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 .

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 […]

You assume $\omega_\alpha\subseteq M$ and $X\in M$ so that $X$ belongs to the transitive collapse of $M$ (because if $\pi$ is the collapsing map, $\pi(X)=\pi[X]=X$. You assume $|M|=\aleph_\alpha$ so that the transitive collapse of $M$ has size $\aleph_\alpha$. Since you also have that this transitive collapse is of the form $L_\beta$ for some $\beta$, it fol […]

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 precise consistency strength of the global failure of the generalized continuum hypothesis is somewhat technical to state. As far as I know, it has not been published, but I think we have a decent understanding of what the correct statement should be. The most relevant paper towards this result is MR2224051 (2007d:03082). Gitik, Moti Merimovich, Carmi. P […]

There are integrable functions that are not derivatives: Any function that is continuous except at a single point, where it has a jump discontinuity, is an example. (Derivatives have the intermediate value property.) More interestingly, we can ask whether the existence of an antiderivative ensures integrability. The answer depends on what integral you are co […]

$0^¶$ is the sharp for an inner model with a strong cardinal in the same sense that $0^\dagger$ is the sharp for an inner model with a measurable cardinal. In terms of mice, this is the first mouse containing two overlapping extenders. The effect of this is that, by iterating its top measure throughout the ordinals, you extend the bottom extender in a variet […]

Clearly $\omega^\omega\le(\omega+n)^\omega$. Also, $(\omega+n)^\omega\le (\omega^2)^\omega=\omega^{(2\cdot \omega)}=\omega^\omega$, and the equality follows. If you do not feel comfortable with the move from $(\omega^2)^\omega$ to $\omega^{(2\cdot \omega)}$, simply note the left-hand side is $\omega\cdot\omega\cdot\omega\cdot\dots$, where there are $2\cdot\o […]

A function $f:\mathbb N\to\mathbb R$ is $2^{O(n)}$ if and only if there is a constant $C$ such that for all $n$ large enough we have $f(n)\le 2^{Cn}$. We can think of the $O$ notation as decribing a family of functions. So, $2^{O(n)}$ would be the family of functions satisfying the requirements just indicated. In contrast, a function $f$ is $O(2^n)$ if and o […]

[…] 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 […]