 Ordinal collapsing function

In mathematical logic and set theory, an ordinal collapsing function (or projection function) is a technique for defining (notations for) certain recursive large countable ordinals, whose principle is to give names to certain ordinals much larger than the one being defined, perhaps even large cardinals (though they can be replaced with recursively large ordinals at the cost of extra technical difficulty), and then “collapse” them down to a system of notations for the soughtafter ordinal. For this reason, ordinal collapsing functions are described as an impredicative manner of naming ordinals.
The details of the definition of ordinal collapsing functions vary, and get more complicated as greater ordinals are being defined, but the typical idea is that whenever the notation system “runs out of fuel” and cannot name a certain ordinal, a much larger ordinal is brought “from above” to give a name to that critical point. An example of how this works will be detailed below, for an ordinal collapsing function defining the BachmannHoward ordinal (i.e., defining a system of notations up to the BachmannHoward ordinal).
The use and definition of ordinal collapsing functions is inextricably intertwined with the theory of ordinal analysis, since the large countable ordinals defined and denoted by a given collapse are used to describe the ordinaltheoretic strength of certain formal systems, typically^{[1]}^{[2]} subsystems of analysis (such as those seen in the light of reverse mathematics), extensions of KripkePlatek set theory, Bishopstyle systems of constructive mathematics or MartinLöfstyle systems of intuitionistic type theory.
Ordinal collapsing functions are typically denoted using some variation of the Greek letter ψ (psi).
Contents
 1 An example leading up to the BachmannHoward ordinal
 2 Variations on the example
 3 Collapsing large cardinals
 4 Notes
 5 References
An example leading up to the BachmannHoward ordinal
The choice of the ordinal collapsing function given as example below imitates greatly the system introduced by Buchholz^{[3]} but is limited to collapsing one cardinal for clarity of exposition. More on the relation between this example and Buchholz's system will be said below.
Definition
Let Ω stand for the first uncountable ordinal ω_{1}, or, in fact, any ordinal which is (an εnumber and) guaranteed to be greater than all the countable ordinals which will be constructed (for example, the ChurchKleene ordinal is adequate for our purposes; but we will work with ω_{1} because it allows the convenient use of the word countable in the definitions).
We define a function ψ (which will be nondecreasing and continuous), taking an arbitrary ordinal α to a countable ordinal ψ(α), recursively on α, as follows:
 Assume ψ(β) has been defined for all β < α, and we wish to define ψ(α).
 Let C(α) be the set of ordinals generated starting from 0, 1, ω and Ω by recursively applying the following functions: ordinal addition, multiplication and exponentiation and the function , i.e., the restriction of ψ to ordinals β < α. (Formally, we define C(α)_{0} = {0,1,ω,Ω} and inductively for all natural numbers n and we let C(α) be the union of the C(α)_{n} for all n.)
 Then ψ(α) is defined as the smallest ordinal not belonging to C(α).
In a more concise (although more obscure) way:
 ψ(α) is the smallest ordinal which cannot be expressed from 0, 1, ω and Ω using sums, products, exponentials, and the ψ function itself (to previously constructed ordinals less than α).
Here is an attempt to explain the motivation for the definition of ψ in intuitive terms: since the usual operations of addition, multiplication and exponentiation are not sufficient to designate ordinals very far, we attempt to systematically create new names for ordinals by taking the first one which does not have a name yet, and whenever we run out of names, rather than invent them in an ad hoc fashion or using diagonal schemes, we seek them in the ordinals far beyond the ones we are constructing (beyond Ω, that is); so we give names to uncountable ordinals and, since in the end the list of names is necessarily countable, ψ will “collapse” them to countable ordinals.
Computation of values of ψ
To clarify how the function ψ is able to produce notations for certain ordinals, we now compute its first values.
Predicative start
First consider C(0). It contains ordinals 0, 1, 2, 3, ω, ω + 1, ω + 2, ω2, ω3, ω^{2}, ω^{3}, ω^{ω}, and so on. It also contains such ordinals as Ω, Ω + 1, Ωω, Ω^{Ω}. The first ordinal which it does not contain is ε_{0} (which is the limit of ω, ω^{ω}, and so on — less than Ω by assumption). The upper bound of the ordinals it contains is ε_{Ω + 1} (the limit of Ω, Ω^{Ω}, and so on), but that is not so important. This shows that ψ(0) = ε_{0}.
