Proof theoretic ordinal of zfc, and other formal systems

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the proof-theoretic strength of ZFC set theory and the quest to identify the least ordinal whose existence cannot be proven within ZFC. Participants express uncertainty about the well-defined nature of this ordinal and its implications, questioning whether the relationship between provable ordinals is valid. There is speculation that the supremum of all ordinals in the constructible hierarchy could be relevant, but the conversation acknowledges the ambiguity in defining what constitutes a provable ordinal. The role of the continuum hypothesis is also mentioned as potentially providing insights into this topic. Overall, the conversation highlights the complexities and uncertainties surrounding the proof-theoretic ordinal of ZFC.
lolgarithms
Messages
120
Reaction score
0
what is the proof-theoretic strength (largest ordinal whose existence can be proved) for ZFC set theory?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
If an ordinal \alpha can be proved to exist, so can \alpha+1

So in fact you probably want least ordinal whose existence cannot be proved
 
g_edgar said:
If an ordinal \alpha can be proved to exist, so can \alpha+1

So in fact you probably want least ordinal whose existence cannot be proved

oops, my bad. what is it?
 
could someone answer this question? please?
What is the least ordinal whose existence can't be proven in ZFC?
 
what is the proof theoretic strenght of zfc? please help, i want to know!

please, hurkyl, don't make me wait!
 
Last edited:
Why not research the question elsewhere on the Internet?
 
lolgarithms said:
please, hurkyl, don't make me wait!
What? All I can do is make the obvious guess, and I'm not even sure that's well-defined, let alone the answer you seek.
 
What? All I can do is make the obvious guess, and I'm not even sure that's well-defined, let alone the answer you seek.

if the smallest ordinal that can't be proven is well-defined: what determines that? that a stronger set theory is not known?

so we just call the ordinal "the proof theoretic ordinal of zfc"? ok. might not be an oridnal with a name, like kripke-platek ordinal
 
Last edited:
lolgarithms said:
if the smallest ordinal that can't be proven is well-defined: what is the guess?
The obvious guess would (IMHO) be something like the supremum of all of the ordinals in the constructible hierarchy.

However, I'm not sure the question is well-defined: why should "ZFC proves the existence of \beta" and "\alpha < \beta" should imply "ZFC proves the existence of \alpha".
 
  • #10
Perhaps it isn't well defined. What is known, then, about the supremum of the set of definable ordinals in ZFC, and the infimum of undefinable ordinals in ZFC?
 
  • #11
CRGreathouse said:
Perhaps it isn't well defined. What is known, then, about the supremum of the set of definable ordinals in ZFC, and the infimum of undefinable ordinals in ZFC?
And that's where the extent of my knowledge ends. :smile: Although now that I think about it, the continuum hypotheses probably tells us some interesting information.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
73
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
3K
Back
Top