Complicated index models and Boolean algebras/ Shelah/ Unclear step in the proof












-1














Here on the page $10$ in the $5$th line (the proof of lemma $1.10$), Shelah defines $n_*$ as $omega$: $$n_*=omega,$$
and then he continues:
be such that $n_*geqtext{max}{n(0),...,n(m-1)}<omega.$



Does it make sense?










share|cite|improve this question





























    -1














    Here on the page $10$ in the $5$th line (the proof of lemma $1.10$), Shelah defines $n_*$ as $omega$: $$n_*=omega,$$
    and then he continues:
    be such that $n_*geqtext{max}{n(0),...,n(m-1)}<omega.$



    Does it make sense?










    share|cite|improve this question



























      -1












      -1








      -1







      Here on the page $10$ in the $5$th line (the proof of lemma $1.10$), Shelah defines $n_*$ as $omega$: $$n_*=omega,$$
      and then he continues:
      be such that $n_*geqtext{max}{n(0),...,n(m-1)}<omega.$



      Does it make sense?










      share|cite|improve this question















      Here on the page $10$ in the $5$th line (the proof of lemma $1.10$), Shelah defines $n_*$ as $omega$: $$n_*=omega,$$
      and then he continues:
      be such that $n_*geqtext{max}{n(0),...,n(m-1)}<omega.$



      Does it make sense?







      sequences-and-series set-theory boolean-algebra natural-numbers






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 5 '18 at 18:06







      user122424

















      asked Dec 5 '18 at 17:36









      user122424user122424

      1,1032616




      1,1032616






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2














          The paper you are quoting does not say




          $n_*geq{text{max}(n(0),...,n(m-1)}<omega.$




          it says




          $n_*geqtext{max}{n(0),...,n(m-1)}<omega.$




          and certainly if the middle $<omega$, it is going to be less than $n_ast=omega$.



          I can't speak for the rest of the paper, but I don't see anything particularly odd about the line.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Fine, and what are $n$ and $m$ there?
            – user122424
            Dec 5 '18 at 17:54






          • 1




            @user122424 The $n(..)$'s are defined right after the last ${1.4}$ marker on page 9.
            – Not Mike
            Dec 5 '18 at 18:39












          • @NotMike But how is $n(...$ a function. It appears to me that it is a number $<omega$ ...But on the page $10$ 5th line they put arguments to it: $n(0),...,n(m-1)$
            – user122424
            Dec 6 '18 at 12:47












          • @user122424 by induction/recursion
            – Not Mike
            Jan 2 at 11:43











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3027389%2fcomplicated-index-models-and-boolean-algebras-shelah-unclear-step-in-the-proof%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          2














          The paper you are quoting does not say




          $n_*geq{text{max}(n(0),...,n(m-1)}<omega.$




          it says




          $n_*geqtext{max}{n(0),...,n(m-1)}<omega.$




          and certainly if the middle $<omega$, it is going to be less than $n_ast=omega$.



          I can't speak for the rest of the paper, but I don't see anything particularly odd about the line.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Fine, and what are $n$ and $m$ there?
            – user122424
            Dec 5 '18 at 17:54






          • 1




            @user122424 The $n(..)$'s are defined right after the last ${1.4}$ marker on page 9.
            – Not Mike
            Dec 5 '18 at 18:39












          • @NotMike But how is $n(...$ a function. It appears to me that it is a number $<omega$ ...But on the page $10$ 5th line they put arguments to it: $n(0),...,n(m-1)$
            – user122424
            Dec 6 '18 at 12:47












          • @user122424 by induction/recursion
            – Not Mike
            Jan 2 at 11:43
















          2














          The paper you are quoting does not say




          $n_*geq{text{max}(n(0),...,n(m-1)}<omega.$




          it says




          $n_*geqtext{max}{n(0),...,n(m-1)}<omega.$




          and certainly if the middle $<omega$, it is going to be less than $n_ast=omega$.



