Proof theoretic ordinal of zfc, and other formal systems

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The proof-theoretic ordinal of ZFC (Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the Axiom of Choice) is a critical concept in mathematical logic, representing the largest ordinal whose existence can be proven within the framework. The discussion highlights that if an ordinal α can be proven to exist, then α+1 can also be proven. The least ordinal whose existence cannot be proven in ZFC remains a topic of inquiry, with suggestions that it may relate to the supremum of all ordinals in the constructible hierarchy. The continuum hypothesis is also mentioned as potentially providing insights into this topic.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of ZFC set theory
  • Familiarity with proof theory and ordinals
  • Knowledge of the constructible hierarchy in set theory
  • Basic concepts of the continuum hypothesis
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the proof-theoretic ordinal of ZFC in detail
  • Explore the constructible hierarchy and its implications
  • Study the continuum hypothesis and its relevance to ordinals
  • Investigate the relationship between definable and undefinable ordinals in ZFC
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, logicians, and students of set theory who are interested in the foundations of mathematics and the implications of proof theory in formal systems.

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 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
802
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K