Club sets and diagonal intersection
$begingroup$
Let $kappa$ be any regular cardinal, and let $<C_imid i<kappa>$ be a sequence of club sets. Define their diagonal intersection $Delta C_i$ as follows:
$Delta C_i = {alpha<kappa mid forall i<alpha:alphain C_i}$
I must prove that this set is also club. Now, I would like to consider the following supposed counterexample. Clearly, $omega$ is regular, so if I define the following sequence of sets:
$C_i ={p_i ^n mid ninmathbb N}$
Where $p_i$ is the $i$th prime number, we have a sequence of infinite (trivially) club sets with no pairwise intersection. If I understand correctly, this means that every number larger than $1$ is an element of $0$ or $1$ sets, and is not an element of the diagonal intersection. In particular, the diagonal intersection contains only $2$ elements, and so it is not unbounded and not club.
I assume this counterexample fails somewhere, as I was supposed to prove the claim. Can anyone please help me locate my error?
set-theory cardinals
asked Dec 9 '18 at 17:10
Uri George PeterzilUri George Peterzil
929
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $kappa$ be any regular cardinal, and let $<C_imid i<kappa>$ be a sequence of club sets. Define their diagonal intersection $Delta C_i$ as follows:
$Delta C_i = {alpha<kappa mid forall i<alpha:alphain C_i}$
I must prove that this set is also club. Now, I would like to consider the following supposed counterexample. Clearly, $omega$ is regular, so if I define the following sequence of sets:
$C_i ={p_i ^n mid ninmathbb N}$
Where $p_i$ is the $i$th prime number, we have a sequence of infinite (trivially) club sets with no pairwise intersection. If I understand correctly, this means that every number larger than $1$ is an element of $0$ or $1$ sets, and is not an element of the diagonal intersection. In particular, the diagonal intersection contains only $2$ elements, and so it is not unbounded and not club.
I assume this counterexample fails somewhere, as I was supposed to prove the claim. Can anyone please help me locate my error?
set-theory cardinals
asked Dec 9 '18 at 17:10
Uri George PeterzilUri George Peterzil
929
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
I looked at a few set theory books on my shelves (because I mainly know about the situation for $kappa = {omega}_1$ and wasn't sure of the exact hypothesis used for other cardinals), and the assumption for this diagonal intersection result is that $kappa$ is a regular cardinal with uncountable cofinality. Perhaps you overlooked this aspect, or maybe what you're looking at overlooked saying this (or made this assumption earlier in the discussion and you didn't notice)?
$endgroup$
– Dave L. Renfro
Dec 9 '18 at 17:22
$begingroup$
Ok, so there really was some confusion. Thank you for the clarification!
$endgroup$
– Uri George Peterzil
Dec 9 '18 at 17:29
$begingroup$
This result (when $kappa=cf (kappa)geq omega_1$) is used in proving an important tool known as Fodor's Lemma, or the Pressing-Down Lemma.
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Dec 9 '18 at 20:37
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $kappa$ be any regular cardinal, and let $<C_imid i<kappa>$ be a sequence of club sets. Define their diagonal intersection $Delta C_i$ as follows:
$Delta C_i = {alpha<kappa mid forall i<alpha:alphain C_i}$
I must prove that this set is also club. Now, I would like to consider the following supposed counterexample. Clearly, $omega$ is regular, so if I define the following sequence of sets:
$C_i ={p_i ^n mid ninmathbb N}$
Where $p_i$ is the $i$th prime number, we have a sequence of infinite (trivially) club sets with no pairwise intersection. If I understand correctly, this means that every number larger than $1$ is an element of $0$ or $1$ sets, and is not an element of the diagonal intersection. In particular, the diagonal intersection contains only $2$ elements, and so it is not unbounded and not club.
I assume this counterexample fails somewhere, as I was supposed to prove the claim. Can anyone please help me locate my error?
set-theory cardinals
asked Dec 9 '18 at 17:10
Uri George PeterzilUri George Peterzil
929
$endgroup$
Let $kappa$ be any regular cardinal, and let $<C_imid i<kappa>$ be a sequence of club sets. Define their diagonal intersection $Delta C_i$ as follows:
$Delta C_i = {alpha<kappa mid forall i<alpha:alphain C_i}$
I must prove that this set is also club. Now, I would like to consider the following supposed counterexample. Clearly, $omega$ is regular, so if I define the following sequence of sets:
$C_i ={p_i ^n mid ninmathbb N}$
Where $p_i$ is the $i$th prime number, we have a sequence of infinite (trivially) club sets with no pairwise intersection. If I understand correctly, this means that every number larger than $1$ is an element of $0$ or $1$ sets, and is not an element of the diagonal intersection. In particular, the diagonal intersection contains only $2$ elements, and so it is not unbounded and not club.
I assume this counterexample fails somewhere, as I was supposed to prove the claim. Can anyone please help me locate my error?
set-theory cardinals
set-theory cardinals
asked Dec 9 '18 at 17:10
Uri George PeterzilUri George Peterzil
929
asked Dec 9 '18 at 17:10
Uri George PeterzilUri George Peterzil
929
asked Dec 9 '18 at 17:10
Uri George PeterzilUri George Peterzil
929
asked Dec 9 '18 at 17:10
Uri George PeterzilUri George Peterzil
929
asked Dec 9 '18 at 17:10
Uri George PeterzilUri George Peterzil
929
929
2
$begingroup$
I looked at a few set theory books on my shelves (because I mainly know about the situation for $kappa = {omega}_1$ and wasn't sure of the exact hypothesis used for other cardinals), and the assumption for this diagonal intersection result is that $kappa$ is a regular cardinal with uncountable cofinality. Perhaps you overlooked this aspect, or maybe what you're looking at overlooked saying this (or made this assumption earlier in the discussion and you didn't notice)?
