Due Wednesday, May 28 at 2:30 pm.
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
.
[…] 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 […]