Similarly, C(1) contains the ordinals which can be formed from 0, 1, ω, Ω and this time also ε_{0}, using addition, multiplication and exponentiation. This contains all the ordinals up to but not the latter, so ψ(1) = ε_{1}. In this manner, we prove that ψ(α) = ε_{α} inductively on α: the proof works, however, only as long as α < ε_{α}. We therefore have:
 ψ(α) = ε_{α} = ϕ_{1}(α) for all , where ζ_{0} = ϕ_{2}(0) is the smallest fixed point of .
(Here, the ϕ functions are the Veblen functions defined starting with ϕ_{1}(α) = ε_{α}.)
Now ψ(ζ_{0}) = ζ_{0} but ψ(ζ_{0} + 1) is no larger, since ζ_{0} cannot be constructed using finite applications of and thus never belongs to a C(α) set for , and the function ψ remains “stuck” at ζ_{0} for some time:
 ψ(α) = ζ_{0} for all .
First impredicative values
Again, ψ(Ω) = ζ_{0}. However, when we come to computing ψ(Ω + 1), something has changed: since Ω was (“artificially”) added to all the C(α), we are permitted to take the value ψ(Ω) = ζ_{0} in the process. So C(Ω + 1) contains all ordinals which can be built from 0, 1, ω, Ω, the function up to ζ_{0} and this time also ζ_{0} itself, using addition, multiplication and exponentiation. The smallest ordinal not in C(Ω + 1) is (the smallest εnumber after ζ_{0}).
We say that the definition ψ(Ω) = ζ_{0} and the next values of the function ψ such as are impredicative because they use ordinals (here, Ω) greater than the ones which are being defined (here, ζ_{0}).
Values of ψ up to the FefermanSchütte ordinal
The fact that remains true for all (note, in particular, that : but since now the ordinal ζ_{0} has been constructed there is nothing to prevent from going beyond this). However, at ζ_{1} = ϕ_{2}(1) (the first fixed point of beyond ζ_{0}), the construction stops again, because ζ_{1} cannot be constructed from smaller ordinals and ζ_{0} by finitely applying the ε function. So we have ψ(Ω2) = ζ_{1}.
The same reasoning shows that ψ(Ω(1 + α)) = ϕ_{2}(α) for all , where ϕ_{2} enumerates the fixed points of and ϕ_{3}(0) is the first fixed point of ϕ_{2}. We then have ψ(Ω^{2}) = ϕ_{3}(0).
Again, we can see that ψ(Ω^{α}) = ϕ_{1 + α}(0) for some time: this remains true until the first fixed point Γ_{0} of , which is the FefermanSchütte ordinal. Thus, ψ(Ω^{Ω}) = Γ_{0} is the FefermanSchütte ordinal.
Beyond the FefermanSchütte ordinal
We have for all where Γ_{1} is the next fixed point of . So, if enumerates the fixed points in question. (which can also be noted ϕ(α,0,0) using the manyvalued Veblen functions) we have ψ(Ω^{Ω(1 + α)}) = Γ_{α}, until the first fixed point of the itself, which will be . In this manner:
 is the Ackermann ordinal (the range of the notation ϕ(α,β,γ) defined predicatively),
 is the “small” Veblen ordinal (the range of the notations predicatively using finitely many variables),
 is the “large” Veblen ordinal (the range of the notations predicatively using transfinitelybutpredicativelymany variables),
 the limit ψ(ε_{Ω + 1}) of ψ(Ω), ψ(Ω^{Ω}), , etc., is the BachmannHoward ordinal: after this our function ψ is constant, and we can go no further with the definition we have given.
Ordinal notations up to the BachmannHoward ordinal
We now explain more systematically how the ψ function defines notations for ordinals up to the BachmannHoward ordinal.
A note about base representations
Recall that if δ is an ordinal which is a power of ω (for example ω itself, or ε_{0}, or Ω), any ordinal α can be uniquely expressed in the form , where k is a natural number, are nonzero ordinals less than δ, and are ordinal numbers (we allow β_{k} = 0). This “base δ representation” is an obvious generalization of the Cantor normal form (which is the case δ = ω). Of course, it may quite well be that the expression is uninteresting, i.e., α = δ^{α}, but in any other case the β_{i} must all be less than α; it may also be the case that the expression is trivial (i.e., α < δ, in which case and γ_{1} = α).
