saharon shelah- the pcf theorem revisited
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
1/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED
SH506
DEDICATED TO PAUL ERDOS
Saharon Shelah
Institute of MathematicsThe Hebrew University
Jerusalem, Israel
Rutgers UniversityMathematics DepartmentNew Brunswick, NJ USA
Abstract. The pcf theorem (of the possible cofinability theory) was proved forreduced products
Qi
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
2/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
2 SAHARON SHELAH
0 Introduction
An aim of the pcf theory is to answer the question, what are the possible cofi-
nalities (pcf) of the partial ordersi, for different ideals
I on . For a quick introduction to the pcf theory see [Sh 400a], and for a detailedexposition, see [Sh:g] and more history. In 1 and 2 we generalize the basic theo-rem of this theory by weakening the assumption < mini
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
3/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED SH506 DEDICATED TO PAUL ERDOS 3
normality: J[] = J
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
4/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
4 SAHARON SHELAH
1 Basic pcf
1.1 Notation 1) I, J denote ideals on a set Dom(I), Dom(J) resp., called its domain
(possiblyAI
A Dom(I). If not said otherwise the domain is an infinite cardinal
denoted by and also the ideal is proper i.e. Dom(I) / I. Similarly D denotes afilter on a set Dom(D); we do not always distinguish strictly between an ideal on and the dual filter on .2) Let denote a sequence of the form i : i < . We say is regular if everyi is regular, Min() = Min{i : i < } (of course also in we can replace by another set), and let =
i }.
But we can replace by any set (in the definitions and claims). Let I
denote afixed ideal on .3) For I a filter on let I+ = P() \ I (similarly D+ = {A : \ A / D}), let
lim infI = min{ : {i < : i } I+} and
lim supI = Min{ : {i < : i > } I} and
atomI = { : {i : i = } I+}.
4) For a set A of ordinals with no last element, JbdA = {B A : sup(B) < sup(A)},i.e. the ideal of bounded subsets.5) Generally, if inv(X) = sup{|y| : (X, y)} then inv+(X) = sup{|y|+ : [X, y]},and any y such that [X, y] is a wittness for |y| inv(X) (and |y| < inv+(X)),and it exemplifies this.6) Let Ord be the class of ordinals.
7) Consideringi
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
5/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED SH506 DEDICATED TO PAUL ERDOS 5
(b) P has true cofinality if there is a sequence p = p : < increasing
and cofinal in P, i.e.:
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
6/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
6 SAHARON SHELAH
1.3 Observation. 1) Concerning 1.2(4), note: g = Max{g, 1} means g(i) =Max{g(i), 1} for each i < ; if for every f F, {i < : f(i) = 0} I we
can replace Max{g, 1}, Max{f, 1} by g, f respectively in clause () and omit clause
().2) The ideal I on is -weakly saturated iff in the topological space of the ultrafil-ters on the subspace {D : D an ultrafilter on disjoint to I} has spread < , or is a limit ordinal, it has spread but the spread is not obtained (hence 2cf() but it is consistently singular, see [Sh 233], [JuSh 231]).
1.4 Definition. Below if is the ultrafilters disjoint to I, we write I instead of. Recall that we can replace by any set.1) For a property of ultrafilters (if is the empty condition, we omit it):
pcf() = pcf(, ) = {tcf(/D) : D is an ultrafilter on satisfying }
(so is a sequence of ordinals, usually of regular cardinals, note: as D is anultrafilter, /D is linearly ordered hence has true cofinality).1A) More generally, for a property of ideals on we let pcf() = {tcf(/J) : Jis an ideal on satisfying such that /J has true cofinality}; we call closedwhen if I and A, B I+ are disjoint then I + A is a maximal ideal.Similarly below.2) J
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
7/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED SH506 DEDICATED TO PAUL ERDOS 7
(ii) if I J then pcfJ() pcfI(); and
(iii) for B1, B2 we have pcfI( (B1 B2)) = pcfI( B1)
pcfI( B2).Also
(iv) A J
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
8/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
8 SAHARON SHELAH
In particular, if one of them is well defined, then so are the others. This is trueeven if we replace s by linear orders or even partial orders with true confinality.
