More specifically, as Samuel Gomes da Silva states, "the inconsistency is avoided by omitting from the schema all instances of the Replacement Axiom for j-formulas".[2]
Thus, the wholeness axiom differs from Reinhardt cardinals (another way of providing elementary embeddings from V to itself) by allowing the axiom of choice and instead modifying the axiom of replacement.
However, Holmes, Forster & Libert (2012) write that Corrazza's theory should be "naturally viewed as a version of Zermelo set theory rather than ZFC".[3]
If the wholeness axiom is consistent, then it is also consistent to add to the wholeness axiom the assertion that all sets are hereditarily ordinal definable.[4]
The consistency of stratified versions of the wholeness axiom, introduced by Hamkins (2001),[4] was studied by Apter (2012).[5]
References
^Corazza, Paul (2000), "The Wholeness Axiom and Laver Sequences", Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 105 (1–3): 157–260, doi:10.1016/s0168-0072(99)00052-4
^Samuel Gomes da Silva, Review of "The wholeness axioms and the class of supercompact cardinals" by Arthur Apter.
^Holmes, M. Randall; Forster, Thomas; Libert, Thierry (2012), "Alternative set theories", Sets and extensions in the twentieth century, Handb. Hist. Log., vol. 6, Elsevier/North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 559–632, doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-51621-3.50008-6, MR3409865.
^Apter, Arthur W. (2012), "The wholeness axioms and the class of supercompact cardinals", Bulletin of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Mathematics, 60 (2): 101–111, doi:10.4064/ba60-2-1, MR2914539.