If α is an ordinal less than ε_{Ω + 1}, then its base Ω representation has coefficients γ_{i} < Ω (by definition) and exponents β_{i} < α (because of the assumption α < ε_{Ω + 1}): hence one can rewrite these exponents in base Ω and repeat the operation until the process terminates (any decreasing sequence of ordinals is finite). We call the resulting expression the iterated base Ω representation of α and the various coefficients involved (including as exponents) the pieces of the representation (they are all < Ω), or, for short, the Ωpieces of α.
Some properties of ψ
 The function ψ is nondecreasing and continuous (this is more or less obvious from its definition).
 If ψ(α) = ψ(β) with β < α then necessarily C(α) = C(β). Indeed, no ordinal β' with can belong to C(α) (otherwise its image by ψ, which is ψ(α) would belong to C(α) — impossible); so C(β) is closed by everything under which C(α) is the closure, so they are equal.
 Any value γ = ψ(α) taken by ψ is an εnumber (i.e., a fixed point of ). Indeed, if it were not, then by writing it in Cantor normal form, it could be expressed using sums, products and exponentiation from elements less than it, hence in C(α), so it would be in C(α), a contradiction.
 Lemma: Assume δ is an εnumber and α an ordinal such that ψ(β) < δ for all β < α: then the Ωpieces (defined above) of any element of C(α) are less than δ. Indeed, let C' be the set of ordinals all of whose Ωpieces are less than δ. Then C' is closed under addition, multiplication and exponentiation (because δ is an εnumber, so ordinals less than it are closed under addition, multiplication and exponentition). And C' also contains every ψ(β) for β < α by assumption, and it contains 0, 1, ω, Ω. So , which was to be shown.
 Under the hypothesis of the previous lemma, (indeed, the lemma shows that ).
 Any εnumber less than some element in the range of ψ is itself in the range of ψ (that is, ψ omits no εnumber). Indeed: if δ is an εnumber not greater than the range of ψ, let α be the least upper bound of the β such that ψ(β) < δ: then by the above we have , but ψ(α) < δ would contradict the fact that α is the least upper bound — so ψ(α) = δ.
 Whenever ψ(α) = δ, the set C(α) consists exactly of those ordinals γ (less than ε_{Ω + 1}) all of whose Ωpieces are less than δ. Indeed, we know that all ordinals less than δ, hence all ordinals (less than ε_{Ω + 1}) whose Ωpieces are less than δ, are in C(α). Conversely, if we assume ψ(β) < δ for all β < α (in other words if α is the least possible with ψ(α) = δ), the lemma gives the desired property. On the other hand, if ψ(α) = ψ(β) for some β < α, then we have already remarked C(α) = C(β) and we can replace α by the least possible with ψ(α) = δ.
The ordinal notation
Using the facts above, we can define a (canonical) ordinal notation for every γ less than the BachmannHoward ordinal. We do this by induction on γ.
If γ is less than ε_{0}, we use the iterated Cantor normal form of γ. Otherwise, there exists a largest εnumber δ less or equal to γ (this is because the set of εnumbers is closed): if δ < γ then by induction we have defined a notation for δ and the base δ representation of γ gives one for γ, so we are finished.
It remains to deal with the case where γ = δ is an εnumber: we have argued that, in this case, we can write δ = ψ(α) for some (possibly uncountable) ordinal : let α be the greatest possible such ordinal (which exists since ψ is continuous). We use the iterated base Ω representation of α: it remains to show that every piece of this representation is less than δ (so we have already defined a notation for it). If this is not the case then, by the properties we have shown, C(α) does not contain α; but then C(α + 1) = C(α) (they are closed under the same operations, since the value of ψ at α can never be taken), so ψ(α + 1) = ψ(α) = δ, contradicting the maximality of α.
Note: Actually, we have defined canonical notations not just for ordinals below the BachmannHoward ordinal but also for certain uncountable ordinals, namely those whose Ωpieces are less than the BachmannHoward ordinal (viz.: write them in iterated base Ω representation and use the canonical representation for every piece). This canonical notation is used for arguments of the ψ function (which may be uncountable).
