This is an argument I thought up after a class on combinatrical properties of the model [itex]\textbf{L}[/itex]. Our course is about set theory, not logic, so this paradox desn't seem relevant in its context. Can you help me figure out where I got it wrong?(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The constructible heirarchy of sets is a series [itex]L_{\alpha}[/itex] that is defined for all ordinal numbers [itex]\alpha[/itex]. The important properties for my argument are:

- [itex]L_{\alpha}[/itex] is transitive for every [itex]\alpha[/itex]
- If [itex]\alpha < \beta[/itex], then [itex]L_{\alpha}\subset L_{\beta}[/itex]
- The transitive collapse (aka Montowski collapse) of every elementary submodel [itex]M \prec L_{\alpha}[/itex] is [itex]L_{\beta}[/itex] for some [itex]\beta[/itex]
- [itex]L_{\omega_{1}}[/itex] satisfies "every set is countable" and [itex]L_{\omega_{2}}[/itex] does not
- [itex]L_{\alpha}[/itex] is coutable iff [itex]\alpha[/itex] is countable

So, we take an countable elementary submodel (CESM) [itex]M_{1} \prec L_{\omega_{1}}[/itex], and look at its transitive collapse, [itex]L_{\alpha_{1}}[/itex] for some countable [itex]\alpha_{1}[/itex]. We then take an CESM [itex]M_{2} \prec L_{\omega_{2}}[/itex] that contains [itex]L_{\alpha_{2}}[/itex], and collapse it to get [itex]L_{\alpha_{2}}[/itex] with countable [itex]\alpha_{2}[/itex]. Then the same procedure yields a model [itex]L_{\alpha_{3}} \supset L_{\alpha_{2}}[/itex] that has an elementary embedding into [itex]L_{\omega_{1}}[/itex]. We generate an infinite series, switching between modelling [itex]L_{\omega_{1}}[/itex] and [itex]L_{\omega_{2}}[/itex].

The limit [tex]L_{\alpha}=L_{\lim_{n<\omega}\alpha_{n}}=\bigcup_{n<\omega}L_{\alpha_{n}}[/tex] is then the union of both subseries [itex]\{L_{\alpha_{n}}\}_{n=1,3,\ldots}[/itex] and [itex]\{L_{\alpha_{n}}\}_{n=2,4,\ldots}[/itex]. But a union of a series of elementary submodels is itself an elementary submodel, since it is a direct limit. In particular [itex]L_{\alpha}[/itex] should be elementary equivalent to both [itex]L_{\omega_{1}}[/itex] and [itex]L_{\omega_{2}}[/itex]. This is impossible because of property (4), namely there is a statement true in one and not in another.

Where did I go wrong in my reasoning? All kinds of tips are appreciated...

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Paradox with elementary submodels of the constructible tower

Loading...

Similar Threads - Paradox elementary submodels | Date |
---|---|

I Paradox analyses related? | Wednesday at 11:24 AM |

B About Fitch's paradox | Nov 8, 2017 |

A Can Somebody solve the Rich Investor's Paradox? | May 22, 2017 |

I Question: Proposed Solution to Two Envelope Paradox | Apr 21, 2017 |

Elementary set theory | Dec 17, 2014 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**