7) If D is an ultrafilter on a set S, s a regular cardinal, then =: tcf(sS
s, |S| or at least s > |{t : t = s}| for any s S then:
(i) E is a filter on S, and if D is an ultrafilter on S then E is an ultrafilter
on S
(ii) S is a set of regular cardinals andif s S s > |S| then ( S) > |S|,
(iii) F = {f sS
s : s = t f(s) = f(t)} is a cover ofsS
s,
(iv) cf(sS
s/D) = cf(S/E) and tcf (
sS
s/D) = tcf(S/E).
9) Assume I is an ideal on , F Ord and g Ord. If g is a I-eub of F theng is a I-lub of F.10) sup pcfI() |/I|.11) If I is an ideal on S and (
sS
s,
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
9/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED SH506 DEDICATED TO PAUL ERDOS 9
1.6 Definition. 1) Let I is not almost normal for (, ) mean: for some h ,for no j < is {i < : i h(i) < j} = mod I.2) Let I is not lowly normal for (, ) mean: for some h , for no < , is
{i < : i h(i) < } I+
.
Remark. Note that weakly normals implies lowly normal.
Proof. They are all very easy, e.g.0) We shall show (, h(i) . So assume that f for
< . We now define a function f with domain by
f(i) = {f(i) : < h(i)(and < )}.
Now first i < f(i) < i because i is regular, h(i) < i and < f(i) (e.g., Min(E\( + 1)), the set {i < : h(i) < } is included in
{i < : i = } {i < : i E} {i < : i }.]Now the first and second belong to I by an assumption and the third as < =liminfI(), so we are done.5) Let =: lim supI() and define
J =: {A : for some < the set {i < : i > and i A} belongs to I}.
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
10/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
10 SAHARON SHELAH
Clearly J is an ideal on extending I (and / J) and lim supJ() = lim infJ() =.
Case 1: is 0.We do not use the J above. Now the desired conclusion fails then every ultrafilter
on disjoint to I is 1-complete. Now if{i < : i > 0} J+ the construction
is immediate so without loss of generality i < i = 0. But not weaklynormal for (, ) then j < Aj =: {i < : h(i) < j} = mod I but{Aj : j < } = . There is an ultrafilter D on disjoint to J {Aj : j < } soAj : j < exemplifies D is not 1-complete.
Case 2: is singular.By part (4), clause (ii), /I is ()+-directed and by part (4) clause (v) we get
the desired conclusion.
Case 3: is regular > 0.Let h witness that I is not weakly normal for (, ) and let
J = {A : for every h , for some j < we have {i A : h(i) < j} = A mod I}.
Note that if A J then for some < the set A =: {i A : i > } I
hence for every h , the choice j =: witness A J. So J J. AlsoJ P() by its definition. J is closed under subsets (trivial) and under union[why? assume A0, A1 J, A = A0 A1; for every h , choose j0, j1 <
such that A =: {i A : h(i) < j} = A mod I, so j =: max{j0, j1} < and
A = {i A : h(i) < j} = A mod I; so A J]. Also / J [why? as h witnessthat I is not weakly normal for (, )]. So together J is an ideal on extendingI. Now J is not medium normal for (, ), as witnessed by h.[Why? Let us check Definition 1.6(2), so let < . We should prove that A ={i < : i h(i) < } / J
+; now A1 = {i < : i > } J J and
A2 = {i < : h(i) < j} J hence A1 A
2 J but it includes A , so we are
done.]Lastly, /J is ()+-directed (by part (4) clause (iii)), and so pcfJ() is disjointto ()+.9) Let us prove g is a I-lub of F in (
Ord, I). As we can deal separately withI + A, I + ( \ A) where A =: {i : g(i) = 0}, and the later case is trivial we canassume A = . So assume g is not a I-lub, so there is an upper bound g of F,but not g I g. Define g Ord:
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
11/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED SH506 DEDICATED TO PAUL ERDOS 11
g(i) =
0 & if g(i) g(i)
g(i) & if g(i) < g(i).
Clearly g
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
12/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
12 SAHARON SHELAH
If is a cardinal , and / J
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
13/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED SH506 DEDICATED TO PAUL ERDOS 13
For limit let g(i) = for i A and is a sequence of regular cardinals) and let = 0.