Examples
For ordinals less than ε_{0} = ψ(0), the canonical ordinal notation defined coincides with the iterated Cantor normal form (by definition).
For ordinals less than ε_{1} = ψ(1), the notation coincides with iterated base ε_{0} notation (the pieces being themselves written in iterated Cantor normal form): e.g., will be written , or, more accurately, . For ordinals less than ε_{2} = ψ(2), we similarly write in iterated base and then write the pieces in iterated base ε_{0} (and write the pieces of that in iterated Cantor normal form): so is written , or, more accurately, . Thus, up to ζ_{0} = ψ(Ω), we always use the largest possible εnumber base which gives a nontrivial representation.
Beyond this, we may need to express ordinals beyond Ω: this is always done in iterated Ωbase, and the pieces themselves need to be expressed using the largest possible εnumber base which gives a nontrivial representation.
Note that while ψ(ε_{Ω + 1}) is equal to the BachmannHoward ordinal, this is not a “canonical notation” in the sense we have defined (canonical notations are defined only for ordinals less than the BachmannHoward ordinal).
Conditions for canonicalness
The notations thus defined have the property that whenever they nest ψ functions, the arguments of the “inner” ψ function are always less than those of the “outer” one (this is a consequence of the fact that the Ωpieces of α, where α is the largest possible such that ψ(α) = δ for some εnumber δ, are all less than δ, as we have shown above). For example, ψ(ψ(Ω) + 1) does not occur as a notation: it is a welldefined expression (and it is equal to ψ(Ω) = ζ_{0} since ψ is constant between ζ_{0} and Ω), but it is not a notation produced by the inductive algorithm we have outlined.
Canonicalness can be checked recursively: an expression is canonical if and only if it is either the iterated Cantor normal form of an ordinal less than ε_{0}, or an iterated base δ representation all of whose pieces are canonical, for some δ = ψ(α) where α is itself written in iterated base Ω representation all of whose pieces are canonical and less than δ. The order is checked by lexicographic verification at all levels (keeping in mind that Ω is greater than any expression obtained by ψ, and for canonical values the greater ψ always trumps the lesser or even arbitrary sums, products and exponentials of the lesser).
For example, is a canonical notation for an ordinal which is less than the FefermanSchütte ordinal: it can be written using the Veblen functions as .
Concerning the order, one might point out that ψ(Ω^{Ω}) (the FefermanSchütte ordinal) is much more than (because Ω is greater than ψ of anything), and is itself much more than (because Ω^{ψ(Ω)} is greater than Ω, so any sumproductorexponential expression involving ψ(Ω) and smaller value will remain less than ψ(Ω^{Ω})). In fact, ψ(Ω)^{ψ(Ω)} is already less than ψ(Ω + 1).
Standard sequences for ordinal notations
Main article: Fundamental sequence (ordinals)To witness the fact that we have defined notations for ordinals below the BachmannHoward ordinal (which are all of countable cofinality), we might define standard sequences converging to any one of them (provided it is a limit ordinal, of course). Actually we will define canonical sequences for certain uncountable ordinals, too, namely the uncountable ordinals of countable cofinality (if we are to hope to define a sequence converging to them…) which are representable (that is, all of whose Ωpieces are less than the BachmannHoward ordinal).
The following rules are more or less obvious, except for the last:
 First, get rid of the (iterated) base δ representations: to define a standard sequence converging to , where δ is either ω or (or Ω, but see below):
 if k is zero then α = 0 and there is nothing to be done;
 if β_{k} is zero and γ_{k} is successor, then α is successor and there is nothing to be done;
 if γ_{k} is limit, take the standard sequence converging to γ_{k} and replace γ_{k} in the expression by the elements of that sequence;
 if γ_{k} is successor and β_{k} is limit, rewrite the last term as and replace the exponent β_{k} in the last term by the elements of the fundamental sequence converging to it;
 if γ_{k} is successor and β_{k} is also, rewrite the last term as and replace the last δ in this expression by the elements of the fundamental sequence converging to it.
 If δ is ω, then take the obvious 0, 1, 2, 3… as the fundamental sequence for δ.
