Gaps in the Constructible hierarchy

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












Frank Drake proves in his 'large cardinals' book, pg 140, that



Theorem: There are $kappa^+$ ordinals $alpha$ between $kappa$ and $kappa^+$ such that $alpha+1$ is not the 'constructive order' (i.e. constructive rank) of any subset of $kappa$.



His proof makes use of the fact that there are $kappa^+$ models of ZFC in the form $L_alpha$ for some $kappalealphalekappa^+$. The proof looks fine to me, but I'm unsure about something. If no new subsets of $kappa$ are added from $L_alpha$ to $L_alpha+1$, then how exactly does the constructive hierarchy continue to grow? I mean, we cannot have $L_alpha = L_alpha+1 = L_alpha+2=...$ as then we would not get all of $L$. So when we move up the hierarchy, we must always be getting new sets from somewhere, but where exactly are they coming from?



Furthermore, can we put an upper bound on the length of the gaps? (Drake shows using model theoretic arguments that the gaps must be very large).



Furthermore, has the value of the smallest ordinal $alpha$ such that there is a gap at $L_alpha$ been determined?










share|cite|improve this question





















  • Why shouldn't the hierarchy continue to grow? E.g. $L_alpha in L_alpha+1$ always.
    – Jonathan
    Sep 1 at 15:06










  • We define $L_alpha+1$ as $Def(L_alpha)$ where $Def(A)$ is the collection of sets definable by a formula with parameters in $A$. From this we have if $A = Def(A)$, then certainly $A = Def(A) = Def(Def(A)) = ... $ etc.
    – Elie Bergman
    Sep 1 at 15:13






  • 2




    Yes but $Def(A)$ is never $A$ because $A in Def(A)$ but $A notin A$.
    – Jonathan
    Sep 1 at 15:18










  • Ah right, so instead of adding subsets of $kappa$ at the sucessor stage, instead we get sets like $kappa$, $kappa$ and the like. (weird stuff basically, but the hierarchy always grows). The other questions are still open of course.
    – Elie Bergman
    Sep 1 at 15:21











  • Well if no new subsets of $kappa$ get added in stage $alpha$ then $ kappa$ and also $ kappa $ will already be in $L_alpha$. New stuff that is added is e.g. the ordinal $alpha$, the set $L_alpha$, subsets of $alpha$...
    – Jonathan
    Sep 1 at 15:24














up vote
2
down vote

favorite












Frank Drake proves in his 'large cardinals' book, pg 140, that



Theorem: There are $kappa^+$ ordinals $alpha$ between $kappa$ and $kappa^+$ such that $alpha+1$ is not the 'constructive order' (i.e. constructive rank) of any subset of $kappa$.



His proof makes use of the fact that there are $kappa^+$ models of ZFC in the form $L_alpha$ for some $kappalealphalekappa^+$. The proof looks fine to me, but I'm unsure about something. If no new subsets of $kappa$ are added from $L_alpha$ to $L_alpha+1$, then how exactly does the constructive hierarchy continue to grow? I mean, we cannot have $L_alpha = L_alpha+1 = L_alpha+2=...$ as then we would not get all of $L$. So when we move up the hierarchy, we must always be getting new sets from somewhere, but where exactly are they coming from?



Furthermore, can we put an upper bound on the length of the gaps? (Drake shows using model theoretic arguments that the gaps must be very large).



Furthermore, has the value of the smallest ordinal $alpha$ such that there is a gap at $L_alpha$ been determined?










share|cite|improve this question





















  • Why shouldn't the hierarchy continue to grow? E.g. $L_alpha in L_alpha+1$ always.
    – Jonathan
    Sep 1 at 15:06










  • We define $L_alpha+1$ as $Def(L_alpha)$ where $Def(A)$ is the collection of sets definable by a formula with parameters in $A$. From this we have if $A = Def(A)$, then certainly $A = Def(A) = Def(Def(A)) = ... $ etc.
    – Elie Bergman
    Sep 1 at 15:13






  • 2




    Yes but $Def(A)$ is never $A$ because $A in Def(A)$ but $A notin A$.
    – Jonathan
    Sep 1 at 15:18