For = + 1, suppose that g hence B: < are defined. If B
J
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
14/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
14 SAHARON SHELAH
1.12 Lemma. Suppose () of 1.9, cf() > , f , f < f mod J
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
15/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED SH506 DEDICATED TO PAUL ERDOS 15
For = + 1, if { < : B J
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
16/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
16 SAHARON SHELAH
1.13 Lemma. Suppose () of 1.9 and < .1) For every B J[] \ J
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
17/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED SH506 DEDICATED TO PAUL ERDOS 17
that D J
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
18/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
18 SAHARON SHELAH
1.15 Claim. Suppose () of 1.9 holds. Assume for j < , Dj is a filter on extending { \ A : A I}, E a filter on and D = {B : {j < : B Dj} E} (a filter on ). Let j =: tcf(, + .Let
= tcf(,
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
19/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED SH506 DEDICATED TO PAUL ERDOS 19
[Why? Note that min{j : j < } + + and J[] J[]. By 1.9 we
know (,
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
20/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
20 SAHARON SHELAH
(i) f
(ii) g
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
21/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED SH506 DEDICATED TO PAUL ERDOS 21
2 Normality of pcf() for
Having found those ideals J
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
22/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
22 SAHARON SHELAH
exemplified by f : < . By 1.9 we can choose by induction on < a function
f such that: , f J
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
23/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED SH506 DEDICATED TO PAUL ERDOS 23
2.3 Definition. Let there be given regular , < < , possibly an ordinal,S , sup(S) = and for simplicity S is a set of limit ordinals or at least have notwo successive members.
1) We call a = a : < a special continuity condition for (S,,) (or is an(S,,)-continuity condition) if: S is an unbounded subset of, a , otp(a) +r . Then for
some stationary S { < : cf() = r}, there is a continuity condition a for(S, r); moreover, it is continuous in S and S otp(a) = r; so for every
5Note: if otp(a) = and = sup(a) (holds if S, = + 1 and a continuous in S (seebelow)) then E.
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
24/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
24 SAHARON SHELAH
club E of for some S, , [ < & a & a (, ) E = }].2) Assume = ++, then for some stationary S { < : cf() = cf()} there isa continuity condition for (S, + 1, ).
3) If a is a (,,1)-continuity condition and 1 then there is a (, + 1, )-continuity condition.
Proof. 1) By [Sh 420, 1].2) By [Sh 351, 4.4](2) and6.3) Check. 2.5
2.6 Remark. Of course also if = + the conclusion of 2.5(2) may well hold. Wesuspect but do not know that the negation is consistent with ZFC.
2.7 Fact. Suppose () of 1.9, f for < , = cf() (of course = dom()) and A = A[] is as in the proof of 1.9 (i.e., A = {i < : i > }).Then1) Assume a is a -weak continuity condition for (S, ), = sup(S), then we canfind f = f : < such that:
(i) f ,
(ii) for < we have f f(iii) for < < we have f
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
25/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED SH506 DEDICATED TO PAUL ERDOS 25
4) If < , for < we have f = f : < , where f , then in 2.7(1)
(and 2.7(2)) we can find f as there for all f simultaneously. Only in clause (ii)we replace f f
by f A
f
A
(and f f
by f A
f
A
.
Proof. Easy (using 1.9 of course).
2.8 Claim. In 2.7 we can replace () from 1.9 by /J
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
26/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
26 SAHARON SHELAH
2.10 Claim. Suppose () of 1.9 and
(a) f for < , pcf() and f = f : < is
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
27/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED SH506 DEDICATED TO PAUL ERDOS 27
E A1, J.
If
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
28/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
28 SAHARON SHELAH
For = : Choose f by induction of satisfying I(i), (ii), (iii) (possible by 1.9).
For = + 1: Use 1.11 to choose B D J[] \ J
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
29/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED SH506 DEDICATED TO PAUL ERDOS 29
2.12 Definition. 1) We say B = B : c is a generating sequence for if:
(i) B and c pcf()
(ii) J[] = J
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
30/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
30 SAHARON SHELAH
We prove by induction on that for every B (I)+, cf(,
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
31/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED SH506 DEDICATED TO PAUL ERDOS 31
But g()+1 B()
iB()
i, and B() J
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
32/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
32 SAHARON SHELAH
1B) We say that I satisfies the weaker pcf-th for (, ) if:
(a) (,
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
33/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED SH506 DEDICATED TO PAUL ERDOS 33
2.17 Claim. 1) If () of 1.9 then I satisfies the weak pcf-th for (, +).2) If () of 1.9 holds, and /I is ++-directed (e.g., + < min ) or just thereis a continuity condition for (+, )) then I satisfies the pcf-th for (, +).