 If δ = ψ(0) then take as fundamental sequence for δ the sequence ω, ω^{ω}, …
 If δ = ψ(α + 1) then take as fundamental sequence for δ the sequence ψ(α), ψ(α)^{ψ(α)}, …
 If δ = ψ(α) where α is a limit ordinal of countable cofinality, define the standard sequence for δ to be obtained by applying ψ to the standard sequence for α (recall that ψ is continuous, here).
 It remains to handle the case where δ = ψ(α) with α an ordinal of uncountable cofinality (e.g., Ω itself). Obviously it doesn't make sense to define a sequence converging to α in this case; however, what we can define is a sequence converging to some ρ < α with countable cofinality and such that ψ is constant between ρ and α. This ρ will be the first fixed point of a certain (continuous and nondecreasing) function . To find it, apply the same rules (from the base Ω representation of α) as to find the canonical sequence of α, except that whenever a sequence converging to Ω is called for (something which cannot exist), replace the Ω in question, in the expression of α = h(Ω), by a ψ(ξ) (where ξ is a variable) and perform a repeated iteration (starting from 0, say) of the function : this gives a sequence 0, h(ψ(0)), h(ψ(h(ψ(0))))… tending to ρ, and the canonical sequence for ψ(α) = ψ(ρ) is ψ(0), ψ(h(ψ(0))), ψ(h(ψ(h(ψ(0)))))… (The examples below should make this clearer.)
Here are some examples for the last (and most interesting) case:
 The canonical sequence for ψ(Ω) is: ψ(0), ψ(ψ(0)), ψ(ψ(ψ(0)))… This indeed converges to ρ = ψ(Ω) = ζ_{0} after which ψ is constant until Ω.
 The canonical sequence for ψ(Ω2) is: ψ(0), ψ(Ω + ψ(0)), ψ(Ω + ψ(Ω + ψ(0)))… This indeed converges to the value of ψ at ρ = Ω + ψ(Ω2) = Ω + ζ_{1} after which ψ is constant until Ω2.
 The canonical sequence for ψ(Ω^{2}) is: ψ(0), ψ(Ωψ(0)), ψ(Ωψ(Ωψ(0)))… This converges to the value of ψ at ρ = Ωψ(Ω^{2}).
 The canonical sequence for ψ(Ω^{2}3 + Ω) is ψ(0), ψ(Ω^{2}3 + ψ(0)), ψ(Ω^{2}3 + ψ(Ω^{2}3 + ψ(0)))… This converges to the value of ψ at ρ = Ω^{2}3 + ψ(Ω^{2}3 + Ω).
 The canonical sequence for ψ(Ω^{Ω}) is: ψ(0), ψ(Ω^{ψ(0)}), … This converges to the value of ψ at .
 The canonical sequence for ψ(Ω^{Ω}3) is: ψ(0), ψ(Ω^{Ω}2 + ψ(0)), ψ(Ω^{Ω}2 + ψ(Ω^{Ω}2 + ψ(0)))… This converges to the value of ψ at ρ = Ω^{Ω}2 + ψ(Ω^{Ω}3).
 The canonical sequence for ψ(Ω^{Ω + 1}) is: ψ(0), ψ(Ω^{Ω}ψ(0)), ψ(Ω^{Ω}ψ(Ω^{Ω}ψ(0)))… This converges to the value of ψ at ρ = Ω^{Ω}ψ(Ω^{Ω + 1}).
 The canonical sequence for is: ψ(0), , …
Here are some examples of the other cases:
 The canonical sequence for ω^{2} is: 0, ω, ω2, ω3…
 The canonical sequence for ψ(ω^{ω}) is: ψ(1), ψ(ω), ψ(ω^{2}), ψ(ω^{3})…
 The canonical sequence for ψ(Ω)^{ω} is: 1, ψ(Ω), ψ(Ω)^{2}, ψ(Ω)^{3}…
 The canonical sequence for ψ(Ω + 1) is: ψ(Ω), ψ(Ω)^{ψ(Ω)}, …
 The canonical sequence for ψ(Ω + ω) is: ψ(Ω), ψ(Ω + 1), ψ(Ω + 2), ψ(Ω + 3)…
 The canonical sequence for ψ(Ωω) is: ψ(0), ψ(Ω), ψ(Ω2), ψ(Ω3)…
 The canonical sequence for ψ(Ω^{ω}) is: ψ(1), ψ(Ω), ψ(Ω^{2}), ψ(Ω^{3})…
 The canonical sequence for ψ(Ω^{ψ(0)}) is: ψ(Ω^{ω}), , … (this is derived from the fundamental sequence for ψ(0)).
