Must all models of ZFC (in a standard formulation) be at least countable?

AI Thread Summary
All models of ZFC in a standard formulation must be at least countable due to the necessity of containing an empty set and sets that build upon it, such as the set containing just the empty set. The argument regarding the countably many instances of Replacement is flawed, as it does not ensure that different instances produce distinct sets. The discussion also raises a question about whether the countability requirement applies solely to first-order formulations or if it extends to second-order formulations of ZFC. However, the consensus is that all standard models of ZFC remain countable. Thus, the requirement for countability is a fundamental aspect of ZFC models.
mpitluk
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Must all models of ZFC (in a standard formulation) be at least countable?

Why I think this: there are countably many instances of Replacement, and so, if a model is to satisfy Replacement, it must have at least countably many satisfactions of it.

Does my question only apply to first-order formulations of ZFC, or are there second-order formulations of ZFC that can be finite?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, they're all at least countable, because they all have an empty set, a set containing just the empty set, a set containing just the set containing just the empty set, etc. Your argument using Replacement doesn't work, since there's no guarantee that two different instances of Replacement generate different sets.
 
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...

Similar threads

Back
Top