On large cardinals and partition relations

1971 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 305-308 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. M. Kleinberg ◽  
R. A. Shore
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Measurable Cardinal ◽  
Order Type ◽  
Large Cardinals ◽  
Infinite Cardinal ◽  
Partition Relation ◽  
Weakly Compact ◽  
Original Result ◽  
Partition Relations ◽  
Uncountable Cardinal

A significant portion of the study of large cardinals in set theory centers around the concept of “partition relation”. To best capture the basic idea here, we introduce the following notation: for x and y sets, κ an infinite cardinal, and γ an ordinal less than κ, we let [x]γ denote the collection of subsets of x of order-type γ and abbreviate with the partition relation for each function F frominto y there exists a subset C of κ of cardinality κ such that (such that for each α < γ) the range of F on [С]γ ([С]α) has cardinality 1. Now although each infinite cardinal κ satisfies the relation for each n and m in ω (F. P. Ramsey [8]), a connection with large cardinals arises when one asks, “For which uncountable κ do we have κ → (κ)2?” Indeed, any uncountable cardinal κ which satisfies κ → (κ)2 is strongly inaccessible and weakly compact (see [9]). As another example one can look at the improvements of Scott's original result to the effect that if there exists a measurable cardinal then there exists a nonconstructible set. Indeed, if κ is a measurable cardinal then κ → (κ)< ω, and as Solovay [11] has shown, if there exists a cardinal κ such that κ → (κ)< ω3 (κ → (ℵ1)< ω, even) then there exists a nonconstructible set of integers.

Some consequences of an infinite-exponent partition relation

1977 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 523-526 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. M. Henle
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Measurable Cardinal ◽  
Large Cardinals ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Partition Relation ◽  
Basic Theorem ◽  
Axiom Of Determinacy ◽  
Ramsey’S Theorem ◽  
Partition Relations ◽  
Dependent Choice

Beginning with Ramsey's theorem of 1930, combinatorists have been intrigued with the notion of large cardinals satisfying partition relations. Years of research have established the smaller ones, weakly ineffable, Erdös, Jonsson, Rowbottom and Ramsey cardinals to be among the most interesting and important large cardinals in set theory. Recently, cardinals satisfying more powerful infinite-exponent partition relations have been examined with growing interest. This is due not only to their inherent qualities and the fact that they imply the existence of other large cardinals (Kleinberg [2], [3]), but also to the fact that the Axiom of Determinacy (AD) implies the existence of great numbers of such cardinals (Martin [5]).That these properties are more often than not inconsistent with the full Axiom of Choice (Kleinberg [4]) somewhat increases their charm, for the theorems concerning them tend to be a little odd, and their proofs, circumforaneous. The properties are, as far as anyone knows, however, consistent with Dependent Choice (DC).Our basic theorem will be the following: If k > ω and k satisfies k→(k)k then the least cardinal δ such that has a δ-additive, uniform ultrafilter. In addition, if ACω is assumed, we will show that δ is greater than ω, and hence a measurable cardinal. This result will be strengthened somewhat when we prove that for any k, δ, if then .

Weak partition relations and measurability

1986 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-38
Author(s):  
Mitchell Spector
Keyword(s):  
Measurable Cardinal ◽  
Order Type ◽  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Partition Relation ◽  
Consistency Strength ◽  
Partition Relations ◽  
Inner Model ◽  
Increasing Function ◽  
Natural Way

The concept of "partition relation" has proven to be extremely important in the development of the theory of large cardinals. This is due in good part to the fact that the ordinal numbers which appear as parameters in partition relations provide a natural way to define a detailed hierarchy of the corresponding large cardinal axioms. In particular, the study of cardinals satisfying Ramsey-Erdös-style partition relations has yielded a great number of very interesting large cardinal axioms which lie in strength strictly between inaccessibility and measurability. It is the purpose of this paper to show that this phenomenon does not occur if we use infinite exponent partition relations; no such partition relation has consistency strength strictly between inaccessibility and measurability. We also give a complete determination of which infinite exponent partition relations hold, assuming that there is no inner model of set theory with a measurable cardinal.Our notation is standard. If F is a function and x is a set, then F″x denotes the range of F on x. If X is a set of ordinals and α is an ordinal, then [X]α is the collection of all subsets of X of order type α. We identify a member of [X]α with a strictly increasing function from α to X. If p ∈ [X]α and q ∈ [α]β, then the composition of p with q, which we denote pq, is a member of [X]β.

