scholarly journals A congruence-free semigroup associated with an infinite cardinal number

Author(s):  
M. Paula O. Marques

SynopsisLet X be a set with infinite cardinality m and let Qm be the semigroupof balanced elements in ℐ(X), as described by Howie. If I is the ideal{αεQm:|Xα|<m} then the Rees factor Pm = Qm/I is O-bisimple and idempotent-generated. Its minimum non-trivial homomorphic image has both these properties and is congruence-free. Moreover, has depth 4, in the sense that [E()]4 = , [E()]3≠

Author(s):  
John M. Howie ◽  
M. Paula O. Marques-Smith

SynopsisLet X be a set with infinite cardinality m and let B be the Baer-Levi semigroup, consisting of all one-one mappings a:X→X for which ∣X/Xα∣ = m. Let Km=<B 1B>, the inverse subsemigroup of the symmetric inverse semigroup ℐ(X) generated by all products β−γ, with β,γ∈B. Then Km = <N2>, where N2 is the subset of ℐ(X) consisting of all nilpotent elements of index 2. Moreover, Km has 2-nilpotent-depth 3, in the sense that Let Pm be the ideal {α∈Km: ∣dom α∣<m} in Km and let Lm be the Rees quotient Km/Pm. Then Lm is a 0-bisimple, 2-nilpotent-generated inverse semigroup with 2-nilpotent-depth 3. The minimum non-trivial homomorphic image of Lm also has these properties and is congruence-free.


Consider a cardinal number α, a set I and a family [A v :v in I) of sets. Suppose that for every subset N of I of cardinality less than α we are given a choice of an element x f N v A v for every v in N this paper the author investigates the circumstances under which it is then always possible to make a choice of an element x*of A v for all v in which, in some precisely specified sense, can be approximated arbitrarily closely by some of the given partial choice functions x f . This question has turned out to be important when α is the least infinite cardinal number. Some of the results involve classes of ‘ large ’ cardinals.


2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (03) ◽  
pp. 495-508
Author(s):  
Ahmed Maatallah ◽  
Ali Benhissi

Let A be a ring. In this paper we generalize some results introduced by Aliabad and Mohamadian. We give a relation between the z-ideals of A and those of the formal power series rings in an infinite set of indeterminates over A. Consider A[[XΛ]]3 and its subrings A[[XΛ]]1, A[[XΛ]]2, and A[[XΛ]]α, where α is an infinite cardinal number. In fact, a z-ideal of the rings defined above is of the form I + (XΛ)i, where i = 1, 2, 3 or an infinite cardinal number and I is a z-ideal of A. In addition, we prove that the same condition given by Aliabad and Mohamadian can be used to get a relation between the minimal prime ideals of the ring of the formal power series in an infinite set of indeterminates and those of the ring of coefficients. As a natural result, we get a relation between the z°-ideals of the formal power series ring in an infinite set of indeterminates and those of the ring of coefficients.


1996 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 246-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marion Scheepers

Let denote the ideal of Lebesgue measure zero subsets of the real line. Then add() denotes the minimal cardinality of a subset of whose union is not an element of . In [1] Bartoszynski gave an elegant combinatorial characterization of add(), namely: add() is the least cardinal number κ for which the following assertion fails:For every family of at mostκ functions from ω to ω there is a function F from ω to the finite subsets of ω such that:1. For each m, F(m) has at most m + 1 elements, and2. for each f inthere are only finitely many m such that f(m) is not an element of F(m).The symbol A(κ) will denote the assertion above about κ. In the course of his proof, Bartoszynski also shows that the cardinality restriction in 1 is not sharp. Indeed, let (Rm: m < ω) be any sequence of integers such that for each m Rm, ≤ Rm+1, and such that limm→∞Rm = ∞. Then the truth of the assertion A(κ) is preserved if in 1 we say instead that1′. For each m, F(m) has at most Rm elements.We shall use this observation later on. We now define three more statements, denoted B(κ), C(κ) and D(κ), about cardinal number κ.


1999 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 303-318 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Paula O. Marques-Smith ◽  
R.P. Sullivan

In 1987 Sullivan determined the elements of the semigroup N(X) generated by all nilpotent partial transformations of an infinite set X; and later in 1997 he studied subsemigroups of N(X) defined by restricting the index of the nilpotents and the cardinality of the set. Here, we describe the ideals and Green's relations on such semigroups, like Reynolds and Sullivan did in 1985 for the semigroup generated by all idempotent total transformations of X. We then use this information to describe the congruences on certain Rees factor semigroups and to construct families of congruence-free semigroups with interesting algebraic properties. We also study analogous questions for X finite and for one-to-one partial transformations.