3) If I
satisfy the pcf-th for (, ) then I
satisfy the weak pcf-th for (, ) whichimplies that I satisfies the weaker pcf-th for (, ), which implies that I satisfiesthe weakest pcf-th for (, ).
Proof. 1) Let appropriate be given. By 1.9, 1.13 most demands holds, but weare left with normality. By 2.11, if pcf(), then is semi normal for . Thisfinishing the proof of (1).2) Let pcf() and let f, B be as in 2.2(4). By 2.5(1)+(2) there is a, a (, )-continuity condition; by 2.7(1) without loss of generality f obeys a, by 2.9(1) therelevant B/I
are eventually constant which suffices by 2.2(2).3) Should be clear. 2.17
2.18 Claim. Assume (,
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
34/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
34 SAHARON SHELAH
Proof of 1.8(3)(i). Let J =:
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
35/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED SH506 DEDICATED TO PAUL ERDOS 35
7) For pcf() let Bi : i < be such that J[] = J
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
36/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
36 SAHARON SHELAH
3 Reduced products of cardinals
We characterize here the cardinalities i
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
37/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED SH506 DEDICATED TO PAUL ERDOS 37
and
reg(D) =: { : there are no A D
+
for < such that : < A A mod D and no i <
belongs to infinitely many As}.
4) reg(D) = min{ : D is not (, )-regular} where D is (, )-regular meansthat there are A D for < such that the intersection of any of them isempty.
Lastly, reg (D), reg(D) are defined similarly using A D
+. Of course, reg(I),etc., means reg(D) where D is the dual filter.
3.2 Definition. 1) Let
htcfD,(i) = sup{tcf(i
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
38/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
38 SAHARON SHELAH
3.3 Claim. 1) reg(D) is always regular.2) If < reg(D) then some filter extending D is -regular.3) wsat(D) reg(D).
4) reg(D) reg(D) reg(D).5) reg(D) = min{: no ultrafilter D1 on extending D is -regular}.6) If D E are filters on then:
(a) reg(D) reg(E)
(b) reg(D) reg(E).
Proof. Should be clear. E.g.2) Let u : < list the finite subsets of , and let {A : < } D
+ exemplify
< reg(D). Now let D =: {A : for some finite u , for every < wehave: u u A A mod D}, and let A =
{A : u}. Now D is a
filter on extending D and for < we have A D.Finally, the intersection of A0 A
1
. . . for distinct n < is empty, becausefor any memeber j of it we can find n < such that j An and n un . Now if{n : n < } is infinite then there is no such j by the choice of A : < , and if
{n : n < } is finite then without loss of generalityn
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
39/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED SH506 DEDICATED TO PAUL ERDOS 39
5)i
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
40/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
40 SAHARON SHELAH
So in M, every -sequence of members is coded by at least one member so M =
M, but M = |i
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
41/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED SH506 DEDICATED TO PAUL ERDOS 41
3.10 Lemma. |i
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
42/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
42 SAHARON SHELAH
So assume everything is defined for every < . If = 0, let Ai = {i}, if limit
Ai =
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
43/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED SH506 DEDICATED TO PAUL ERDOS 43
y1 y2 = mod D hence X D
+. Also y1 y2 : < is -decreasing hence
X/D : < is -decreasing.Also ifi X1 X2 and 1 < 2 then f
02
(i) f01+1(i) < f01
(i) (first inequality:
as A1+1i A2i and clause (e) above, second inequality by the definition of X1),hence for each ordinal i the set { < : i X} is finite. So < reg(D),contradiction to the assumption (). 3.10
Note we can conclude
3.12 Claim.
i
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
44/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
44 SAHARON SHELAH
(C) for some club C of and some 1 < and i < +1 and wi Ord of order
type i for i < , there are f i
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
45/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED SH506 DEDICATED TO PAUL ERDOS 45
Let () =
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
46/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
46 SAHARON SHELAH
any +1 of the sets A is empty (equivalently i < (1)[i A] (reminds
(, +1 )-regularity of ultrafilters).2) We can in 3.13(1) weaken the assumption () to () below if in the conclusion
we weaken clause (A) to (A)
where
() cf() reg(D)
(A) there is a D-upper bound f of {g : < } such thatno f
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
47/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED SH506 DEDICATED TO PAUL ERDOS 47
2) Let I be the ideal dual to D, and assume () above. If ()() of 1.9 holds and is semi-normal (for (, I)) then it is normal.