 The canonical sequence for ψ(Ω^{ψ(Ω)}) is: ψ(Ω^{ψ(0)}), ψ(Ω^{ψ(ψ(0))}), ψ(Ω^{ψ(ψ(ψ(0)))})… (this is derived from the fundamental sequence for ψ(Ω), which was given above).
Even though the BachmannHoward ordinal ψ(ε_{Ω + 1}) itself has no canonical notation, it is also useful to define a canonical sequence for it: this is ψ(Ω), ψ(Ω^{Ω}), …
A terminating process
Start with any ordinal less or equal to the BachmannHoward ordinal, and repeat the following process so long as it is not zero:
 if the ordinal is a successor, subtract one (that is, replace it with its predecessor),
 if it is a limit, replace it by some element of the canonical sequence defined for it.
Then it is true that this process always terminates (as any decreasing sequence of ordinals is finite); however, like (but even more so than for) the hydra game:
 it can take a very long time to terminate,
 the proof of termination may be out of reach of certain weak systems of arithmetic.
To give some flavor of what the process feels like, here are some steps of it: starting from (the small Veblen ordinal), we might go down to , from there down to , then then then then then then and so on. It appears as though the expressions are getting more and more complicated whereas, in fact, the ordinals always decrease.
Concerning the first statement, one could introduce, for any ordinal α less or equal to the BachmannHoward ordinal ψ(ε_{Ω + 1}), the integer function f_{α}(n) which counts the number of steps of the process before termination if one always selects the n'th element from the canonical sequence. Then f_{α} can be a very fast growing function: already is essentially n^{n}, the function is comparable with the Ackermann function A(n,n), and is quite unimaginable.
Concerning the second statement, a precise version is given by ordinal analysis: for example, KripkePlatek set theory can prove^{[4]} that the process terminates for any given α less than the BachmannHoward ordinal, but it cannot do this uniformly, i.e., it cannot prove the termination starting from the BachmannHoward ordinal. Some theories like Peano arithmetic are limited by much smaller ordinals (ε_{0} in the case of Peano arithmetic).
Variations on the example
Making the function less powerful
It is instructive (although not exactly useful) to make ψ less powerful.
If we alter the definition of ψ above to omit exponentiation from the repertoire from which C(α) is constructed, then we get ψ(0) = ω^{ω} (as this is the smallest ordinal which cannot be constructed from 0, 1 and ω using addition and multiplication only), then and similarly , until we come to a fixed point which is then our ψ(Ω) = ε_{0}. We then have and so on until ψ(Ω2) = ε_{1}. Since multiplication of Ω's is permitted, we can still form ψ(Ω^{2}) = ϕ_{2}(0) and ψ(Ω^{3}) = ϕ_{3}(0) and so on, but our construction ends there as there is no way to get at or beyond Ω^{ω}: so the range of this weakened system of notation is ψ(Ω^{ω}) = ϕ_{ω}(0) (the value of ψ(Ω^{ω}) is the same in our weaker system as in our original system, except that now we cannot go beyond it). This does not even go as far as the FefermanSchütte ordinal.
If we alter the definition of ψ yet some more to allow only addition as a primitive for construction, we get ψ(0) = ω^{2} and ψ(1) = ω^{3} and so on until and still ψ(Ω) = ε_{0}. This time, ψ(Ω + 1) = ε_{0}ω and so on until ψ(Ω2) = ε_{1} and similarly ψ(Ω3) = ε_{2}. But this time we can go no further: since we can only add Ω's, the range of our system is ψ(Ωω) = ε_{ω} = ϕ_{1}(ω).
In both cases, we find that the limitation on the weakened ψ function comes not so much from the operations allowed on the countable ordinals as on the uncountable ordinals we allow ourselves to denote.
