Proof theoretic ordinal of zfc, and other formal systems

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof-theoretic strength of ZFC set theory, specifically focusing on the least ordinal whose existence cannot be proven within ZFC. Participants explore the implications of ordinals in relation to ZFC and the definitions surrounding them.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Debate/contested, Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire about the proof-theoretic strength of ZFC and the least ordinal whose existence cannot be proven.
  • One participant suggests that if an ordinal \(\alpha\) can be proven to exist, then \(\alpha + 1\) can also be proven, indicating a focus on the least ordinal that cannot be proven.
  • Another participant questions the well-defined nature of the smallest ordinal that cannot be proven and discusses the implications of stronger set theories.
  • There is a suggestion that the proof-theoretic ordinal of ZFC might not have a specific name, contrasting it with known ordinals like the Kripke-Platek ordinal.
  • One participant proposes that the supremum of all ordinals in the constructible hierarchy could be a candidate for the least ordinal that cannot be proven, while expressing uncertainty about the well-definedness of the question.
  • Another participant raises the issue of definable versus undefinable ordinals in ZFC, questioning what is known about their supremum and infimum.
  • There is mention of the continuum hypothesis potentially providing interesting information related to the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express uncertainty regarding the well-definedness of the least ordinal that cannot be proven in ZFC, indicating that multiple competing views remain on this topic.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in their understanding and the definitions of ordinals, as well as the implications of stronger set theories on the discussion.

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 [tex]\alpha[/tex] can be proved to exist, so can [tex]\alpha+1[/tex]

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

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 [itex]\beta[/itex]" and "[itex]\alpha < \beta[/itex]" should imply "ZFC proves the existence of [itex]\alpha[/itex]".
 
  • #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
5K
  • · 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
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K