          I can't speak for the rest of the paper, but I don't see anything particularly odd about the line.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Fine, and what are $n$ and $m$ there?
            – user122424
            Dec 5 '18 at 17:54






          • 1




            @user122424 The $n(..)$'s are defined right after the last ${1.4}$ marker on page 9.
            – Not Mike
            Dec 5 '18 at 18:39












          • @NotMike But how is $n(...$ a function. It appears to me that it is a number $<omega$ ...But on the page $10$ 5th line they put arguments to it: $n(0),...,n(m-1)$
            – user122424
            Dec 6 '18 at 12:47












          • @user122424 by induction/recursion
            – Not Mike
            Jan 2 at 11:43














          2












          2








          2






          The paper you are quoting does not say




          $n_*geq{text{max}(n(0),...,n(m-1)}<omega.$




          it says




          $n_*geqtext{max}{n(0),...,n(m-1)}<omega.$




          and certainly if the middle $<omega$, it is going to be less than $n_ast=omega$.



          I can't speak for the rest of the paper, but I don't see anything particularly odd about the line.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          The paper you are quoting does not say




          $n_*geq{text{max}(n(0),...,n(m-1)}<omega.$




          it says




          $n_*geqtext{max}{n(0),...,n(m-1)}<omega.$




          and certainly if the middle $<omega$, it is going to be less than $n_ast=omega$.



          I can't speak for the rest of the paper, but I don't see anything particularly odd about the line.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Dec 5 '18 at 17:49









          rschwiebrschwieb

          105k12100245




          105k12100245












          • Fine, and what are $n$ and $m$ there?
            – user122424
            Dec 5 '18 at 17:54






          • 1




            @user122424 The $n(..)$'s are defined right after the last ${1.4}$ marker on page 9.
            – Not Mike
            Dec 5 '18 at 18:39












          • @NotMike But how is $n(...$ a function. It appears to me that it is a number $<omega$ ...But on the page $10$ 5th line they put arguments to it: $n(0),...,n(m-1)$
            – user122424
            Dec 6 '18 at 12:47












          • @user122424 by induction/recursion
            – Not Mike
            Jan 2 at 11:43


















          • Fine, and what are $n$ and $m$ there?
            – user122424
            Dec 5 '18 at 17:54






          • 1




            @user122424 The $n(..)$'s are defined right after the last ${1.4}$ marker on page 9.
            – Not Mike
            Dec 5 '18 at 18:39












          • @NotMike But how is $n(...$ a function. It appears to me that it is a number $<omega$ ...But on the page $10$ 5th line they put arguments to it: $n(0),...,n(m-1)$
            – user122424
            Dec 6 '18 at 12:47












          • @user122424 by induction/recursion
            – Not Mike
            Jan 2 at 11:43
















          Fine, and what are $n$ and $m$ there?
          – user122424
          Dec 5 '18 at 17:54




          Fine, and what are $n$ and $m$ there?
          – user122424
          Dec 5 '18 at 17:54




          1




          1




          @user122424 The $n(..)$'s are defined right after the last ${1.4}$ marker on page 9.
          – Not Mike
          Dec 5 '18 at 18:39






          @user122424 The $n(..)$'s are defined right after the last ${1.4}$ marker on page 9.
          – Not Mike
          Dec 5 '18 at 18:39














          @NotMike But how is $n(...$ a function. It appears to me that it is a number $<omega$ ...But on the page $10$ 5th line they put arguments to it: $n(0),...,n(m-1)$
          – user122424
          Dec 6 '18 at 12:47






          @NotMike But how is $n(...$ a function. It appears to me that it is a number $<omega$ ...But on the page $10$ 5th line they put arguments to it: $n(0),...,n(m-1)$
          – user122424
          Dec 6 '18 at 12:47














          @user122424 by induction/recursion
          – Not Mike
          Jan 2 at 11:43




          @user122424 by induction/recursion
          – Not Mike
          Jan 2 at 11:43


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3027389%2fcomplicated-index-models-and-boolean-algebras-shelah-unclear-step-in-the-proof%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Basket-ball féminin

          Different font size/position of beamer's navigation symbols template's content depending on regular/plain...

          I want to find a topological embedding $f : X rightarrow Y$ and $g: Y rightarrow X$, yet $X$ is not...