How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
A countable elementary submodel need not be transitive
Statement
False statement: every countable elementary submodel of a transitive set is transitive. In ZFC there is a countable with that is not transitive.
Facts & Assumptions
Hartogs: an ordinal that does not inject into a given set: For every set there is an ordinal (def-ordinal) that does not inject into , that is, admits no injective function into . The least such ordinal is the Hartogs number , and it is exactly
the set of order types (thm-mostowski-collapse) of the well-ordered subsets of .
The proof is choice free. That is the whole point of the theorem: in ZF alone, with no assumption that can be well ordered, one still gets an ordinal too long to be laid inside .
Countable elementary submodels and their collapses: In ZFC, if an infinite set membership structure satisfies Extensionality, then for every at most countable there is a countably infinite containing , and has a countable transitive collapse. To retain a set as one parameter, use .
What the collapse fixes: Let be a collapse of actual membership as above. It fixes every transitive subset pointwise. If is an actual ordinal, is the order type of . In particular, if is transitive, .
The Axiom of Choice: Every family of nonempty sets has a choice function
Refutation
Given: Ambient ZFC and actual cumulative hierarchy stages.
By F1 let be the least ordinal not injecting into , that is . Choose . Then , the stage is infinite and transitive, and it satisfies Extensionality: any actual distinguishing member of two elements remains in the stage by transitivity. With AC as in F4, apply F2 to the parameter set to get a countable containing .
If were transitive, would imply . Composing this inclusion with a countability injection would inject into , contradicting its definition. Thus this satisfies the hypotheses of the proposed assertion and fails its conclusion.
F3 computes the collapse value of as , a countable ordinal because the trace is countable. It cannot equal the uncountable . The transitive collapse is therefore a different membership presentation, as required.
Depends on
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · two levels
14 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Geschke, Models of Set Theory — §4 Theorem 4.4 and Exercise 4.7 pp11–12, local counterexample (standard reference, not scraped)