theorems of BC and, hence, weaker than it. The first one is General Class Theory (G) a very weak system. In G, however, it is possible to develop most of the theory of definitions by recursion. The second system is essentially equivalent to that contained in the Appendix to Kelley's book General Topology (Kelley 1955) without the axiom of choice. Since this theory was first developed by A.Morse (see Morse 1965) and the axioms used here are due to Tarski, I shall call it Morse- Kelley =Tarski (MKT). The third system considered is MKT whith choice (MK TC), MKTC is sufficient for most of Mathematics, as is shown in Kelley's book. It is the impredicative class theory corresponding to ZF C (Zermelo -Fraenckel with choice), although MKT C is definitely stronger.CHAPTER 1.2 Axioms The axiom system to be introduced in this section is due to P. Bernays who formulated it in 1961 (see Bernays 1976) inspired by reflection princi- ples discussed by Montague and Lévy (Lévy 1960), All theorems in this book can be deduced from it, 1.2.1 GENERAL AXIOMS, We first discuss a set of axioms which can be justified by the consid erations set forth in the previous section. A large part of set theory can be developed from them. 1.2.1.1 IMPREDICATIVE AXIOM OF CLASS SPECIFICATION, This axiom has been proposed by several people. The first mentions of it seems to be by Quine (Quine 1951), Morse (Morse 1965), Kelley (Kelley 1955, Appendix) and Mostowski (Mostowski 1950), It asserts the existence of a'class that contains all sets satisfying a given condition we might for- mulate this axiom b: Fon every property P there is a class A consisting of the sets x such that P(x), where P is a variable referring to properties. However, this formulation is in second-order logic, because it contains quantification over proper- ties. Thus, we have to replace this axiom by first-order axioms. A natural method for this purpose, is to replace properties by first- order formulas, This procedure was proposed by Skolem and Fraenckel. In order to do this, we have to define clearly the logical first-order language. A11 axioms will be formulated in the primitive language £, which will be constituted as follows: A) Variables, Variables are lower-case and capital script letters with or without subscript. For instance A, xp, Byy «++ B) Constants, (1) Logical constants: 1 (the negation symbol), + (implication sym~- bol), V (disjunction symbol), A (conjunction symbol), ++ (equivalence symbol), v (universal quantifier), 3 (existential quantifier), 3! (the quantifier jthere exists exactly one'), = (the identity symbol), and (,)6 ROLANDO CHUAQUI (ii) Nonlogical constants. The binary predicate € (the membership relation symbol). An expression of £, is a finite sequence of symbols. Among the ex- pressions, we distinguish the formulas: (1) If x, y are variables, then x = y and x€y are formulas. (2) If y and ¢ are formulas, and x is a variable, then 1¢, (6>¥) , (VV), (ONY), (OY), yx, 3x6, and 3! x6 are formulas, (3) All formulas of £, are obtained by a finite number of application of (1) and (2), Greek letters will denote expressions. ¢,¥,4 will be formulas. Bound and free variables are defined as usual, Sentences are formu- las without free variables. We say that the formula ¥ is a (universal) closure of the formula 6, if W is a sentence of the form Vxq -..WX%__10- All axioms, definitions, and theorems of our theories are sentences, When asserting such sentences the initial string of universal quantifiers will be generally omitted, In other words, when asserting a closure of $, we shall usually write ¢, In writing formulas, some parentheses will be generally omitted. Those omitted should be restored as follows: First proceed fron left to right and when a quantifier is reached, we assign to it the smallest possible scope, We repeat this process first for 1, then, for A and V , then for >, and, finally for <>. 9 [41 18 the formula obtained from ¢ by substitut- jng’all free occurrences of x by YJ. Later we shall introduce extensions of £, by adding new nonlogical symbols. : Our first axiom, or rather axiom-schema is the following: AxClass (Schema), For any formula of £, which does not contain A free, any eLosure of the foLLowing formula is an axiom: FA Wx(xEA OA TUxEU), Note that this schema (as all schemata) represents an infinite number of axioms, one for each formula ¢ of £). @ may contain any other free va~ riables besides x; the only free variable excluded is A, ’3Ux EU? ex- presses 'x is a set’. 1.2.1.2 AXIOM OF EXTENSIONALITY, This axiom states the essential property of classes as extensions of properties, namely, that classes are determined by their elements.AXIOMATIC SET THEORY 7 Ax Ext, Vx(x€A > xeB) + A= The converse implication is also true by virtue of the laws of logic. This axiom excludes Urelemente, since it implies that there is just one object with no elements, namely, the empty class. 1.2.1.3 AXIOM OF SUBSETS, This axiom expresses the fact that our universe is closed under ‘set of ...' where instead of .., we put any element of the universe, i.e. any set, Thus, a subclass of a set should be a set. Ax Sub, 3U bEUA Wx(xea+xeb) +4U aeu. 1.2.1.4 AXIOM OF REFLECTION, This fourth axiom enbodies the principle that if we have a universe V already given, then we can take Vas a set of Urelemente in order to form another universe F’, Thus, V will bea set in this new universe W' and any class A (subclass of VW) will also be a set in V', We assumed V to be closed under ‘element of ...", i.e. any element of an element of V is an element of V. Thus, Vas a set in V' should have this same property. Before introducing the Axiom of Reflection, we need some notation, For each of £, that does not contain U, 64 will be the formula obtained by relativizing each bound variable X to the formula ¥ u(yEX > yeu) (i.e, to the formula that says that X fs a subclass of U), This formula will be ab- breviated by XCU, More precisely, #4 is defined by recursion as follows: (i) If 6 is xey or x=y, then od! is ¢ itself. (ii) If @ is0>y or 0, then 6” is 04 =~ y! or 104, respecti- vely. (itt) fF ¢ isvxe, then ois vx(xcu>o4), (iv) If @ is 3X0, then is ax(xcuno4y, A11 other logical connectives can be defined in terms of these, so we do not need to include them in the definition, Notice that if ¢ is 2!X0, then 94 is equivalent to xaxcune4), The axiom schema of reflection is, then, AxRef. (Schema). Fon each formula ¢ of £, that does not contain u or 6 and contains at most A fnrce, the following is an axiom: VAS > Ju(TUUEUA VxVy(xeyeu > xeu) A VOY ylyeb or yeAN yeu) > oh [6] ).