[tex]\kappa^{L} [/tex] gives .
Three facts:
(1)The constructible universe L is the minimal model for ZFC;
(2) L is a model of "there exists an inaccessible cardinal ", and
(3) if V=L,an inaccessible cardinal with the membership relation is a model of ZFC.
So, what is confusing me is: if the universe of L contains , then how can L be the minimal model? Wouldn't < ", > be a model that is smaller?
PS, how come, when I wrapped math brackets around ^{L}, it didn't go to superscript?
Thanks, DrSteve. This is a key point: I did not know the bit aboutThanks.which has the same ordinals as L
Also you implicitly pointed out that my question should not have been "isn't < k,epsilon> a smaller model?" but "isn't <L_k, epsilon> a smaller model?" Again, thanks.
Hm, on the "Quick Reply" mode the possibility to use LaTex seems to have disappeared. But DrSteve used LaTex in his reply. What is going on?
If you hit the "go advanced button" after replying you will get the tex button back.
Of course an ordinal can never be a model of set theory. For example the pairing axiom fails (most pairs of ordinals aren't ordinals).
Please just note my statement "if I remember correctly." I haven't studied the constructable universe in a while, so just make sure you confirm that what I said regarding "having the same ordinals" is correct.
Thanks, DrSteve. I got the LaTex back. I will try it out on this post.
It was, of course, silly to put instead of , you're right.
Rephrasing your suggestion about the minimal model, it does indeed make sense: it seems that L is the minimal inner model of ZFC, but there is an ordinal smaller than such that is a minimal model of ZFC. You have put me on the right track, so thanks again.