0

Do I understand correctly, that it is possible to prove in NBG set theory that the von Neumann universe, i.e. the union of $$ \begin{align} V_0 &= \varnothing, \\ V_{\alpha+1} &= P(V_{\alpha}), \quad\text{for all ordinals,}\quad\\ V_{\alpha} &= \bigcup_{\beta<\alpha} V_{\beta}, \quad\text{for limit ordinals} \end{align} $$ equals the class of all sets? How can this be proved?

This claim is stated and proved in the German language textbook Transfinite Zahlen, 2nd ed., by Heinz Bachmann, as item (h) on p. 27. However, Bachmann's proof is not in the context of NBG, but is instead in the context of showing this statement is true inside a Grothendieck universe in ZFC.

Eric Wofsey
  • 330,363
Evan Aad
  • 11,422
  • 2
    When you say 'this being a transfinite sequence', Isn't ${{{0}}}$ a member of $V$ but not of your sequence? – Steven Stadnicki Jul 18 '19 at 16:40
  • @StevenStadnicki: Precisely! So it is not the case that the von Neumann universe equals $V$, right? – Evan Aad Jul 18 '19 at 16:46
  • @DavidC.Ullrich: Very well. So what is the deal between the von Neumann universe and $V$? – Evan Aad Jul 18 '19 at 16:47
  • 1
    That sequence is ambiguous. It could continue as $\left{\emptyset, {\emptyset},\left{\emptyset, {\emptyset}\right}\right} = 3$ or as $ \left{\emptyset, {\emptyset},\left{\left{\emptyset\right}\right},\left{\emptyset, {\emptyset}\right}\right} = V_3$. Which were you intending? – eyeballfrog Jul 18 '19 at 16:57
  • @eyeballfrog: I guess I intended $V_3$, but I agree that it is ambiguous, perhaps because I wasn't entirely clear about the difference between the two. – Evan Aad Jul 18 '19 at 17:08
  • @StevenStadnicki. ${{{0}}}\in V_4.$ – DanielWainfleet Jul 22 '19 at 16:43
  • @DanielWainfleet: In the original version of my post the sequence I described was $V_0, V_1, V_2$, so it was not clear how I intended it to be continued. – Evan Aad Jul 22 '19 at 17:42
  • This claim is stated and proved in the German language textbook Transfinite Zahlen, 2nd ed., by Heinz Bachmann, as item (h) on p. 27. – Evan Aad Aug 20 '19 at 20:19
  • (continued) Bachmann's proof makes implicit use of item (e) on p. 27 as well as on the last sentence of the paragraph title "Axiom (V)" on p. 28. The latter makes implicit use of item (a) on p. 26 as well as on item 3 on pp. 20-21. – Evan Aad Aug 21 '19 at 06:37
  • (continued) However, Bachmann's proof cannot be formalized within NBG. It can be formalized in a theory, whose axioms include those of ZFC and in addition the existence of a Grothendieck universe containing $\mathbb{N}$. Bachmann's proof shows that this universe coincides with the union described in the question above. – Evan Aad Aug 21 '19 at 06:41
  • 1
    How to ask a good question on math.se and your edit is nothing more than a rant, and gives us no reason to reopen. Only our first edit to a closed question kicks it to a "reopen queue." where users can vote to reopen or keep closed. That's how I encountered your question. And since you had not improved the question in any way whatsoever, but only ranted, I had little choice that to vote to keep closed. – amWhy Dec 12 '20 at 17:14
  • 1
    And Evan, you ask for users feedback, only to dominate the comment thread here. Everything you added in comments should have been edits to your question. – amWhy Dec 12 '20 at 17:19

2 Answers2

2

Using the Axiom of Regularity, you can show that every set $x$ has a rank $\mathrm{rk}(x)\in\mathrm{Ord}$, where $\mathrm{rk}(x)$ is the smallest ordinal larger than $\mathrm{rk}(y)$ for every $y\in x$.

Suppose not, then either there is a sequence of elements in $x$ whose ranks are cofinal in $\mathrm{Ord}$, which makes $x$ a proper class, or $x$ must contain an element without rank (since if all $y\in x$ have a rank, we can take the union of their ranks to find an ordinal that is larger than or equal to all the ranks of the elements of $x$). Repeating this, we can construct a sequence $x\ni x_1\ni x_2\ni \dots$ of sets without rank, which contradicts the Axiom of Regularity.

