Climb into Cantor’s Attic, where you will find infinities large and small. We aim to provide a comprehensive resource of information about all notions of mathematical infinity.

View the Project on GitHub neugierde/cantors-attic

Quick navigation
The upper attic
The middle attic
The lower attic
The parlour
The playroom
The library
The cellar

Cantor's Attic (original site)
Joel David Hamkins blog post about the Attic
Latest working snapshot at the wayback machine

Constructible universe

The Constructible universe (denoted $L$) was invented by Kurt Gödel as a transitive inner model of $\text{ZFC+}$$\text{GCH}$ (assuming the consistency of $\text{ZFC}$) showing that $\text{ZFC}$ cannot disprove $\text{GCH}$. It was then shown to be an important model of $\text{ZFC}$ for its satisfying of other axioms, thus making them consistent with $\text{ZFC}$. The idea is that $L$ is built up by ranks like $V$. $L_0$ is the empty set, and $L_{\alpha+1}$ is the set of all easily definable subsets of $L_\alpha$. The assumption that $V=L$ (also known as the Axiom of constructibility) is undecidable from $\text{ZFC}$, and implies many axioms which are consistent with $\text{ZFC}$. A set $X$ is constructible iff $X\in L$. $V=L$ iff every set is constructible.


$\mathrm{def}(X)$ is the set of all “easily definable” subsets of $X$ (specifically the $\Delta_0$ definable subsets). More specifically, a subset $x$ of $X$ is in $\mathrm{def}(X)$ iff there is a first-order formula $\varphi$ and $v_0,v_1…v_n\in X$ such that $x=\{y\in X:\varphi^X[y,v_0,v_1…v_n]\}$. Then, $L_\alpha$ and $L$ are defined as follows:

The Relativized constructible universes $L_\alpha(W)$ and $L_\alpha[W]$

$L_\alpha(W)$ for a class $W$ is defined the same way except $L_0(W)=\text{TC}(\{W\})$ (the transitive closure of $\{W\}$). $L_\alpha[W]$ for a class $W$ is defined in the same way as $L$ except using $\mathrm{def}_W(X)$, where $\mathrm{def}_W(X)$ is the set of all $x\subseteq X$ such that there is a first-order formula $\varphi$ and $v_0,v_1…v_n\in X$ such that $x=\{y\in X:\varphi^X[y,W,v_0,v_1…v_n]\}$ (because the relativization of $\varphi$ to $X$ is used and $\langle X,\in\rangle$ is not used, this definition makes sense even when $W$ is not in $X$).

$L[W]=\bigcup_{\alpha\in\mathrm{Ord}}L_\alpha[W]$ is always a model of $\text{ZFC}$, and always satisfies $\text{GCH}$ past a certain cardinality. $L(W)=\bigcup_{\alpha\in\mathrm{Ord}}L_\alpha(W)$ is always a model of $\text{ZF}$ but need not satisfy $\text{AC}$ (the axiom of choice). In particular, $L(\mathbb{R})$ is, under large cardinal assumptions, a model of the axiom of determinacy. However, Shelah proved that if $\lambda$ is a strong limit cardinal of uncountable cofinality then $L(\mathcal{P}(\lambda))$ is a model of $\text{AC}$.

The difference between $L_\alpha$ and $V_\alpha$

For $\alpha\leq\omega$, $L_\alpha=V_\alpha$. However, $|L_{\omega+\alpha}|=\aleph_0 + |\alpha|$ whilst $|V_{\omega+\alpha}|=\beth_\alpha$. Unless $\alpha$ is a $\beth$-fixed point, $|L_{\omega+\alpha}|<|V_{\omega+\alpha}|$. Although $L_\alpha$ is quite small compared to $V_\alpha$, $L$ is a tall model, meaning $L$ contains every ordinal. In fact, $V_\alpha\cap\mathrm{Ord}=L_\alpha\cap\mathrm{Ord}=\alpha$, so the ordinals in $V_\alpha$ are precisely those in $L_\alpha$.

If $0^{\#}$ exists (see below), then every uncountable cardinal $\kappa$ has $L\models$”$\kappa$is totally ineffable (and therefore the smallest actually totally ineffable cardinal $\lambda$ has many more large cardinal properties in $L$).

However, if $\kappa$ is inaccessible and $V=L$, then $V_\kappa=L_\kappa$. Furthermore, $V_\kappa\models (V=L)$. In the case where $V\neq L$, it is still true that $V_\kappa^L=L_\kappa$, although $V_\kappa^L$ will not be $V_\kappa$. In fact, $\mathcal{P}(\omega)\not\in V_\kappa^L$ if $0^{\#}$ exists.

