lolgarithms
- 120
- 0
what is the proof-theoretic strength (largest ordinal whose existence can be proved) for ZFC set theory?
Last edited:
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.
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.
Participants note limitations in their understanding and the definitions of ordinals, as well as the implications of stronger set theories on the discussion.
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
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?