For example, $\mathrm{rk}(\emptyset)=0$, $\mathrm{rk}(\{\emptyset\})=1$, and by transfinite induction you can show $\mathrm{rk}(\alpha)=\alpha$ for every ordinal $\alpha$.

It is not too difficult to see that then $x\in V_{\mathrm{rk}(x)+1}\subset V$, since $y\in x$ implies $y\in V_{\mathrm{rk}(x)}$ by induction, and thus $x\in\mathcal P(V_{\mathrm{rk}(x)})=V_{\mathrm{rk}(x)+1}$.

Without the Axiom of Regularity, there could be sets not in the Von Neumann universe, since there could exist infinite sequences $x\ni x_1\ni x_2\ni\dots$, but it is still possible to show that every well-founded set is in the Von Neumann universe (and vice versa).

Vsotvep
  • 6,123
  • Thanks. You answered first, and you answered correctly, so I've upvoted you. However, I am going to accept Eric Wofsey's answer, because I understand it better. If it weren't for his answer, I would not understand your answer (for one, I don't know what cofinal means). – Evan Aad Jul 18 '19 at 18:17
  • 2
    @EvanAad A subset $X\subset Y$ of a partially ordered set is called cofinal in $Y$ when for every $y\in Y$ there is a $x\in X$ such that $y\leq x$. In a way it means that the subset can get arbitrarily large. Perhaps the only slight thing is that I extended this definition to the proper class of all ordinals. – Vsotvep Jul 18 '19 at 19:42
  • 2
    For some reason this question was closed, and, moreover, someone voted to delete it. I voted to reopen, but my vote was undone without explanation. Would you mind taking a look and telling me what I need to do to improve the question to make it eligible for reopening? If my question is good as-is, would you mind voting for reopening it? – Evan Aad Aug 29 '19 at 09:47
  • 1
    @EvanAad I have no idea what's wrong with this question, except perhaps that there is no part showing what you tried. Unfortunately am not senior enough to vote for reopen yet. – Vsotvep Aug 29 '19 at 10:59
  • OK. Many thanks. – Evan Aad Aug 29 '19 at 11:01
  • @EvanAad Do not use comments to answerers to beg them for reopen your poor question. Comments should address only the question, and answers, to seek claifification or suggest improvements. – amWhy Dec 12 '20 at 17:22
0

This follows from (and in fact, is equivalent to) the axiom of regularity. There are various equivalent ways to state the axiom of regularity (more on that below), but I will take the following statement: any nonempty class $X$ has an element $a$ such that $a\cap X=\emptyset$.

Now, consider the class $X$ of all sets that are not in $V_\alpha$ for any ordinal $\alpha$. If $X$ is nonempty, then by regularity there exists $a\in X$ such that $a\cap X=\emptyset$. That means that every element of $a$ is in $V_\alpha$ for some $\alpha$. For $b\in a$, let $f(b)$ be the least ordinal $\alpha$ such that $b\in V_\alpha$. By replacement and union, $\alpha=\bigcup\{f(b):b\in a\}$ is a set, and is an ordinal which is greater than or equal to $f(b)$ for all $b\in a$. Thus $b\in V_\alpha$ for all $b\in a$, which means $a\in P(V_\alpha)=V_{\alpha+1}$. But then $a\not\in X$, which is a contradiction. Thus $X$ must be empty.


As I said above, there are other equivalent statements of the axiom of regularity and the proof may need modification depending on what statement you use. One version of the axiom of regularity is the very statement $V=\bigcup V_\alpha$, in which case there's nothing to prove. Another version is that any nonempty set $X$ has an element $a$ such that $a\cap X=\emptyset$. With that version, you need to use a trick because the class $X$ used in the proof above may not be a set; see Statements Equivalent to Axiom of Foundation for details.

Eric Wofsey
  • 330,363
  • For some reason this question was closed, and, moreover, someone voted to delete it. I voted to reopen, but my vote was undone without explanation. Would you mind taking a look and telling me what I need to do to improve the question to make it eligible for reopening? If my question is good as-is, would you mind voting for reopening it? – Evan Aad Aug 29 '19 at 09:47