In mathematics, Rathjen's  psi function is an ordinal collapsing function developed by Michael Rathjen. It collapses weakly Mahlo cardinals
 psi function is an ordinal collapsing function developed by Michael Rathjen. It collapses weakly Mahlo cardinals  to generate large countable ordinals.[1] A weakly Mahlo cardinal is a cardinal such that the set of regular cardinals below
 to generate large countable ordinals.[1] A weakly Mahlo cardinal is a cardinal such that the set of regular cardinals below  is closed under
 is closed under  (i.e. all normal functions closed in
 (i.e. all normal functions closed in  are closed under some regular ordinal
 are closed under some regular ordinal  ). Rathjen uses this to diagonalise over the weakly inaccessible hierarchy.
). Rathjen uses this to diagonalise over the weakly inaccessible hierarchy.
It admits an associated ordinal notation  whose limit (i.e. ordinal type) is
 whose limit (i.e. ordinal type) is  , which is strictly greater than both
, which is strictly greater than both  and the limit of countable ordinals expressed by Rathjen's
 and the limit of countable ordinals expressed by Rathjen's  .
.  , which is called the "Small Rathjen ordinal" is the proof-theoretic ordinal of
, which is called the "Small Rathjen ordinal" is the proof-theoretic ordinal of  , Kripke–Platek set theory augmented by the axiom schema "for any
, Kripke–Platek set theory augmented by the axiom schema "for any  -formula
-formula  satisfying
 satisfying  , there exists an addmissible set
, there exists an addmissible set  satisfying
 satisfying  ". It is equal to
". It is equal to  in Rathjen's
 in Rathjen's  function.[2]
 function.[2]
Definition
Restrict  and
 and  to uncountable regular cardinals
 to uncountable regular cardinals  ; for a function
; for a function  let
 let  denote the domain of
 denote the domain of  ; let
; let  denote
 denote  , and let
, and let  denote the enumeration of
 denote the enumeration of  . Lastly, an ordinal
. Lastly, an ordinal  is said to be to be strongly critical if
 is said to be to be strongly critical if  .
.
For  and
 and  :
:
![{\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&\beta \cup \{0,M\}\subseteq B^{n}(\alpha ,\beta )\gamma =\gamma _{1}+\cdots +\gamma _{k}{\text{ and }}\gamma _{1},\ldots ,\gamma _{k}\in B^{n}(\alpha ,\beta )\\[5pt]&\rightarrow \gamma \in B^{n+1}(\alpha ,\beta )\gamma =\varphi _{\gamma _{0}}(\gamma _{1}){\text{ and }}\gamma _{0},\gamma _{1}\in B^{n}(\alpha ,\beta )\rightarrow \gamma \in B^{n+1}(\alpha ,\beta )\pi \in B^{n}(\alpha ,\beta )\\[5pt]&{\text{and }}\gamma <\pi \rightarrow \gamma \in B^{n+1}(\alpha ,\beta )\delta ,\eta \in B^{n}(\alpha ,\beta )\land \delta <\alpha \land \eta \in \operatorname {dom} (\chi _{\delta })\\[5pt]&\rightarrow \chi _{\delta }(\eta )\in B^{n+1}(\alpha ,\beta )B(\alpha ,\beta )\\[5pt]&\bigcup _{n<\omega }B^{n}(\alpha ,\beta )\chi _{\alpha }\\[5pt]&=\operatorname {enum} (\operatorname {cl} (\kappa :\kappa \notin B(\alpha ,\kappa )\land \alpha \in B(\alpha ,\kappa )\})).\end{aligned}}}](./_assets_/1977537f7bc889e90a2ea815ad5410220e710870.svg) 
If  for some
 for some  , define
, define  using the unique
 using the unique  . Otherwise if
. Otherwise if  for some
 for some  , then define
, then define  using the unique
 using the unique  , where
, where  is a set of strongly critical ordinals
 is a set of strongly critical ordinals  explicitly defined in the original source.
 explicitly defined in the original source.
For  :
:
![{\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&\kappa ^{-}\cup \{\kappa ^{-},M\}\subset C_{\kappa }^{n}(\alpha )\gamma =\gamma _{1}+\cdots +\gamma _{k}{\text{ and }}\gamma _{1},\ldots ,\gamma _{k}\in C^{n}(\alpha )\rightarrow \gamma \in C^{n+1}(\alpha )\gamma =\varphi _{\gamma _{0}}(\gamma _{1})\land \gamma _{0},\gamma _{1}\in C^{n}(\alpha ,\beta )\\[5pt]&\rightarrow \gamma \in C^{n+1}(\alpha )\pi \in C_{\kappa }^{n}(\alpha )\cap \kappa \land \gamma <\pi \land \pi \in {\textrm {R}}\\[5pt]&\rightarrow \gamma \in C_{\kappa }^{n+1}(\alpha )\gamma =\chi _{\delta }(\eta )\land \delta ,\eta \in C_{\kappa }^{n}(\alpha )\rightarrow \gamma \in C_{\kappa }^{n+1}(\alpha )\\[5pt]&\gamma =\Phi _{\delta }(\eta )\land \delta ,\eta \in C_{\kappa }^{n}(\alpha )\land 0<\delta \land \delta ,\eta <M\rightarrow \gamma \in C_{\kappa }^{n+1}(\alpha )\beta <\alpha \land \pi ,\beta \in C_{\kappa }^{n}(\alpha )\land \beta \in C_{\pi }(\beta )\rightarrow \psi _{\pi }(\beta )\in C_{\kappa }^{n+1}(\alpha )C_{\kappa }(\alpha ):=\bigcup _{C_{\kappa }^{n}(\alpha ):n<\omega }.\end{aligned}}}](./_assets_/4d4ab6e4ad1a8d5bdbfe29facaef092c11609725.svg) 
 
Explanation
- Restrict  to uncountable regular cardinals. to uncountable regular cardinals.
 is a unique increasing function such that the range of is a unique increasing function such that the range of is exactly is exactly . .
 is the closure of is the closure of , i.e. , i.e. , where , where denotes the class of non-zero limit ordinals. denotes the class of non-zero limit ordinals.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rathjen originally defined the  function in more complicated a way in order to create an ordinal notation associated to it. Therefore, it is not certain whether the simplified OCF above yields an ordinal notation or not. The original
 function in more complicated a way in order to create an ordinal notation associated to it. Therefore, it is not certain whether the simplified OCF above yields an ordinal notation or not. The original  functions used in Rathjen's original OCF are also not so easy to understand, and differ from the
 functions used in Rathjen's original OCF are also not so easy to understand, and differ from the  functions defined above.
 functions defined above.
Rathjen's  and the simplification provided above are not the same OCF. This is partially because the former is known to admit an ordinal notation, while the latter isn't known to admit an ordinal notation. Rathjen's
 and the simplification provided above are not the same OCF. This is partially because the former is known to admit an ordinal notation, while the latter isn't known to admit an ordinal notation. Rathjen's  is often confounded with another of his OCFs which also uses the symbol
 is often confounded with another of his OCFs which also uses the symbol  , but they are distinct notions. The former one is a published OCF, while the latter one is just a function symbol in an ordinal notation associated to an unpublished OCF.[3]
, but they are distinct notions. The former one is a published OCF, while the latter one is just a function symbol in an ordinal notation associated to an unpublished OCF.[3]
References