Proof.
Case 1 < lim infD().We let
=
if < i
1 if i
and we are done.
Case 2: lim infD() reg(D), > , and ( < reg(D))[reg (D) < ].
Let =: reg(D). There is an unbounded S and an (S, )-continuity systema (see 2.5). As /D has true cofinality , > clearly there are g for < such that g = g : < obeys a (exists as lim infD()).
Now if in claim 3.13(1) for g possibility (A) holds, we are done. By 3.14(1) weget that for some < reg(D), reg
(I) , contradiction.
Case 3: lim infD() reg(D), , and ( < reg(D))[reg (D) < ].
Like the proof of [Sh:g, Ch.II,1.5B] using the silly square.
We turn to other measures of /D.
3.16 Definition.
(a) T0D() = sup{|F| : F and f1 = f2 F f1 =D f2}
(b)
T1D() = Min{|F| :(i) F
(ii) f1 = f2 F f1 =D f2
(iii) F maximal under (i) + (ii)}
(c) T2D() = Min{|F| : F and for every f1 , for some f2 F wehave f1 =D f2}
(d) If T0D() = T1D() = T
2D() then let TD() = T
lD() for l < 3
(e) for f Ord and < 3 let TlD(f) means TlD(f() : < ).
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
48/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
48 SAHARON SHELAH
3.17 Theorem. 0) If D0 D1 are filters on then TD0() TD1
() for = 0, 2.
Also if = A0A1, A0 D+, andA1 D
+ thenTD() = min{TD+A0
(), TD+A1()}for = 0, 2.
1) htcfD() T2D() T1D() T0D().2) If T0D() > |P()/D| or just T
0D() > , andP()/D satisfies the
+-c.c.then T0D() = T
1D() = T
2D() so the supremum in 3.16(a) is obtained (so, e.g.,
T0D() > 2 suffice).
3) T0D()
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
49/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED SH506 DEDICATED TO PAUL ERDOS 49
> T2D(f) + . Now for each f F let Af = {i < : f(i) = g(i)} clearly Af D
+.Now f Af/D is a function from F
into P()/D, hence, if = |P()/D|, it isnot one to one (by cardinality consideration) so for some f = f from F (hence
form F0) we have Af/D = Af/D; but so
{i < : f(i) = f(i)} {i < : f(i) = g(i)} {i < : f(i) = g(i)} = Af/D
hence is = mod D, so f =D f, contradition the choice ofF0. If = |P()/D|
(as F F0 by the choice of F0) we have:
f1 = f2 F Af1 Af2 = mod D
so {Af : f F
} contradicts the Boolean algebra P()/D satisfies the +
-c.c..3) Assume that < reg(D) and7 + T0D(). As
+ T0D() we can findf for < such that [ < f =D f]. Also (as < reg(D)) we canfind {A : < } D such that for every i < the set wi =: { < : i A} isfinite. Now for every function h : we define gh, a function with domain :
gh(i) = {(, fh()(i)) : wi}.
So |{gh(i) : h }| (i)|wi| = i, and ifh1 = h2 are from then for some < ,h1() = h2() so Bh1,h2 = {i : fh1()(i) = fh2()(i)} D that is Bh1,h2 A D so
1 if i Bh1,h2 A then wi, so gh1(i) = gh2(i)
2 Bh1,h2 A D.
So gh : h exemplifies T0D()
. If the supremum in the definition ofT0D() is obtained we are done. If not then T
0D() is a limit cardinal, and by the
proof above:
[ < T0D() & < reg(D) < T0D()].
So if T0D() has cofinality reg(D) we are done; otherwise let it be
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
50/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
50 SAHARON SHELAH
4) For the first inequality assume it fails so =: T2D(f) < htcfD(i
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
51/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED SH506 DEDICATED TO PAUL ERDOS 51
() there are i,n : n < ni : i < , i,n = cf(i,n) < f(i) and a filter
D oni
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
52/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
52 SAHARON SHELAH
3.19 Conclusion Suppose D is an 1-complete filter on . If i 2 for i < andsupAD+ TD+A() >
0 then for some i = cf(i) i we have
supAD+ tcfD+A(
i .
