We proved König’s theorem and results of Hausdorff and Tarski on cardinal exponentiation, indicated some of their consequences (for example, ), and showed how to compute under the function .

We stated Easton’s result essentially saying that without additional assumptions, in nothing can be said about the exponential function beyond monotonicity and König’s theorem.

For singular cardinals the situation is much more delicate. We stated as a sample result Shelah’s theorem that if is strong limit, then is regular and smaller than .

This result is beyond the scope of this course. Instead, we will prove a particular case of an earlier result of Silver, namely, that is not the first counterexample to .

In order to prove Silver’s result, we need to develop the theory of club and stationary sets. We defined these notions and proved some of their basic properties.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 30th, 2008 at 6:20 pm and is filed under 116c: Set theory. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

What does it mean for the continuum function to be “eventually constant” below K. I am trying to read Thomas Jech. He uses the phrase “eventually constant” frequently but does not define it.

I imagine K is some limit cardinal ? The phrase means that there is some cardinal such that for some fixed cardinal and for all cardinals in the interval we have that

(Although the first time one sees this, it is a bit puzzling, this situation is consistently possible.)

Georgii: Let me start with some brief remarks. In a series of three papers: a. Wacław Sierpiński, "Contribution à la théorie des séries divergentes", Comp. Rend. Soc. Sci. Varsovie 3 (1910) 89–93 (in Polish). b. Wacław Sierpiński, "Remarque sur la théorème de Riemann relatif aux séries semi-convergentes", Prac. Mat. Fiz. XXI (1910) 17–20 […]

It is not possible to provide an explicit expression for a non-linear solution. The reason is that (it is a folklore result that) an additive $f:{\mathbb R}\to{\mathbb R}$ is linear iff it is measurable. (This result can be found in a variety of places, it is a standard exercise in measure theory books. As of this writing, there is a short proof here (Intern […]

Stefan, "low" cardinalities do not change by passing from $L({\mathbb R})$ to $L({\mathbb R})[{\mathcal U}]$, so the answer to the second question is that the existence of a nonprincipal ultrafilter does not imply the existence of a Vitali set. More precisely: Assume determinacy in $L({\mathbb R})$. Then $2^\omega/E_0$ is a successor cardinal to ${ […]

Marginalia to a theorem of Silver (see also this link) by Keith I. Devlin and R. B. Jensen, 1975. A humble title and yet, undoubtedly, one of the most important papers of all time in set theory.

Given a positive integer $a$, the Ramsey number $R(a)$ is the least $n$ such that whenever the edges of the complete graph $K_n$ are colored using only two colors, we necessarily have a copy of $K_a$ with all its edges of the same color. For example, $R(3)= 6$, which is usually stated by saying that in a party of 6 people, necessarily there are 3 that know e […]

Equality is part of the background (first-order) logic, so it is included, but there is no need to mention it. The situation is the same in many other theories. If you want to work in a language without equality, on the other hand, then this is mentioned explicitly. It is true that from extensionality (and logical axioms), one can prove that two sets are equ […]

$L$ has such a nice canonical structure that one can use it to define a global well-ordering. That is, there is a formula $\phi(u,v)$ that (provably in $\mathsf{ZF}$) well-orders all of $L$, so that its restriction to any specific set $A$ in $L$ is a set well-ordering of $A$. The well-ordering $\varphi$ you are asking about can be obtained as the restriction […]

Gödel sentences are by construction $\Pi^0_1$ statements, that is, they have the form "for all $n$ ...", where ... is a recursive statement (think "a statement that a computer can decide"). For instance, the typical Gödel sentence for a system $T$ coming from the second incompleteness theorem says that "for all $n$ that code a proof […]

When I first saw the question, I remembered there was a proof on MO using Ramsey theory, but couldn't remember how the argument went, so I came up with the following, that I first posted as a comment: A cute proof using Schur's theorem: Fix $a$ in your semigroup $S$, and color $n$ and $m$ with the same color whenever $a^n=a^m$. By Schur's theo […]

It depends on what you are doing. I assume by lower level you really mean high level, or general, or 2-digit class. In that case, 54 is general topology, 26 is real functions, 03 is mathematical logic and foundations. "Point-set topology" most likely refers to the stuff in 54, or to the theory of Baire functions, as in 26A21, or to descriptive set […]

What does it mean for the continuum function to be “eventually constant” below K. I am trying to read Thomas Jech. He uses the phrase “eventually constant” frequently but does not define it.

Hi David,

I imagine K is some limit cardinal ? The phrase means that there is some cardinal such that for some fixed cardinal and for all cardinals in the interval we have that

(Although the first time one sees this, it is a bit puzzling, this situation is consistently possible.)