- G. Fuchs, V. Gitman, and J. D. Hamkins, “Ehrenfeucht’s lemma in set theory,” to appear in Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic.
`@ARTICLE{FuchsGitmanHamkins:EhrenfeuchtsLemmaInSetTheory, author = {Gunter Fuchs and Victoria Gitman and Joel David Hamkins}, title = {Ehrenfeucht's lemma in set theory}, journal = {to appear in Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic}, year = {}, volume = {}, number = {}, pages = {}, month = {}, eprint = {1501.01918}, archivePrefix = {arXiv}, primaryClass = {math.LO}, note = {}, url = {http://jdh.hamkins.org/ehrenfeuchts-lemma-in-set-theory}, abstract = {}, keywords = {}, source = {}, }`

This is joint work with Gunter Fuchs and Victoria Gitman. $\newcommand\HOD{\text{HOD}}\newcommand\Ehrenfeucht{\text{EL}}$

**Abstract.** Ehrenfeucht’s lemma asserts that whenever one element of a model of Peano arithmetic is definable from another, then they satisfy different types. We consider here the analogue of Ehrenfeucht’s lemma for models of set theory. The original argument applies directly to the ordinal-definable elements of any model of set theory, and in particular, Ehrenfeucht’s lemma holds fully for models of set theory satisfying $V=\HOD$. We show that the lemma can fail, however, in models of set theory with $V\neq\HOD$, and it necessarily fails in the forcing extension to add a generic Cohen real. We go on to formulate a scheme of natural parametric generalizations of Ehrenfeucht’s lemma, namely, the principles of the form $\Ehrenfeucht(A,P,Q)$, which asserts that whenever an object $b$ is definable in $M$ from some $a\in A$ using parameters in $P$, with $b\neq a$, then the types of $a$ and $b$ over $Q$ in $M$ are different. We also consider various analogues of Ehrenfeucht’s lemma obtained by using algebraicity in place of definability, where a set $b$ is \emph{algebraic} in $a$ if it is a member of a finite set definable from $a$ (as in J. D. Hamkins and C. Leahy, Algebraicity and implicit definability in set theory). Ehrenfeucht’s lemma holds for the ordinal-algebraic sets, we prove, if and only if the ordinal-algebraic and ordinal-definable sets coincide. Using similar analysis, we answer two open questions posed in my paper with Leahy, by showing that (i) algebraicity and definability need not coincide in models of set theory and (ii) the internal and external notions of being ordinal algebraic need not coincide.