  • Ah right, so instead of adding subsets of $kappa$ at the sucessor stage, instead we get sets like $kappa$, $kappa$ and the like. (weird stuff basically, but the hierarchy always grows). The other questions are still open of course.
    – Elie Bergman
    Sep 1 at 15:21











  • Well if no new subsets of $kappa$ get added in stage $alpha$ then $ kappa$ and also $ kappa $ will already be in $L_alpha$. New stuff that is added is e.g. the ordinal $alpha$, the set $L_alpha$, subsets of $alpha$...
    – Jonathan
    Sep 1 at 15:24












up vote
2
down vote

favorite









up vote
2
down vote

favorite











Frank Drake proves in his 'large cardinals' book, pg 140, that



Theorem: There are $kappa^+$ ordinals $alpha$ between $kappa$ and $kappa^+$ such that $alpha+1$ is not the 'constructive order' (i.e. constructive rank) of any subset of $kappa$.



His proof makes use of the fact that there are $kappa^+$ models of ZFC in the form $L_alpha$ for some $kappalealphalekappa^+$. The proof looks fine to me, but I'm unsure about something. If no new subsets of $kappa$ are added from $L_alpha$ to $L_alpha+1$, then how exactly does the constructive hierarchy continue to grow? I mean, we cannot have $L_alpha = L_alpha+1 = L_alpha+2=...$ as then we would not get all of $L$. So when we move up the hierarchy, we must always be getting new sets from somewhere, but where exactly are they coming from?



Furthermore, can we put an upper bound on the length of the gaps? (Drake shows using model theoretic arguments that the gaps must be very large).



Furthermore, has the value of the smallest ordinal $alpha$ such that there is a gap at $L_alpha$ been determined?










share|cite|improve this question













Frank Drake proves in his 'large cardinals' book, pg 140, that



Theorem: There are $kappa^+$ ordinals $alpha$ between $kappa$ and $kappa^+$ such that $alpha+1$ is not the 'constructive order' (i.e. constructive rank) of any subset of $kappa$.



His proof makes use of the fact that there are $kappa^+$ models of ZFC in the form $L_alpha$ for some $kappalealphalekappa^+$. The proof looks fine to me, but I'm unsure about something. If no new subsets of $kappa$ are added from $L_alpha$ to $L_alpha+1$, then how exactly does the constructive hierarchy continue to grow? I mean, we cannot have $L_alpha = L_alpha+1 = L_alpha+2=...$ as then we would not get all of $L$. So when we move up the hierarchy, we must always be getting new sets from somewhere, but where exactly are they coming from?



Furthermore, can we put an upper bound on the length of the gaps? (Drake shows using model theoretic arguments that the gaps must be very large).



Furthermore, has the value of the smallest ordinal $alpha$ such that there is a gap at $L_alpha$ been determined?







logic set-theory model-theory






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Sep 1 at 10:03









Elie Bergman

1,916715




1,916715











  • Why shouldn't the hierarchy continue to grow? E.g. $L_alpha in L_alpha+1$ always.
    – Jonathan
    Sep 1 at 15:06










  • We define $L_alpha+1$ as $Def(L_alpha)$ where $Def(A)$ is the collection of sets definable by a formula with parameters in $A$. From this we have if $A = Def(A)$, then certainly $A = Def(A) = Def(Def(A)) = ... $ etc.
    – Elie Bergman
    Sep 1 at 15:13






  • 2




    Yes but $Def(A)$ is never $A$ because $A in Def(A)$ but $A notin A$.
    – Jonathan
    Sep 1 at 15:18










  • Ah right, so instead of adding subsets of $kappa$ at the sucessor stage, instead we get sets like $kappa$, $kappa$ and the like. (weird stuff basically, but the hierarchy always grows). The other questions are still open of course.
    – Elie Bergman
    Sep 1 at 15:21











  • Well if no new subsets of $kappa$ get added in stage $alpha$ then $ kappa$ and also $ kappa $ will already be in $L_alpha$. New stuff that is added is e.g. the ordinal $alpha$, the set $L_alpha$, subsets of $alpha$...
    – Jonathan
    Sep 1 at 15:24
















