Confusion regarding the definition of $\omega$ (the set of natural numbers) in a model of ZFC

first-order-logiclogicnatural numbersset-theory

Suppose that ZFC is consistent. In a model of ZFC, an inductive set is a set $A$ satisfying $\emptyset\in A$ and $n\cup\{n\}\in A$ for every $n\in A$. Suppose that $X$ is the inductive set given by the axiom of infinity. The definition of $\omega$, the set of natural numbers, is in my mind
$$\omega = \bigcap_{X'\subset X, X'\text{ is an inductive set}} X'.$$
Now, I've heard that $\omega$ may not be the standard model of Peano arithmetic. But how is this possible? If $\omega$ is a nonstandard model of PA, then it has a proper subset that is the standard model of PA (a property shared by any nonstandard model of PA), and that subset is itself an inductive set!

What parts of my understandings are wrong here? Any help appreciated.

Best Answer

Essential point is that $\mathcal{P}(X)$ doesn’t necessarily include “every subset of $X$ you can imagine”. Rather, its members are just the subsets of $X$ that actually exist in the model. So, in a model with non-standard $\omega$, there is no set whose members are only the initial segment of $\omega$ that’s order-isomorphic to “standard $\mathbb{N}$