Partition properties of M-ultrafilters and ideals

1987 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 897-907
Author(s):  
Joji Takahashi
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Predicate Symbol ◽  
Infinite Cardinal ◽  
List Type ◽  
Weakly Compact ◽  
Unary Predicate ◽  
Transitive Model ◽  
Basic Set ◽  
Uncountable Cardinal ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice

As is well known, the following are equivalent for any uniform ultrafilter U on an uncountable cardinal:(i) U is selective;(ii) U → ;(iii) U → .In §1 of this paper, we consider this result in terms of M-ultrafilters (Definition 1.1), where M is a transitive model of ZFC (Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice). We define the partition properties and for M-ultrafilters (Definition 1.3), and characterize those M-ultrafilters that possess these properties (Theorem 1.5) so that the result mentioned at the beginning is subsumed as the special case that M is V, the universe of all sets. It turns out that the two properties have to be handled separately, and that, besides selectivity, we need to formulate additional conditions (Definition 1.4). The extra conditions become superfluous when M = V because they are then trivially satisfied. One of them is nothing new; it is none other than Kunen's iterability-of-ultrapowers condition.In §2, we obtain characterizations of the partition properties I+ → and I+ → (Definition 2.3) of uniform ideals I on an infinite cardinal κ (Theorem 2.6). This is done by applying the main results of §1 to the canonical -ultrafilter in the Boolean-valued model constructed from the completion of the quotient algebra P(κ)/I. They are related to certain known characterizations of weakly compact and of Ramsey cardinals.Our basic set theory is ZFC. In §1, it has to be supplemented by a new unary predicate symbol M and new nonlogical axioms that make M look like a transitive model of ZFC.

A measurable cardinal with a nonwellfounded ultrapower

1980 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 623-628 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mitchell Spector
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Measurable Cardinal ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Partial Ordering ◽  
Partition Relation ◽  
Partition Relations ◽  
Consistency Results ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Measurable Cardinals ◽  
Weakened Form

The usefulness of measurable cardinals in set theory arises in good part from the fact that an ultraproduct of wellfounded structures by a countably complete ultrafilter is wellfounded. In the standard proof of the wellfoundedness of such an ultraproduct, one first shows, without any use of the axiom of choice, that the ultraproduct contains no infinite descending chains. One then completes the proof by noting that, assuming the axiom of choice, any partial ordering with no infinite descending chain is wellfounded. In fact, the axiom of dependent choices (a weakened form of the axiom of choice) suffices. It is therefore of interest to ask whether some use of the axiom of choice is needed in order to prove the wellfoundedness of such ultraproducts or whether, on the other hand, their wellfoundedness can be proved in ZF alone. In Theorem 1, we show that the axiom of choice is needed for the proof (assuming the consistency of a strong partition relation). Theorem 1 also contains some related consistency results concerning infinite exponent partition relations. We then use Theorem 1 to show how to change the cofinality of a cardinal κ satisfying certain partition relations to any regular cardinal less than κ, while introducing no new bounded subsets of κ. This generalizes a theorem of Prikry [5].

Weak compactness and square bracket partition relations

1972 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 673-676 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. M. Kleinberg ◽  
R. A. Shore
Keyword(s):  
Weak Compactness ◽  
Partition Relation ◽  
Tree Property ◽  
Weakly Compact ◽  
Partition Relations

Although there are many characterizations of weakly compact cardinals (e.g. in terms of indescnbability and tree properties as well as compactness) the most interesting set-theoretic (combinatorial) one is in terms of partition relations. To be more precise we define for κ and α cardinals and n an integer the partition relation of Erdös, Hajnal and Rado [2] as follows:For every function F: [κ]n→ α (called a partition of [κ]n, the n-element subsets of κ, into α pieces), there exists a set C⊆ κ (called homogeneous for F) such that card C = κ and F″[C]n≠ α, i.e. some element of the range is omitted when F is restricted to the n-element subsets of C. It is the simplest (nontrivial) of these relations, i.e. , that is the well-known equivalent of weak compactness.1Two directions of inquiry immediately suggest themselves when weak compactness is described in terms of these partition relations: (a) Trying to strengthen the relation by increasing the superscript—e.g., —and (b) trying to weaken the relation by increasing the subscript—e.g., . As it turns out, the strengthening to is only illusory for using the equivalence of to the tree property one quickly sees that implies (and so is equivalent to) for every n. Thus is the strongest of these partition relations. The second question seems much more difficult.

On the ordering of certain large cardinals

1979 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 563-565
Author(s):  
Carl F. Morgenstern
Keyword(s):  
Measurable Cardinal ◽  
Large Cardinals ◽  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Inaccessible Cardinal ◽  
Elementary Embedding ◽  
Strongly Compact Cardinal ◽  
Weakly Compact ◽  
Compact Cardinal ◽  
The Universe ◽  
Weakly Compact Cardinal

It is well known that the first strongly inaccessible cardinal is strictly less than the first weakly compact cardinal which in turn is strictly less than the first Ramsey cardinal, etc. However, once one passes the first measurable cardinal the inequalities are no longer strict. Magidor [3] has shown that the first strongly compact cardinal may be equal to the first measurable cardinal or equal to the first super-compact cardinal (the first supercompact cardinal is strictly larger than the first measurable cardinal). In this note we will indicate how Magidor's methods can be used to show that it is undecidable whether one cardinal (the first strongly compact) is greater than or less than another large cardinal (the first huge cardinal). We assume that the reader is familiar with the ultrapower construction of Scott, as presented in Drake [1] or Kanamori, Reinhardt and Solovay [2].Definition. A cardinal κ is huge (or 1-huge) if there is an elementary embedding j of the universe V into a transitive class M such that M contains the ordinals, is closed under j(κ) sequences, j(κ) > κ and j ↾ Rκ = id. Let κ denote the first huge cardinal, and let λ = j(κ).One can see from easy reflection arguments that κ and λ are inaccessible in V and, in fact, that κ is measurable in V.