  • Why shouldn't the hierarchy continue to grow? E.g. $L_alpha in L_alpha+1$ always.
    – Jonathan
    Sep 1 at 15:06










  • We define $L_alpha+1$ as $Def(L_alpha)$ where $Def(A)$ is the collection of sets definable by a formula with parameters in $A$. From this we have if $A = Def(A)$, then certainly $A = Def(A) = Def(Def(A)) = ... $ etc.
    – Elie Bergman
    Sep 1 at 15:13






  • 2




    Yes but $Def(A)$ is never $A$ because $A in Def(A)$ but $A notin A$.
    – Jonathan
    Sep 1 at 15:18










  • Ah right, so instead of adding subsets of $kappa$ at the sucessor stage, instead we get sets like $kappa$, $kappa$ and the like. (weird stuff basically, but the hierarchy always grows). The other questions are still open of course.
    – Elie Bergman
    Sep 1 at 15:21











  • Well if no new subsets of $kappa$ get added in stage $alpha$ then $ kappa$ and also $ kappa $ will already be in $L_alpha$. New stuff that is added is e.g. the ordinal $alpha$, the set $L_alpha$, subsets of $alpha$...
    – Jonathan
    Sep 1 at 15:24















Why shouldn't the hierarchy continue to grow? E.g. $L_alpha in L_alpha+1$ always.
– Jonathan
Sep 1 at 15:06




Why shouldn't the hierarchy continue to grow? E.g. $L_alpha in L_alpha+1$ always.
– Jonathan
Sep 1 at 15:06












We define $L_alpha+1$ as $Def(L_alpha)$ where $Def(A)$ is the collection of sets definable by a formula with parameters in $A$. From this we have if $A = Def(A)$, then certainly $A = Def(A) = Def(Def(A)) = ... $ etc.
– Elie Bergman
Sep 1 at 15:13




We define $L_alpha+1$ as $Def(L_alpha)$ where $Def(A)$ is the collection of sets definable by a formula with parameters in $A$. From this we have if $A = Def(A)$, then certainly $A = Def(A) = Def(Def(A)) = ... $ etc.
– Elie Bergman
Sep 1 at 15:13




2




2




Yes but $Def(A)$ is never $A$ because $A in Def(A)$ but $A notin A$.
– Jonathan
Sep 1 at 15:18




Yes but $Def(A)$ is never $A$ because $A in Def(A)$ but $A notin A$.
– Jonathan
Sep 1 at 15:18












Ah right, so instead of adding subsets of $kappa$ at the sucessor stage, instead we get sets like $kappa$, $kappa$ and the like. (weird stuff basically, but the hierarchy always grows). The other questions are still open of course.
– Elie Bergman
Sep 1 at 15:21





Ah right, so instead of adding subsets of $kappa$ at the sucessor stage, instead we get sets like $kappa$, $kappa$ and the like. (weird stuff basically, but the hierarchy always grows). The other questions are still open of course.
– Elie Bergman
Sep 1 at 15:21













Well if no new subsets of $kappa$ get added in stage $alpha$ then $ kappa$ and also $ kappa $ will already be in $L_alpha$. New stuff that is added is e.g. the ordinal $alpha$, the set $L_alpha$, subsets of $alpha$...
– Jonathan
Sep 1 at 15:24




Well if no new subsets of $kappa$ get added in stage $alpha$ then $ kappa$ and also $ kappa $ will already be in $L_alpha$. New stuff that is added is e.g. the ordinal $alpha$, the set $L_alpha$, subsets of $alpha$...
– Jonathan
Sep 1 at 15:24










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
2
down vote













The comments have answered how the $L$ hierarchy continues to grow even in gaps; the point being that even though it may "appear finished" with a certain rank, it will continue to add sets of higher rank. Gaps refer to times when the $L$ hierarchy restricted to a certain level doesn't change.




Now as to the lengths of gaps, basically they are "as big as possible." For example:




If $kappa$ is infinite and $lambda<kappa^+$, then there is an $alphain [kappa,kappa^+)$ such that $alpha$ starts a "$kappa$-gap" of length at least $lambda$.




