In mathematics, Rathjen's 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 is closed under (i.e. all normal functions closed in are closed under some regular ordinal ). Rathjen uses this to diagonalise over the weakly inaccessible hierarchy.
It admits an associated ordinal notation whose limit (i.e. ordinal type) is , which is strictly greater than both and the limit of countable ordinals expressed by Rathjen's . , which is called the "Small Rathjen ordinal" is the proof-theoretic ordinal of , Kripke–Platek set theory augmented by the axiom schema "for any -formula satisfying , there exists an addmissible set satisfying ". It is equal to in Rathjen's function.[2]
Restrict and to uncountable regular cardinals ; for a function let denote the domain of ; let denote , and let denote the enumeration of . Lastly, an ordinal is said to be to be strongly critical if .
For and :
If for some , define using the unique . Otherwise if for some , then define using the unique , where is a set of strongly critical ordinals explicitly defined in the original source.
For :
- Restrict to uncountable regular cardinals.
- is a unique increasing function such that the range of is exactly .
- is the closure of , i.e. , where 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 functions used in Rathjen's original OCF are also not so easy to understand, and differ from the 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.[citation needed] Rathjen's 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former one is a published OCF, while the latter one is just a function symbol in an ordinal notation associated to an unpublished OCF.[3]