Statements True in $L$

Here is a list of statements true in $L$ of any model of $\text{ZF}$:

Determinacy of $L(\R)$

Main article: axiom of determinacy

Using other logic systems than first-order logic

When using second order logic in the definition of $\mathrm{def}$, the new hierarchy is called $L_\alpha^{II}$. Interestingly, $L^{II}=\text{HOD}$. When using $\mathcal{L}_{\kappa,\kappa}$, the hierarchy is called $L_\alpha^{\mathcal{L}_{\kappa,\kappa}}$, and $L\subseteq L^{\mathcal{L}_{\kappa,\kappa}}\subseteq L(V_\kappa)$. Finally, when using $\mathcal{L}_{\infty,\infty}$, it turns out that the result is $V$.

Chang’s Model is $L^{\mathcal{L}_{\omega_1,\omega_1}}$. Chang proved that $L^{\mathcal{L}_{\kappa,\kappa}}$ is the smallest inner model of $\text{ZFC}$ closed under sequences of length $<\kappa$.

Silver indiscernibles

To be expanded.

Silver cardinals

A cardinal $κ$ is Silver if in a set-forcing extension there is a club in $κ$ of generating indiscernibles for $V_κ$ of order-type $κ$. This is a very strong property downwards absolute to $L$, e.g.:(Gitman & Shindler, n.d.)


$0^{\#}$ (zero sharp) is a $\Sigma_3^1$ real number which, under the existence of many Silver indiscernibles (a statement independent of $\text{ZFC}$), has a certain number of properties that contredicts the axiom of constructibility and implies that, in short, $L$ and $V$ are “very different”. Technically, under the standard definition of $0^\#$ as a (real number encoding a) set of formulas, $0^\#$ provably exists in $\text{ZFC}$, but lacks all its important properties. Thus the expression “$0^\#$ exists” is to be understood as “$0^\#$ exists and there are uncountably many Silver indiscernibles”.

Definition of $0^{\#}$

Assume there is an uncountable set of Silver indiscernibles. Then $0^{\#}$ is defined as the set of all Gödel numberings of first-order formula $\varphi$ such that $L_{\aleph_{\omega}}\models\varphi(\aleph_0,\aleph_1…\aleph_n)$ for some $n$.

“$0^{\#}$ exists” is used as a shorthand for “there is an uncountable set of Silver indiscernibles”; since $L_{\aleph_\omega}$ is a set, $\text{ZFC}$ can define a truth predicate for it, and so the existence of $0^{\#}$ as a mere set of formulas would be trivial. It is interesting only when there are many (in fact proper class many) Silver indiscernibles. Similarly, we say that “$0^{\#}$ does not exist” if there are no Silver indiscernibles.

Implications, equivalences, and consequences of $0^♯$’s existence

If $0^♯$ exists then:

The following statements are equivalent:

The existence of $0^♯$ is implied by:

Note that if $0^♯$ exists then for every Silver indiscernible (in particular for every uncountable cardinal) there is a nontrivial elementary embedding $j:L\rightarrow L$ with that indiscernible as its critical point. Thus if any such embedding exists, then a proper class of those embeddings exists.

Nonexistence of $0^\#$, Jensen’s Covering Theorem

EM blueprints and alternative characterizations of $0^\#$

An EM blueprint (Ehrenfeucht-Mostowski blueprint) $T$ is any theory of the form $\{\varphi:(L_\delta;\in,\alpha_0,\alpha_1…)\models\varphi\}$ for some ordinal $\delta>\omega$ and $\alpha_0<\alpha_1<\alpha_2…$ are indiscernible in the structure $L_\delta$. Roughly speaking, it’s the set of all true statements about $\alpha_0,\alpha_1,\alpha_2…$ in $L_\delta$.

For an EM blueprint $T=\{\varphi:(L_\delta;\in,\alpha_0,\alpha_1…)\models\varphi\}$, the theory $T^{-}$ is defined as $\{\varphi:L_\delta\models\varphi\}$ (the set of truths about any definable elements of $L_\delta$). Then, the structure $\mathcal{M}(T,\alpha)=(M(T,\alpha);E)\models T^{-}$ has a very technical definition, but it is indeed uniquely (up to isomorphism) the only structure which satisfies the existence of a set $X$ of $\mathcal{M}(T,\alpha)$-ordinals such that:

  1. $X$ is a set of indiscernibles for $\mathcal{M}(T,\alpha)$ and $(X;E)\cong\alpha$ ($X$ has order-type $\alpha$ with respect to $\mathcal{M}(T,\alpha)$)
  2. For any formula $\varphi$ and any $x<y<z…$ with $x,y,z…\in X$, $\mathcal{M}(T,\alpha)\models\varphi(x,y,z…)$ iff $\mathcal{M}(T,\alpha)\models\varphi(\alpha_0,\alpha_1,\alpha_2…)$ where $\alpha_0,\alpha_1…$ are the indiscernibles used in the EM blueprint.
  3. If $<$ is an $\mathcal{M}(T,\alpha)$-definable $\mathcal{M}(T,\alpha)$-well-ordering of $\mathcal{M}(T,\alpha)$, then: \(\\mathcal{M}(T,\\alpha)=\\{\\min{}\_&lt;^{\\mathcal{M}(T,\\alpha)}\\{x:\\mathcal{M}(T,\\alpha)\\models\\varphi\[x,a,b,c...\]\\}:\\varphi\\in\\mathcal{L}\_\\in\\text{ and } a,b,c...\\in X\\}\)

