I'm looking for a simple example to the use of the Replacement axiom to conclude that a certain class is a set. The simplest examples I think of can be proven also using the Power-Set Axiom, e.g the set $\{\{x\}\mid x\in A\}$ for some set $A$, and $A/E$ for an equivalence relation $E$ on a set $A$.
The first example which seem to really require Replacement, while Power-set is not enough, is e.g. $\{\varnothing,\{\varnothing\},\{\{\varnothing\}\}...\}$, but it seems that to prove this I must use a theorem on definition by recursions.
A similar example appears in this question but it seems that the proof is essentially going over the proof of the recursion theorem in the very specific case appearing there.
Is there a simpler example which doesn't require such a theorem?
(I don't need a proof that Replacement is necessary while Power-set is not enough.)
The class of countable ordinals constitutes such an example.
Consider the following formula:
Now we let $A$ be the class of ordinals $y$ such that for some linear ordering $x$ with domain $\subseteq \omega$ there is an order-presreving bijection from $x$ to $y$.
Using replacement, $A$ is a set: apply replacement to the formula $\varphi$ with the "starting set" being the set $S$ of linear orderings with domain $\subseteq\omega$.
Without replacement, we cannot show that $A$ is a set: in $V_{\omega+\omega}$ we have $A=Ord$.
NOTE: This is an example of a more general recipe: given an attempt to build an object $\mathfrak{O}$ by recursion, we can define the class $\mathcal{C}$ of "partial approximations" which actually exist. If $\mathfrak{O}$ represents a failure of replacement, $\mathcal{C}$ will not be a set. Conversely, the approach above lets us show that $\mathcal{C}$ is a set without doing any recursion: we basically consider the map sending a "stage" in the recursion to the corresponding partial object if it exists and to $0$ (or some other fixed set) otherwise. So this represents a uniform way to eliminate the use of recursion. However, ultimately this is exactly the proof of the recursion theorem so in general situations this won't be satisfying to you. This reflects the fact that replacement is in fact equivalent to recursion, so in a precise sense you can never find a perfectly satisfying example.