Going beyond the BachmannHoward ordinal
We know that ψ(ε_{Ω + 1}) is the BachmannHoward ordinal. The reason why ψ(ε_{Ω + 1} + 1) is no larger, with our definitions, is that there is no notation for ε_{Ω + 1} (it does not belong to C(α) for any α, it is always the least upper bound of it). One could try to add the ε function (or the Veblen functions of somanyvariables) to the allowed primitives beyond addition, multiplication and exponentiation, but that does not get us very far. To create more systematic notations for countable ordinals, we need more systematic notations for uncountable ordinals: we cannot use the ψ function itself because it only yields countable ordinals (e.g., ψ(Ω + 1) is, , certainly not ε_{Ω + 1}), so the idea is to mimic its definition as follows:
 Let ψ_{1}(α) be the smallest ordinal which cannot be expressed from all countable ordinals, Ω and Ω_{2} using sums, products, exponentials, and the ψ_{1} function itself (to previously constructed ordinals less than α).
Here, Ω_{2} is a new ordinal guaranteed to be greater than all the ordinals which will be constructed using ψ_{1}: again, letting Ω = ω_{1} and Ω_{2} = ω_{2} works.
For example, ψ_{1}(0) = ε_{Ω + 1}, and more generally ψ_{1}(α) = ε_{Ω + 1 + α} for all countable ordinals and even beyond (ψ_{1}(Ω) = ε_{Ω2} and ): this holds up to the first fixed point ζ_{Ω + 1} beyond Ω of the function, which is the limit of ψ_{1}(0), ψ_{1}(ψ_{1}(0)) and so forth. Beyond this, we have ψ_{1}(α) = ζ_{Ω + 1} and this remains true until Ω_{2}: exactly as was the case for ψ(Ω), we have ψ_{1}(Ω_{2}) = ζ_{Ω + 1} and .
The ψ_{1} function gives us a system of notations (assuming we can somehow write down all countable ordinals!) for the uncountable ordinals below , which is the limit of ψ_{1}(Ω_{2}), and so forth.
Now we can reinject these notations in the original ψ function, modified as follows:
 ψ(α) is the smallest ordinal which cannot be expressed from 0, 1, ω, Ω and Ω_{2} using sums, products, exponentials, the ψ_{1} function, and the ψ function itself (to previously constructed ordinals less than α).
This modified function ψ coincides with the previous one up to (and including) ψ(ψ_{1}(0)) — which is the BachmannHoward ordinal. But now we can get beyond this, and ψ(ψ_{1}(0) + 1) is (the next εnumber after the BachmannHoward ordinal). We have made our system doubly impredicative: to create notations for countable ordinals we use notations for certain ordinals between Ω and Ω_{2} which are themselves defined using certain ordinals beyond Ω_{2}.
A variation on this scheme, which makes little difference when using just two (or finitely many) collapsing functions, but becomes important for infinitely many of them, is to define
 ψ(α) is the smallest ordinal which cannot be expressed from 0, 1, ω, Ω and Ω_{2} using sums, products, exponentials, and the ψ_{1} and ψ function (to previously constructed ordinals less than α).
i.e., allow the use of ψ_{1} only for arguments less than α itself. With this definition, we must write ψ(Ω_{2}) instead of ψ(ψ_{1}(Ω_{2})) (although it is still also equal to ψ(ψ_{1}(Ω_{2})) = ψ(ζ_{Ω + 1}), of course, but it is now constant until Ω_{2}). This change is inessential because, intuitively speaking, the ψ_{1} function collapses the nameable ordinals beyond Ω_{2} below the latter so it matters little whether ψ is invoked directly on the ordinals beyond Ω_{2} or on their image by ψ_{1}. But it makes it possible to define ψ and ψ_{1} by simultaneous (rather than “downward”) induction, and this is important if we are to use infinitely many collapsing functions.
Indeed, there is no reason to stop at two levels: using ω + 1 new cardinals in this way, , we get a system essentially equivalent to that introduced by Buchholz^{[3]}, the inessential difference being that since Buchholz uses ω + 1 ordinals from the start, he does not need to allow multiplication or exponentiation; also, Buchholz does not introduce the numbers 1 or ω in the system as they will also be produced by the ψ functions: this makes the entire scheme much more elegant and more concise to define, albeit more difficult to understand. This system is also sensibly equivalent to the earlier (and much more difficult to grasp) “ordinal diagrams” of Takeuti^{[5]} and θ functions of Feferman: their range is the same (, which could be called the TakeutiFefermanBuchholz ordinal, and which describes the strength of comprehension).
