Definition
Zero sharp was defined by Silver and Solovay as follows. Consider the language of set theory with extra constant symbols c1, c2, ... for each positive integer. Then 0# is defined to be the set of Gödel numbers of the true sentences about the constructible universe, with ci interpreted as the uncountable cardinal ℵi. (Here ℵi means ℵi in the full universe, not the constructible universe.)
There is a subtlety about this definition: by Tarski's undefinability theorem it is not in general possible to define the truth of a formula of set theory in the language of set theory. To solve this, Silver and Solovay assumed the existence of a suitable large cardinal, such as a Ramsey cardinal, and showed that with this extra assumption it is possible to define the truth of statements about the constructible universe. More generally, the definition of 0# works provided that there is an uncountable set of indiscernibles for some Lα, and the phrase "0# exists" is used as a shorthand way of saying this.
There are several minor variations of the definition of 0#, which make no significant difference to its properties. There are many different choices of Gödel numbering, and 0# depends on this choice. Instead of being considered as a subset of the natural numbers, it is also possible to encode 0# as a subset of formulae of a language, or as a subset of the hereditarily finite sets, or as a real number.
Read more about this topic: Zero Sharp
Famous quotes containing the word definition:
“Beauty, like all other qualities presented to human experience, is relative; and the definition of it becomes unmeaning and useless in proportion to its abstractness. To define beauty not in the most abstract, but in the most concrete terms possible, not to find a universal formula for it, but the formula which expresses most adequately this or that special manifestation of it, is the aim of the true student of aesthetics.”
—Walter Pater (1839–1894)
“No man, not even a doctor, ever gives any other definition of what a nurse should be than this—”devoted and obedient.” This definition would do just as well for a porter. It might even do for a horse. It would not do for a policeman.”
—Florence Nightingale (1820–1910)
“It is very hard to give a just definition of love. The most we can say of it is this: that in the soul, it is a desire to rule; in the spirit, it is a sympathy; and in the body, it is but a hidden and subtle desire to possess—after many mysteries—what one loves.”
—François, Duc De La Rochefoucauld (1613–1680)