Proof: Let $alpha$ be the image of $kappa^+$ under the Mostowski collapse of any cardinality-$kappa$ elementary submodel $M$ of enough of $L$ ($L_kappa^++$ is more than enough) which contains $lambda+1$ as a subset.



By condensation, the Mostowski collapse of $M$ is a level of $L$ - say, $L_beta$. Since $kappa^+$ starts a $kappa$-gap of length at least $lambda$ - indeed, of length $Ord$, since $mathcalP(kappa)cap Lsubseteq L_kappa^+$ by condensation - we have in $L_beta$ that $alpha$ starts a $kappa$-gap of length at least $mu=$ the image of $lambda$ under the Mostowski collapse of $M$. But by hypothesis on $M$, $mu=lambda$, so we're done. $Box$



Similarly, we can show that $kappa$-gaps of arbitrarily great length $<kappa^+$ occur cofinally in $kappa^+$.




Now, what about the least $alpha>kappa$ which starts a $kappa$-gap? Here I know virtually nothing - in particular, "the least $alpha>kappa$ which starts a $kappa$-gap" is pretty concrete to me, so improving it seems a hard task - but here's a brief comment:



In the case $kappa=omega$, we can try to characterize this $alpha$ as follows: by finding some appropriate notion of correctness for second-order arithmetic such that $alpha$ is the least ordinal such that $L_alphacapmathcalP(omega)$ is correct in this sense.



I'm restricting attention to second-order arithmetic for concreteness; we could look instead at fragments of set theory, and this seems in general more fruitful, but for now let's stay "low-down."



Leeds and Putnam showed that the ordinals which start $omega$-caps all yield $beta$-models of second-order arithmetic. However, I don't know if the least such ordinal is also the least gap.



For $kappa>omega$, an analogue of the Leeds-Putnam result should hold, but again I don't see that it gives a characteriztion of the corresponding $alpha$.






share|cite|improve this answer






















    Your Answer




    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: false,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2901540%2fgaps-in-the-constructible-hierarchy%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest






























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    2
    down vote













    The comments have answered how the $L$ hierarchy continues to grow even in gaps; the point being that even though it may "appear finished" with a certain rank, it will continue to add sets of higher rank. Gaps refer to times when the $L$ hierarchy restricted to a certain level doesn't change.




    Now as to the lengths of gaps, basically they are "as big as possible." For example:




    If $kappa$ is infinite and $lambda<kappa^+$, then there is an $alphain [kappa,kappa^+)$ such that $alpha$ starts a "$kappa$-gap" of length at least $lambda$.




    Proof: Let $alpha$ be the image of $kappa^+$ under the Mostowski collapse of any cardinality-$kappa$ elementary submodel $M$ of enough of $L$ ($L_kappa^++$ is more than enough) which contains $lambda+1$ as a subset.



    By condensation, the Mostowski collapse of $M$ is a level of $L$ - say, $L_beta$. Since $kappa^+$ starts a $kappa$-gap of length at least $lambda$ - indeed, of length $Ord$, since $mathcalP(kappa)cap Lsubseteq L_kappa^+$ by condensation - we have in $L_beta$ that $alpha$ starts a $kappa$-gap of length at least $mu=$ the image of $lambda$ under the Mostowski collapse of $M$. But by hypothesis on $M$, $mu=lambda$, so we're done. $Box$



    Similarly, we can show that $kappa$-gaps of arbitrarily great length $<kappa^+$ occur cofinally in $kappa^+$.




    Now, what about the least $alpha>kappa$ which starts a $kappa$-gap? Here I know virtually nothing - in particular, "the least $alpha>kappa$ which starts a $kappa$-gap" is pretty concrete to me, so improving it seems a hard task - but here's a brief comment:



    In the case $kappa=omega$, we can try to characterize this $alpha$ as follows: by finding some appropriate notion of correctness for second-order arithmetic such that $alpha$ is the least ordinal such that $L_alphacapmathcalP(omega)$ is correct in this sense.