On partitioning the infinite subsets of large cardinals

1984 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 539-541 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. J. Watro
Keyword(s):  
Order Type ◽  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Infinite Cardinal ◽  
Product Topology ◽  
Weakly Compact ◽  
Ramsey Theorem ◽  
Borel Sets ◽  
Analytic Sets ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Usual Product

Let λ be an ordinal less than or equal to an infinite cardinal κ. For S ⊂ κ, [S]λ denotes the collection of all order type λ subsets of S. A set X ⊂ [κ]λ will be called Ramsey iff there exists p ∈ [κ]κ such that either [p]λ ⊂ X or [p]λ ∩ X = ∅. The set p is called homogeneous for X.The infinite Ramsey theorem implies that all subsets of [ω]n are Ramsey for n < ω. Using the axiom of choice, one can define a non-Ramsey subset of [ω]ω. In [GP], Galvin and Prikry showed that all Borel subsets of [ω]ω are Ramsey, where one topologizes [ω]ω as a subspace of Baire space. Silver [S] proved that analytic sets are Ramsey, and observed that this is best possible in ZFC.When κ > ω, the assertion that all subsets of [κ]n are Ramsey is a large cardinal hypothesis equivalent to κ being weakly compact (and strongly inaccessible). Again, is not possible in ZFC to have all subsets of [κ]ω Ramsey. The analogy to the Galvin-Prikry theorem mentioned above was established by Kleinberg, extending work by Kleinberg and Shore in [KS]. The set [κ]ω is given a topology as a subspace of κω, which has the usual product topology, κ taken as discrete. It was shown that all open subsets of [κ]ω are Ramsey iff κ is a Ramsey cardinal (that is, κ → (κ)<ω).In this note we examine the spaces [κ]λ for κ ≥ λ ≥ ω. We show that κ Ramsey implies all open subsets of [κ]λ are Ramsey for λ < κ, and that if κ is measurable, then all open subsets of [κ]κ are Ramsey. Let us remark here that we can with the same methods prove these results with “κ-Borel” in the place of “open”, where the κ-Borel sets are the smallest collection containing the opens and closed under complementation and intersections of length less than κ. Also, although here we consider just subsets of [κ]λ, it is no more difficult to show that partitions of [κ]λ into less than κ many κ-Borel sets have, under the appropriate hypothesis, size κ homogeneous sets.

Adding a closed unbounded set

1976 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 481-482 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. E. Baumgartner ◽  
L. A. Harrington ◽  
E. M. Kleinberg
Keyword(s):  
Regular Cardinal ◽  
Measurable Cardinal ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Partition Relations ◽  
Uncountable Cardinal ◽  
Unbounded Subset ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Closed Unbounded Subset

The extreme interest of set theorists in the notion of “closed unbounded set” is epitomized in the following well-known theorem:Theorem A. For any regular cardinal κ > ω, the intersection of any two closed unbounded subsets of κ is closed and unbounded.The proof of this theorem is easy and in fact yields a stronger result, namely that for any uncountable regular cardinal κ the intersection of fewer than κ many closed unbounded sets is closed and unbounded. Thus, if, for κ a regular uncountable cardinal, we let denote {A ⊆ κ ∣ A contains a closed unbounded subset}, then, for any such κ, is a κ-additive nonprincipal filter on κ.Now what about the possibility of being an ultrafilterκ It is routine to see that this is impossible for κ > ℵ1. However, for κ = ℵ1 the situation is different. If were an ultrafilter, ℵ1 would be a measurable cardinal. As is well-known this is impossible if we assume the axiom of choice; however if ZF + “there exists a measurable cardinal” is consistent, then so is ZF + “ℵ1 is a measurable cardinal” [2]. Furthermore, under the assumption of certain set theoretic axioms (such as the axiom of determinateness or various infinite exponent partition relations) can be proven to be an ultrafilter. (See [3] and [5].)

Inner Models and Large Cardinals

1995 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 393-407 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald Jensen
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Cardinal Number ◽  
Ordinal Number ◽  
Infinite Cardinal ◽  
Recursive Definition ◽  
Von Neumann ◽  
Ordinal Numbers ◽  
Kurt Gödel ◽  
Uncountable Cardinal ◽  
Image Position

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.

Singular Cardinals and the PCF Theory

1995 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 408-424 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Jech
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Cardinal Number ◽  
Natural Generalization ◽  
Large Cardinals ◽  
Infinite Cardinal ◽  
Quarter Century ◽  
Pcf Theory ◽  
Cardinal Numbers ◽  
Singular Cardinals ◽  
The Rich

§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