Collapsing large cardinals
As noted in the introduction, the use and definition of ordinal collapsing functions is strongly connected with the theory of ordinal analysis, so the collapse of this or that large cardinal must be mentioned simultaneously with the theory for which it provides a prooftheoretic analysis.
 Gerhard Jäger and Wolfram Pohlers^{[6]} described the collapse of an inaccessible cardinal to describe the ordinaltheoretic strength of KripkePlatek set theory augmented by the recursive inaccessibility of the class of ordinals (KPi), which is also prooftheoretically equivalent^{[1]} to comprehension plus bar induction. Roughly speaking, this collapse can be obtained by adding the function itself to the list of constructions to which the collapsing system applies.
 Michael Rathjen^{[7]} then described the collapse of a Mahlo cardinal to describe the ordinaltheoretic strength of KripkePlatek set theory augmented by the recursive mahloness of the class of ordinals (KPM).
 The same author^{[8]} later described the collapse of a weakly compact cardinal to describe the ordinaltheoretic strength of KripkePlatek set theory augmented by certain reflection principles (concentrating on the case of Π_{3}reflection). Very roughly speaking, this proceeds by introducing the first cardinal Ξ(α) which is αhyperMahlo and adding the function itself to the collapsing system.
 Even more recently, the same author has begun^{[9]} the investigation of the collapse of yet larger cardinals, with the ultimate goal of achieving an ordinal analysis of comprehension (which is prooftheoretically equivalent to the augmentation of KripkePlatek by Σ_{1}separation).
Notes
 ^ ^{a} ^{b} Rathjen, 1995 (Bull. Symbolic Logic)
 ^ Kahle, 2002 (Synthese)
 ^ ^{a} ^{b} Buchholz, 1986 (Ann. Pure Appl. Logic)
 ^ Rathjen, 2005 (Fischbachau slides)
 ^ Takeuti, 1967 (Ann. Math.)
 ^ Jäger & Pohlers, 1983 (Bayer. Akad. Wiss. Math.Natur. Kl. Sitzungsber.)
 ^ Rathjen, 1991 (Arch. Math. Logic)
 ^ Rathjen, 1994 (Ann. Pure Appl. Logic)
 ^ Rathjen, 2005 (Arch. Math. Logic)
References
 Takeuti, Gaisi (1967). "Consistency proofs of subsystems of classical analysis". Annals of Mathematics (Annals of Mathematics) 86 (2): 299–348. doi:10.2307/1970691. JSTOR 1970691.
 Jäger, Gerhard; Pohlers, Wolfram (1983). "Eine beweistheoretische Untersuchung von (CA)+(BI) und verwandter Systeme". Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. MathematischNaturwissenschaftliche Klasse Sitzungsberichte 1982: 1–28.
 Buchholz, Wilfried (1986). "A New System of ProofTheoretic Ordinal Notations". Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 32: 195–207. doi:10.1016/01680072(86)900527.
 Rathjen, Michael (1991). "Prooftheoretic analysis of KPM". Archive for Mathematical Logic 30 (5–6): 377–403. doi:10.1007/BF01621475.
 Rathjen, Michael (1994). "Proof theory of reflection". Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 68 (2): 181–224. doi:10.1016/01680072(94)900744. http://www.maths.leeds.ac.uk/~rathjen/ehab.pdf.
 Rathjen, Michael (1995). "Recent Advances in Ordinal Analysis: CA and Related Systems". The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic (Association for Symbolic Logic) 1 (4): 468–485. doi:10.2307/421132. JSTOR 421132. http://www.math.ucla.edu/~asl/bsl/0104/0104004.ps.
 Kahle, Reinhard (2002). "Mathematical proof theory in the light of ordinal analysis". Synthese 133: 237–255. doi:10.1023/A:1020892011851.
 Rathjen, Michael (2005). "An ordinal analysis of stability". Archive for Mathematical Logic 44: 1–62. doi:10.1007/s0015300402262. http://www.maths.leeds.ac.uk/~rathjen/NSTAB.ps.
 Rathjen, Michael (August 2005). "Proof Theory: Part III, KripkePlatek Set Theory". http://www.mathematik.unimuenchen.de/~aehlig/EST/rathjen4.pdf. Retrieved 20080417. (slides of a talk given at Fischbachau)
Categories: Ordinal numbers
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.