3.20 Conclusion Let D be an 1-complete filter on . If for i < , Bi is a Booleanalgebra and i < Depth
+(Bi) (see below) and
2 < 0 < supAD+
TD+A()
then + < Depth+(i
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
53/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED SH506 DEDICATED TO PAUL ERDOS 53
induction on , < + as follows: is the minimal ordinal <
+ such thatE, D where E, = the -complete filter generated by
{i < : f(i) = f(i)} : <
(note: each generator of E, is in D but not necessarly E, D!).
Let be well defined if < , clearly < < . Now if
< +, then
clearly =
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
54/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
54 SAHARON SHELAH
with limit ,
< cf()
/Jbdcf() has true confinality . Let = sup{ : < } + 2
,
let i : cf() be i(i) = sup{ + 1 : i }. If there is a function h i
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
55/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED SH506 DEDICATED TO PAUL ERDOS 55
Let (i) = max{ < 2n(i) : (i, ) A} and let B = {i : (i) well defined}. ClearlyB D+ (otherwise we can find < < such that f/D = f/D, contradiction).For (i, ) A define i, by
i, = sup{
j,m + 1 : (j,m) A
and j,m < i,}. Now
i, < i, as cf(
i,) > 2
. Let
Y = { < : if(i, ) A \ A then j,i, = i,
and if (i, ) A then i, < j,,i < ,i}.
Let B1 = {i B : (i) is odd}. Clearly B1 B and B \ B1 = mod D (otherwiseas in ()1, ()2 below get contradiction) hence B1 D
+. Now
()1 for < from Y we havej,i,(i) : i B1 j,i,(i) : i B1 mod (D B1)
[Why? as f/D was non decreasing ini
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
56/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
56 SAHARON SHELAH
Proof. Check.
3.29 Claim. Let D be a filter on , i : i < a sequence of cardinals and
2 < = cf(). Then () () () (), and if ( < )(0 < ) we alsohave () () where
() if Bi is a Boolean algebra, i < Depth+(Bi) then < Depth
+(i
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
57/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED SH506 DEDICATED TO PAUL ERDOS 57
at least when i > 2;
for D a filter on , does i < Depth+(Bi) for i < implies, assuming
i > 2 for simplicity,
TD(i : i < ) < Depth+(i
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
58/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
58 SAHARON SHELAH
4 Remarks on the conditions for the pcf analysis
We consider a generalization whose interest is not so clear.
4.1 Claim. Suppose = i : i < is a sequence of regular cardinals, and is acardinal and I is an ideal on ; and H is a function with domain . We considerthe following statements:
()H lim infI() wsat(I) and H is a function from to P() such that:
(a) for every < we have {i < : H(i)} = mod I
(b) for i < we have otp(H(i)) i or at least {i < : |H(i)| i} I
()+ similarly but(b)+ for i < we have otp(H(i)) < i.
1) In 1.9 we can replace the assumption () by ()H above.2) Also in 1.11, 1.12, 1.13, 1.14, 1.15, ? we can replace 1.9() by ()H.
> scite{1.11} undefined3) Suppose in Definition 2.3(2) we say f obeys a for H (instead of for A) if
(i) for a such that =: otp(a) < we have
otp(a), otp(a) H(i) f(i) f(i)
and in 2.3(2A), f(i) = sup{f(i) : a and otp(a), otp(a) H(i)}.
Then we can replace 1.9() by ()H in 2.7, 2.8, ?; and replace 1.9() by ()+H in
> scite{2,6} undefined2.10 (with the natural changes).
Proof. 1) Like the proof of 1.9, but defining the gs by induction on we change
requirement (ii) to
(ii) if < , and i H() H() then g(i) < g(i).
We can not succeded as
(B() \ B+1()) {i < : , + 1 H(i)} : <
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
59/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED SH506 DEDICATED TO PAUL ERDOS 59
is a sequence of pairwise disjoint member of (I)+.In the induction, for limit let g(i) < {g(i) : H(i) and H(i)} (so this
is a union at most otp(H(i) ) but only when H(i) hence is otp(H(i)) i).
