Update. I present here a quick sketch of the solution of Exercise 3.(b). See Lecture 18, where it is shown that the result actually holds in , although the proof uses choice.

Let and be two well-orderings of a set . We want to find a subset of of the same size as where the two well-orderings coincide. Let . By combining with an isomorphism between and its order type, we may assume that is an ordinal and . By restricting attention to the subset of , we may assume is a well-ordering of . By further restricting to the subset of of order type under , we may assume that as well.

Assume first that is regular. The result follows easily. The desired set can be built by a straightforward recursion: Given and a sequence of elements of increasing under both well-orderings, regularity ensures that the sequence is bounded under both well-orderings, and we can find which is larger than all the previous under both orderings.

The argument for singular is slightly more delicate. Namely, we may not be able to carry out the construction above since the sequence could be unbounded in one of the orderings when . We circumvent the problem by only considering ordinals whose cofinality is larger than the cofinality of . Notice that if an increasing sequence of order type is unbounded in an ordinal of cofinality , then .

To implement this idea, let be an increasing sequence of regular cardinals cofinal in , with . Consider the subset . It must contain a subset of size where coincides with . By the remark above, this subset is bounded in . Let denote the shortest initial segment of containing . By removing from the set , we are left with a set of size , and any ordinal there is larger than the elements of under both orderings. The induction continues this way, by considering at stage a set of size .

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 20th, 2008 at 12:40 am 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.

[…] amusing application of the fact that is that the result of Exercise 3 from Homework 7 holds in , although the proof I wrote there uses choice. Namely, work in and consider two […]

Perhaps the following may clarify the comments: for any ordinal $\delta$, there is a Boolean-valued extension of the universe of sets where $2^{\aleph_0}>\aleph_\delta$ holds. If you rather talk of models than Boolean-valued extensions, what this says is that we can force while preserving all ordinals, and in fact all initial ordinals, and make the contin […]

I do not know of any active set theorists who think large cardinals are inconsistent. At least, within the realm of cardinals we have seriously studied. [Reinhardt suggested an ultimate axiom of the form "there is a non-trivial elementary embedding $j:V\to V$". Though some serious set theorists found it of possible interest immediately following it […]

There is a fantastic (and not too well-known) result of Shelah stating that $L({\mathcal P}(\lambda))$ is a model of choice whenever $\lambda$ is a singular strong limit of uncountable cofinality. This is a consequence of a more general theorem that can be found in 4.6/6.7 of "Set Theory without choice: not everything on cofinality is possible", Ar […]

In set theory, definitely the notion of a Woodin cardinal. First, it is not an entirely straightforward notion to guess. Significant large cardinals were up to that point defined as critical points of certain elementary embeddings. This is not the case here: Woodin cardinals need not be measurable. If $\kappa$ is Woodin, then $V_\kappa$ is a model of set the […]

The first example that came to mind was MR0270881 (42 #5764) van der Waerden, B. L. How the proof of Baudet's conjecture was found. 1971 Studies in Pure Mathematics (Presented to Richard Rado) pp. 251–260 Academic Press, London. There, van der Waerden describes some of the history as well as his proof of his well-known theorem. Another example: MR224589 […]

The principle $\lozenge$ (diamond) is in a sense the right set-theoretic version of the continuum hypothesis, as it presents it instead as a reflection principle. Formally, it asserts that there is a diamond sequence, that is, a sequence $(A_\alpha:\alpha

Unfortunately, Maddy is being imprecise in her use of terminology and the surrounding explanation. The mention of Borel in page 496 is a good hint that the notion she is discussing is that of being strong measure zero, as suggested in the comments. A set of reals is (or has) measure zero if and only if for any $\epsilon>0$ it can be covered by countably m […]

Note that $\alpha\mapsto\|c_\alpha^\lambda\|_S$ is strictly increasing (trivially): After all, $$\{\delta\in S\mid c_\beta^\lambda(\delta)\ge c_\alpha^\lambda(\delta)\}=\{\delta\in S\mid\beta\ge \alpha\}=\emptyset$$ if $\beta

The property is defined relative to the set $S$, not to any potential superset of $S$. The example you give has $S=(a,b)$ and the subset you chose as $E$, namely $((a+b)/2,b)$ is not bounded above in $S$ (it is bounded above in $\mathbb R$, but this doesn't matter). In fact, you can easily check that $S=(a,b)$ has the least upper bound property, the poi […]

The claim is not true. An easy counterexample is obtained by letting $f$ be identically 0 and $g$ be the characteristic function of the rationals. We have $f=g$ a.e., $f$ is everywhere continuous and $g$ is nowhere continuous. (Clearly, the restriction of $g$ to the irrationals is continuous (being constant), but this is not enough to ensure that $g$ is cont […]

[…] amusing application of the fact that is that the result of Exercise 3 from Homework 7 holds in , although the proof I wrote there uses choice. Namely, work in and consider two […]