$0^\#$ is then defined as the unique EM blueprint $T$ such that:

  1. $\mathcal{M}(T,\alpha)$ is isomorphic to a transitive model $M(T,\alpha)$ of ZFC for every $\alpha$
  2. For any infinite $\alpha$, the set of indiscernibles $X$ associated with $M(T,\alpha)$ can be made cofinal in $\text{Ord}^{M(T,\alpha)}$.
  3. The $L_\delta$-indiscernables $\beta_0<\beta_1…$ can be made so that if $<$ is an $M(T,\alpha)$-definable well-ordering of $M(T,\alpha)$, then for any $(m+n+2)$-ary formula $\varphi$ such that $\min_<^{M(T,\alpha)}\{x:\varphi[x,\beta_0,\beta_1…\beta_{m+n}]\}<\beta_m$, then: \(\\min{}\_&lt;^{M(T,\\alpha)}\\{x:\\varphi\[x,\\beta\_0,\\beta\_1...\\beta\_{m+n}\]\\}=\\min{}\_&lt;^{M(T,\\alpha)}\\{x:\\varphi\[x,\\beta\_0,\\beta\_1...\\beta\_{m-1},\\beta\_{m+n+1}...\\beta\_{m+2n+1}\]\\}\)

If the EM blueprint meets 1. then it is called well-founded. If it meets 2. and 3. then it is called remarkable.

If $0^\#$ exists (i.e. there is a well-founded remarkable EM blueprint) then it happens to be equivalent to the set of all $\varphi$ such that $L\models\varphi[\kappa_0,\kappa_1…]$ for some uncountable cardinals $\kappa_0,\kappa_1…<\aleph_\omega$. This is because the associated $M(T,\alpha)$ will always have $M(T,\alpha)\prec L$ and furthermore $\kappa_0,\kappa_1…$ would be indiscernibles for $L$.

$0^\#$ exists interestingly iff some $L_\delta$ has an uncountable set of indiscernables. If $0^\#$ exists, then there is some uncountable $\delta$ such that $M(0^\#,\omega_1)=L_\delta$ and $L_\delta$ therefore has an uncountable set of indiscernables. On the other hand, if some $L_\delta$ has an uncountable set of indiscernables, then the EM blueprint of $L_\delta$ is $0^\#$.

Sharps of arbitrary sets


$0^\dagger$ (zero dagger) is a set of integers analogous to $0^\sharp$ and connected with inner models of measurability.(Kanamori & Awerbuch-Friedlander, 1990)

$0^{sword}$ is connected with nontrivial Mitchell rank. $¬ 0 ^{sword}$ (not zero sword) means that there is no mouse with a measure of Mitchell order $> 0$.(Sharpe & Welch, 2011)

$0^\P$ (zero pistol) is connected with strong cardinals. $¬ 0^\P$ (not zero pistol) means that a core model may be built with a strong cardinal, but that there is no class of indiscernibles for it that is closed and unbounded in $\mathrm{Ord}$).(Sharpe & Welch, 2011) $0^¶$ is “the sharp for a strong cardinal”, meaning the minimal sound active mouse $\mathcal{M}$ with $M | \mathrm{crit}(\dot F^{\mathcal{M}}) \models \text{“There exists a strong cardinaly”}$, with $\dot F^{\mathcal{M}}$ being the top extender of $\mathcal{M}$.(Nielsen & Welch, 2018)

Additional References


  1. Gitman, V., & Shindler, R. Virtual large cardinals.
  2. Bagaria, J., Gitman, V., & Schindler, R. (2017). Generic Vopěnkaś Principle, remarkable cardinals, and the weak Proper Forcing Axiom. Arch. Math. Logic, 56(1-2), 1–20.
  3. Gitman, V., & Hamkins, J. D. (2018). A model of the generic Vopěnka principle in which the ordinals are not Mahlo.
  4. Kanamori, A., & Awerbuch-Friedlander, T. (1990). The compleat 0†. Mathematical Logic Quarterly, 36(2), 133–141.
  5. Sharpe, I., & Welch, P. (2011). Greatly Erdős cardinals with some generalizations to the Chang and Ramsey properties. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic, 162(11), 863–902.
  6. Nielsen, D. S., & Welch, P. (2018). Games and Ramsey-like cardinals.
  7. Jech, T. J. (2003). Set Theory (Third). Springer-Verlag.
  8. Chang, C. C. (1971). Sets Constructible Using \(\mathcal {L}_{κ,κ}\). In Axiomatic set theory (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Vol. XIII, Part I, Univ. California, Los Angeles, Calif., 1967) (pp. 1–8). Amer. Math. Soc.
Main library