2) The proof of 1.11 is the same, in the proof of 1.12 we again replace (ii) by (ii)
.Also the proof of the rest is the same.3) Left to the reader. 4.1
We want to see how much weakening () of 1.9 to lim infI() wsat(I)suffices. If singular or lim infI() > or just (, h(i) and < {i : h(i) < } J}
(c) for < () and A J+1 \ J, the pair (, J + ( \ A)) (equivalently A, J A)) satisfies condition 1.9() (case ()) hence its consequences,(in particular it satisfies the weak pcf-th for )
(d) if
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
60/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
60 SAHARON SHELAH
4.3 Conclusion. Under the assumptions of 4.2, I satisfies the pseudo pcf-th (seeDefinition 2.16(4)), hence cf(,
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
61/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED SH506 DEDICATED TO PAUL ERDOS 61
regular cardinals and cardinal invariants of Boolean Algebra,
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
62/63
(506)
revision:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
62 SAHARON SHELAH
REFERENCES.
[JuSh 231] Istvan Juhasz and Saharon Shelah. How large can a hereditarily sepa-rable or hereditarily Lindelof space be? Israel Journal of Mathematics,53:355364, 1986.
[Kn] Akihiro Kanamori. Weakly normal filters and irregular ultra-filters.Trans. of A.M.S., 220:393396, 1976.
[Kt] Jussi Ketonen. Some combinatorial properties of ultra-filters. Fund.Math., CVII:225235, 1980.
[Ko] Peter Komjath. On second-category sets. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.,107:653654, 1989.
[MgSh 433] Menachem Magidor and Saharon Shelah. Length of Boolean alge-bras and ultraproducts. Mathematica Japonica, 48(2):301307, 1998.math.LO/9805145.
[M] J. Donald Monk. Cardinal functions of Boolean algebras. circulatednotes.
[Sh 7] Saharon Shelah. On the cardinality of ultraproduct of finite sets. Jour-nal of Symbolic Logic, 35:8384, 1970.
[Sh:a] Saharon Shelah. Classification theory and the number of nonisomor-phic models, volume 92 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of
Mathematics. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam-New York,xvi+544 pp, $62.25, 1978.
[Sh 233] Saharon Shelah. Remarks on the numbers of ideals of Boolean algebraand open sets of a topology. In Around classification theory of models,volume 1182 ofLecture Notes in Mathematics, pages 151187. Springer,Berlin, 1986.
[Sh:c] Saharon Shelah. Classification theory and the number of nonisomor-phic models, volume 92 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations ofMathematics. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, xxxiv+705
pp, 1990.[Sh 351] Saharon Shelah. Reflecting stationary sets and successors of singular
cardinals. Archive for Mathematical Logic, 31:2553, 1991.
[Sh 400a] Saharon Shelah. Cardinal arithmetic for skeptics. Ameri-can Mathematical Society. Bulletin. New Series, 26:197210, 1992.math.LO/9201251.
-
8/3/2019 Saharon Shelah- The PCF Theorem Revisited
63/63
on:2008-02-
10
modified:2008-0
2-11
THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED SH506 DEDICATED TO PAUL ERDOS 63
[Sh 420] Saharon Shelah. Advances in Cardinal Arithmetic. In Finite and Infi-nite Combinatorics in Sets and Logic, pages 355383. Kluwer AcademicPublishers, 1993. N.W. Sauer et al (eds.). 0708.1979.
[Sh 410] Saharon Shelah. More on Cardinal Arithmetic. Archive for Mathemat-ical Logic, 32:399428, 1993. math.LO/0406550.
[Sh 345a] Saharon Shelah. Basic: Cofinalities of small reduced products. In Car-dinal Arithmetic, volume 29 ofOxford Logic Guides, chapter I. OxfordUniversity Press, 1994.
[Sh:g] Saharon Shelah. Cardinal Arithmetic, volume 29 of Oxford LogicGuides. Oxford University Press, 1994.
[Sh 430] Saharon Shelah. Further cardinal arithmetic. Israel Journal of Math-
ematics,95
:61114, 1996. math.LO/9610226.[Sh 580] Saharon Shelah. Strong covering without squares. Fundamenta Math-
ematicae, 166:87107, 2000. math.LO/9604243.
[Sh 513] Saharon Shelah. PCF and infinite free subsets in an algebra. Archivefor Mathematical Logic, 41:321359, 2002. math.LO/9807177.