1972 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 379-389 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony W. Hager

All topological spaces shall be uniformizable (completely regular Hausdorff). A uniformity on X shall be viewed as a collection μ of coverings of X, via the manner of Tukey [20] and Isbell [16], and the associated uniform space denoted μX. Given the uniformizable topological space X, we shall be concerned with compatible uniformities as follows (discussed more carefully in § 1). The fine uniformity α (finest compatible with the topology); the “cardinal reflections“ αm of α (m an infinite cardinal number) ; αc, the weak uniformity generated by the real-valued continuous functions.With μ standing, generically, for one of these uniformities, we consider the question: when is μ(X × Y) = μX × μY For μ = αℵ0 (the finest compatible precompact uniformity), the problem is equivalent to that of whenβ(X × Y) = βX × βY,β denoting Stone-Cech compactification; this is answered by the theorem of Glicksberg [9]. For μ = α, we have Isbell's generalization [16, VI1.32].


1978 ◽  
Vol 30 (02) ◽  
pp. 301-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. E. Hodel

Let X be an infinite topological space, let 𝔫 be an infinite cardinal number with 𝔫 ≦ |X|. The basic problem in this paper is to find the number of closed sets in X of cardinality 𝔫. A complete answer to this question for the class of metrizable spaces has been given by A. H. Stone in [31], where he proves the following result. Let X be an infinite metrizable space of weight 𝔪, let 𝔫 ≦ |X|.


1966 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 981-998 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. L. Shapiro

If γ is an infinite cardinal number, a subset S of a topological space X is said to be Pγ-embedded in X if every γ-separable continuous pseudometric on S can be extended to a γ-separable continuous pseudometric on X. (A pseudometric d on X is γ-separable if there exists a subset G of X such that |G| ⩽ 7 and such that G is dense in X relative to the pseudometric topology A pseudometric d is continuous if d is continuous relative to the product topology on X × X.) We say that S is P-embedded in X if every continuous pseudometric on S can be extended to a continuous pseudometric on X.


1995 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 393-407 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald Jensen

In this paper, we sketch the development of two important themes of modern set theory, both of which can be regarded as growing out of work of Kurt Gödel. We begin with a review of some basic concepts and conventions of set theory. §0. The ordinal numbers were Georg Cantor's deepest contribution to mathematics. After the natural numbers 0, 1, …, n, … comes the first infinite ordinal number ω, followed by ω + 1, ω + 2, …, ω + ω, … and so forth. ω is the first limit ordinal as it is neither 0 nor a successor ordinal. We follow the von Neumann convention, according to which each ordinal number α is identified with the set {ν ∣ ν α} of its predecessors. The ∈ relation on ordinals thus coincides with <. We have 0 = ∅ and α + 1 = α ∪ {α}. According to the usual set-theoretic conventions, ω is identified with the first infinite cardinal ℵ0, similarly for the first uncountable ordinal number ω1 and the first uncountable cardinal number ℵ1, etc. We thus arrive at the following picture: The von Neumann hierarchy divides the class V of all sets into a hierarchy of sets Vα indexed by the ordinal numbers. The recursive definition reads: (where } is the power set of x); Vλ = ∪v<λVv for limit ordinals λ. We can represent this hierarchy by the following picture.


1995 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 408-424 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Jech

§1. Introduction. Among the most remarkable discoveries in set theory in the last quarter century is the rich structure of the arithmetic of singular cardinals, and its deep relationship to large cardinals. The problem of finding a complete set of rules describing the behavior of the continuum function 2ℵα for singular ℵα's, known as the Singular Cardinals Problem, has been attacked by many different techniques, involving forcing, large cardinals, inner models, and various combinatorial methods. The work on the singular cardinals problem has led to many often surprising results, culminating in a beautiful theory of Saharon Shelah called the pcf theory (“pcf” stands for “possible cofinalities”). The most striking result to date states that if 2ℵn < ℵω for every n = 0, 1, 2, …, then 2ℵω < ℵω4. In this paper we present a brief history of the singular cardinals problem, the present knowledge, and an introduction into Shelah's pcf theory. In Sections 2, 3 and 4 we introduce the reader to cardinal arithmetic and to the singular cardinals problems. Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 describe the main results and methods of the last 25 years and explain the role of large cardinals in the singular cardinals problem. In Section 9 we present an outline of the pcf theory. §2. The arithmetic of cardinal numbers. Cardinal numbers were introduced by Cantor in the late 19th century and problems arising from investigations of rules of arithmetic of cardinal numbers led to the birth of set theory. The operations of addition, multiplication and exponentiation of infinite cardinal numbers are a natural generalization of such operations on integers. Addition and multiplication of infinite cardinals turns out to be simple: when at least one of the numbers κ, λ is infinite then both κ + λ and κ·λ are equal to max {κ, λ}. In contrast with + and ·, exponentiation presents fundamental problems. In the simplest nontrivial case, 2κ represents the cardinal number of the power set P(κ), the set of all subsets of κ. (Here we adopt the usual convention of set theory that the number κ is identified with a set of cardinality κ, namely the set of all ordinal numbers smaller than κ.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document