    I'm restricting attention to second-order arithmetic for concreteness; we could look instead at fragments of set theory, and this seems in general more fruitful, but for now let's stay "low-down."



    Leeds and Putnam showed that the ordinals which start $omega$-caps all yield $beta$-models of second-order arithmetic. However, I don't know if the least such ordinal is also the least gap.



    For $kappa>omega$, an analogue of the Leeds-Putnam result should hold, but again I don't see that it gives a characteriztion of the corresponding $alpha$.






    share|cite|improve this answer


























      up vote
      2
      down vote













      The comments have answered how the $L$ hierarchy continues to grow even in gaps; the point being that even though it may "appear finished" with a certain rank, it will continue to add sets of higher rank. Gaps refer to times when the $L$ hierarchy restricted to a certain level doesn't change.




      Now as to the lengths of gaps, basically they are "as big as possible." For example:




      If $kappa$ is infinite and $lambda<kappa^+$, then there is an $alphain [kappa,kappa^+)$ such that $alpha$ starts a "$kappa$-gap" of length at least $lambda$.




      Proof: Let $alpha$ be the image of $kappa^+$ under the Mostowski collapse of any cardinality-$kappa$ elementary submodel $M$ of enough of $L$ ($L_kappa^++$ is more than enough) which contains $lambda+1$ as a subset.



      By condensation, the Mostowski collapse of $M$ is a level of $L$ - say, $L_beta$. Since $kappa^+$ starts a $kappa$-gap of length at least $lambda$ - indeed, of length $Ord$, since $mathcalP(kappa)cap Lsubseteq L_kappa^+$ by condensation - we have in $L_beta$ that $alpha$ starts a $kappa$-gap of length at least $mu=$ the image of $lambda$ under the Mostowski collapse of $M$. But by hypothesis on $M$, $mu=lambda$, so we're done. $Box$



      Similarly, we can show that $kappa$-gaps of arbitrarily great length $<kappa^+$ occur cofinally in $kappa^+$.




      Now, what about the least $alpha>kappa$ which starts a $kappa$-gap? Here I know virtually nothing - in particular, "the least $alpha>kappa$ which starts a $kappa$-gap" is pretty concrete to me, so improving it seems a hard task - but here's a brief comment:



      In the case $kappa=omega$, we can try to characterize this $alpha$ as follows: by finding some appropriate notion of correctness for second-order arithmetic such that $alpha$ is the least ordinal such that $L_alphacapmathcalP(omega)$ is correct in this sense.



      I'm restricting attention to second-order arithmetic for concreteness; we could look instead at fragments of set theory, and this seems in general more fruitful, but for now let's stay "low-down."



      Leeds and Putnam showed that the ordinals which start $omega$-caps all yield $beta$-models of second-order arithmetic. However, I don't know if the least such ordinal is also the least gap.



      For $kappa>omega$, an analogue of the Leeds-Putnam result should hold, but again I don't see that it gives a characteriztion of the corresponding $alpha$.






      share|cite|improve this answer
























        up vote
        2
        down vote










        up vote
        2
        down vote









        The comments have answered how the $L$ hierarchy continues to grow even in gaps; the point being that even though it may "appear finished" with a certain rank, it will continue to add sets of higher rank. Gaps refer to times when the $L$ hierarchy restricted to a certain level doesn't change.




        Now as to the lengths of gaps, basically they are "as big as possible." For example:




        If $kappa$ is infinite and $lambda<kappa^+$, then there is an $alphain [kappa,kappa^+)$ such that $alpha$ starts a "$kappa$-gap" of length at least $lambda$.




        Proof: Let $alpha$ be the image of $kappa^+$ under the Mostowski collapse of any cardinality-$kappa$ elementary submodel $M$ of enough of $L$ ($L_kappa^++$ is more than enough) which contains $lambda+1$ as a subset.



