Strongs-Sequences and Variations on Martin's Axiom

1985 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 730-746 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juris Steprāns

As part of their study of βω — ω and βω1 — ω1, A. Szymanski and H. X. Zhou [3] were able to exploit the following difference between ω, and ω: ω1, contains uncountably many disjoint sets whereas any uncountable family of subsets of ω is, at best, almost disjoint. To translate this distinction between ω1, and ω to a possible distinction between βω1 — ω1, and βω — ω they used the fact that if a pairwise disjoint family of sets and a subset of each member of is chosen then it is trivial to find a single set whose intersection with each member is the chosen set. However, they noticed, it is not clear that the same is true if is only a pairwise almost disjoint family even if we only require equality except on a finite set. But any homeomorphism from βω1 — ω1 to βω — ω would have to carry a disjoint family of subsets of ω1, to an almost disjoint family of subsets of ω with this property. This observation should motivate the following definition.

Author(s):  
N. H. Williams

AbstractWe develop the idea of a θ-ordering (where θ is an infinite cardinal) for a family of infinite sets. A θ-ordering of the family A is a well ordering of A which decomposes A into a union of pairwise disjoint intervals in a special way, which facilitates certain transfinite constructions. We show that several standard combinatorial properties, for instance that of the family A having a θ-transversal, are simple consequences of A possessing a θ-ordering. Most of the paper is devoted to showing that under suitable restrictions, an almost disjoint family will have a θ-ordering. The restrictions involve either intersection conditions on A (the intersection of every λ-size subfamily of A has size at most κ) or a chain condition on A.


2004 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerry E. Vaughan

Let E be an infinite set, and [E]ω the set of all countably infinite subsets of E. A family ⊂ [E]ω is said to be almost disjoint (respectively, pairwise disjoint) provided for A, B ∈ , if A ≠ B then A ∩ B is finite (respectively, A ∩ B is empty). Moreover, an infinite family A is said to be a maximal almost disjoint family provided it is an infinite almost disjoint family not properly contained in any almost disjoint family. In this paper we are concerned with the following set of topological spaces defined from (maximal) almost disjoint families of infinite subsets of the natural numbers ω.


Author(s):  
Kevin P. Balanda

AbstractAssume GCH. Let κ, μ, Σ be cardinals, with κ infinite. Let be a family consisting of λ pairwise almost disjoint subsets of Σ each of size κ, whose union is Σ. In this note it is shown that for each μ with 1 ≤ μ ≤min(λ, Σ), there is a “large” almost disjoint family of μ-sized subsets of Σ, each member of having non-empty intersection with at least μ members of the family .


1995 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 879-891 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Leathrum

AbstractThe collection of branches (maximal linearly ordered sets of nodes) of the tree <ωω (ordered by inclusion) forms an almost disjoint family (of sets of nodes). This family is not maximal — for example, any level of the tree is almost disjoint from all of the branches. How many sets must be added to the family of branches to make it maximal? This question leads to a series of definitions and results: a set of nodes is off-branch if it is almost disjoint from every branch in the tree; an off-branch family is an almost disjoint family of off-branch sets; and is the minimum cardinality of a maximal off-branch family.Results concerning include: (in ZFC) , and (consistent with ZFC) is not equal to any of the standard small cardinal invariants or = 2ω. Most of these consistency results use standard forcing notions—for example, in the Cohen model.Many interesting open questions remain, though—for example, whether .


1977 ◽  
Vol 81 (3) ◽  
pp. 523-523
Author(s):  
P. Erdös ◽  
E. C. Milner ◽  
R. Rado

(i) J. Baumgartner has kindly drawn our attention to the fact that Theorem 2 as stated in (1) is false. A counter example is the case in which m = ℵ2; n = ℵ1; p = ℵ0. For by reference (3) of the paper (1) there is an almost disjoint family (Aγ: γ < ω1) of infinite subsets of ω̲ Put Aν = ω̲ for ω1 ≤ ν < ω2. Then, contrary to the assertion of that theorem, all conditions of Theorem 2 are satisfied. However, Theorem 2 becomes correct if the hypothesisis strengthened toIn fact, Baumgartner has proved the desired conclusion under the weaker hypothesis


1987 ◽  
Vol 101 (3) ◽  
pp. 385-393
Author(s):  
P. Komjath ◽  
E. C. Milner

For cardinal numbers λ, K, ∑ a (λ, K)-family is a family of sets such that || = and |A| = K for every A ε , and a (λ, K, ∑)-family is a (λ,K)-family such that |∪| = ∑. Two sets A, B are said to be almost disjoint ifand an almost disjoint family of sets is a family whose members are pairwise almost disjoint. A representing set of a family is a set X ⊆ ∪ such that X ∩ A = ⊘ for each A ε . If is a family of sets and |∪| = ∑, then we write εADR() to signify that is an almost disjoint family of ∑-sized representing sets of . Also, we define a cardinal number


Author(s):  
Kevin P. Balanda

A family of κ-sized sets is said to be almost disjoint if each pair of sets from the family intersect in a set of power less than κ. Such an almost disjoint family ℋ is defined to be κ-maximally almost disjoint (κ-MAD) if |∪ℋ| = κ and each κ-sized subset of ∪ ℋ intersects some member of ℋ in a set of cardinality κ. A set T is called a representing set of a family if T ⊆ ∪ and T has non-empty intersection with each member of .


1979 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 313-318 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael L. Wage

AbstractWe present a number of results involving almost disjoint sets and Martin's axiom. Included is an example, due to K. Kunen, of a c.c.c. partial order without property K whose product with every c.c.c. partial order is c.c.c.


1999 ◽  
Vol 64 (4) ◽  
pp. 1803-1810 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yi Zhang

AbstractWe show that it is consistent with ZFC + ¬CH that there is a maximal cofinitary group (or, maximal almost disjoint group) G ≤ Sym(ω) such that G is a proper subset of an almost disjoint family A ⊆ Sym(ω) and ‖G‖ < ‖A‖. We also ask several questions in this area.


1998 ◽  
Vol 63 (3) ◽  
pp. 1055-1062 ◽  
Author(s):  
Piotr Koszmider

Abstract(Xα: α < ω2) ⊂ ℘(ω1) is a strong chain in ℘(ω1)/Fin if and only if Xβ – Xα is finite and Xα – Xβ is uncountable for each β < α < ω1. We show that it is consistent that a strong chain in ℘(ω1) exists. On the other hand we show that it is consistent that there is a strongly almost-disjoint family in ℘(ω1) but no strong chain exists: is used to construct a c.c.c forcing that adds a strong chain and Chang's Conjecture to prove that there is no strong chain.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document