lolgarithms
- 120
- 0
what is the proof-theoretic strength (largest ordinal whose existence can be proved) for ZFC set theory?
Last edited:
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.
PREREQUISITESMathematicians, logicians, and students of set theory who are interested in the foundations of mathematics and the implications of proof theory in formal systems.
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
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.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.
The obvious guess would (IMHO) be something like the supremum of all of the ordinals in the constructible hierarchy.lolgarithms said:if the smallest ordinal that can't be proven is well-defined: what is the guess?
And that's where the extent of my knowledge ends.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?