        By condensation, the Mostowski collapse of $M$ is a level of $L$ - say, $L_beta$. Since $kappa^+$ starts a $kappa$-gap of length at least $lambda$ - indeed, of length $Ord$, since $mathcalP(kappa)cap Lsubseteq L_kappa^+$ by condensation - we have in $L_beta$ that $alpha$ starts a $kappa$-gap of length at least $mu=$ the image of $lambda$ under the Mostowski collapse of $M$. But by hypothesis on $M$, $mu=lambda$, so we're done. $Box$



        Similarly, we can show that $kappa$-gaps of arbitrarily great length $<kappa^+$ occur cofinally in $kappa^+$.




        Now, what about the least $alpha>kappa$ which starts a $kappa$-gap? Here I know virtually nothing - in particular, "the least $alpha>kappa$ which starts a $kappa$-gap" is pretty concrete to me, so improving it seems a hard task - but here's a brief comment:



        In the case $kappa=omega$, we can try to characterize this $alpha$ as follows: by finding some appropriate notion of correctness for second-order arithmetic such that $alpha$ is the least ordinal such that $L_alphacapmathcalP(omega)$ is correct in this sense.



        I'm restricting attention to second-order arithmetic for concreteness; we could look instead at fragments of set theory, and this seems in general more fruitful, but for now let's stay "low-down."



        Leeds and Putnam showed that the ordinals which start $omega$-caps all yield $beta$-models of second-order arithmetic. However, I don't know if the least such ordinal is also the least gap.



        For $kappa>omega$, an analogue of the Leeds-Putnam result should hold, but again I don't see that it gives a characteriztion of the corresponding $alpha$.






        share|cite|improve this answer














        The comments have answered how the $L$ hierarchy continues to grow even in gaps; the point being that even though it may "appear finished" with a certain rank, it will continue to add sets of higher rank. Gaps refer to times when the $L$ hierarchy restricted to a certain level doesn't change.




        Now as to the lengths of gaps, basically they are "as big as possible." For example:




        If $kappa$ is infinite and $lambda<kappa^+$, then there is an $alphain [kappa,kappa^+)$ such that $alpha$ starts a "$kappa$-gap" of length at least $lambda$.




        Proof: Let $alpha$ be the image of $kappa^+$ under the Mostowski collapse of any cardinality-$kappa$ elementary submodel $M$ of enough of $L$ ($L_kappa^++$ is more than enough) which contains $lambda+1$ as a subset.



        By condensation, the Mostowski collapse of $M$ is a level of $L$ - say, $L_beta$. Since $kappa^+$ starts a $kappa$-gap of length at least $lambda$ - indeed, of length $Ord$, since $mathcalP(kappa)cap Lsubseteq L_kappa^+$ by condensation - we have in $L_beta$ that $alpha$ starts a $kappa$-gap of length at least $mu=$ the image of $lambda$ under the Mostowski collapse of $M$. But by hypothesis on $M$, $mu=lambda$, so we're done. $Box$



        Similarly, we can show that $kappa$-gaps of arbitrarily great length $<kappa^+$ occur cofinally in $kappa^+$.




        Now, what about the least $alpha>kappa$ which starts a $kappa$-gap? Here I know virtually nothing - in particular, "the least $alpha>kappa$ which starts a $kappa$-gap" is pretty concrete to me, so improving it seems a hard task - but here's a brief comment:



        In the case $kappa=omega$, we can try to characterize this $alpha$ as follows: by finding some appropriate notion of correctness for second-order arithmetic such that $alpha$ is the least ordinal such that $L_alphacapmathcalP(omega)$ is correct in this sense.



        I'm restricting attention to second-order arithmetic for concreteness; we could look instead at fragments of set theory, and this seems in general more fruitful, but for now let's stay "low-down."



        Leeds and Putnam showed that the ordinals which start $omega$-caps all yield $beta$-models of second-order arithmetic. However, I don't know if the least such ordinal is also the least gap.



        For $kappa>omega$, an analogue of the Leeds-Putnam result should hold, but again I don't see that it gives a characteriztion of the corresponding $alpha$.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Sep 1 at 20:20

























        answered Sep 1 at 20:09









        Noah Schweber

        112k9142266




        112k9142266



























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2901540%2fgaps-in-the-constructible-hierarchy%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest













































































            這個網誌中的熱門文章

            How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

            Mutual Information Always Non-negative

            Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?