$endgroup$
– Dave L. Renfro
Dec 9 '18 at 17:22
$begingroup$
Ok, so there really was some confusion. Thank you for the clarification!
$endgroup$
– Uri George Peterzil
Dec 9 '18 at 17:29
$begingroup$
This result (when $kappa=cf (kappa)geq omega_1$) is used in proving an important tool known as Fodor's Lemma, or the Pressing-Down Lemma.
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Dec 9 '18 at 20:37
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
I looked at a few set theory books on my shelves (because I mainly know about the situation for $kappa = {omega}_1$ and wasn't sure of the exact hypothesis used for other cardinals), and the assumption for this diagonal intersection result is that $kappa$ is a regular cardinal with uncountable cofinality. Perhaps you overlooked this aspect, or maybe what you're looking at overlooked saying this (or made this assumption earlier in the discussion and you didn't notice)?
$endgroup$
– Dave L. Renfro
Dec 9 '18 at 17:22
$begingroup$
Ok, so there really was some confusion. Thank you for the clarification!
$endgroup$
– Uri George Peterzil
Dec 9 '18 at 17:29
$begingroup$
This result (when $kappa=cf (kappa)geq omega_1$) is used in proving an important tool known as Fodor's Lemma, or the Pressing-Down Lemma.
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Dec 9 '18 at 20:37
2
2
$begingroup$
I looked at a few set theory books on my shelves (because I mainly know about the situation for $kappa = {omega}_1$ and wasn't sure of the exact hypothesis used for other cardinals), and the assumption for this diagonal intersection result is that $kappa$ is a regular cardinal with uncountable cofinality. Perhaps you overlooked this aspect, or maybe what you're looking at overlooked saying this (or made this assumption earlier in the discussion and you didn't notice)?
$endgroup$
– Dave L. Renfro
Dec 9 '18 at 17:22
$begingroup$
I looked at a few set theory books on my shelves (because I mainly know about the situation for $kappa = {omega}_1$ and wasn't sure of the exact hypothesis used for other cardinals), and the assumption for this diagonal intersection result is that $kappa$ is a regular cardinal with uncountable cofinality. Perhaps you overlooked this aspect, or maybe what you're looking at overlooked saying this (or made this assumption earlier in the discussion and you didn't notice)?
$endgroup$
– Dave L. Renfro
Dec 9 '18 at 17:22
$begingroup$
Ok, so there really was some confusion. Thank you for the clarification!
$endgroup$
– Uri George Peterzil
Dec 9 '18 at 17:29
$begingroup$
Ok, so there really was some confusion. Thank you for the clarification!
$endgroup$
– Uri George Peterzil
Dec 9 '18 at 17:29
$begingroup$
This result (when $kappa=cf (kappa)geq omega_1$) is used in proving an important tool known as Fodor's Lemma, or the Pressing-Down Lemma.
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Dec 9 '18 at 20:37
$begingroup$
This result (when $kappa=cf (kappa)geq omega_1$) is used in proving an important tool known as Fodor's Lemma, or the Pressing-Down Lemma.
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Dec 9 '18 at 20:37
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
When talking about clubs/stationary sets/etc., we have to restrict to uncountable regular cardinals - or at least, ordinals of uncountable cofinality - to get a nontrivial theory. For example, both ${$evens$}$ and ${$odds$}$ are club in $omega$, but their intersection is empty; so it's not even diagonal intersection that fails, but regular (hehe) intersection!
answered Dec 9 '18 at 19:15
Noah SchweberNoah Schweber
123k10150285
$endgroup$
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3032620%2fclub-sets-and-diagonal-intersection%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
$begingroup$
When talking about clubs/stationary sets/etc., we have to restrict to uncountable regular cardinals - or at least, ordinals of uncountable cofinality - to get a nontrivial theory. For example, both ${$evens$}$ and ${$odds$}$ are club in $omega$, but their intersection is empty; so it's not even diagonal intersection that fails, but regular (hehe) intersection!
answered Dec 9 '18 at 19:15
Noah SchweberNoah Schweber
123k10150285
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
When talking about clubs/stationary sets/etc., we have to restrict to uncountable regular cardinals - or at least, ordinals of uncountable cofinality - to get a nontrivial theory. For example, both ${$evens$}$ and ${$odds$}$ are club in $omega$, but their intersection is empty; so it's not even diagonal intersection that fails, but regular (hehe) intersection!
answered Dec 9 '18 at 19:15
Noah SchweberNoah Schweber
123k10150285
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
When talking about clubs/stationary sets/etc., we have to restrict to uncountable regular cardinals - or at least, ordinals of uncountable cofinality - to get a nontrivial theory. For example, both ${$evens$}$ and ${$odds$}$ are club in $omega$, but their intersection is empty; so it's not even diagonal intersection that fails, but regular (hehe) intersection!
answered Dec 9 '18 at 19:15
Noah SchweberNoah Schweber
123k10150285
$endgroup$
When talking about clubs/stationary sets/etc., we have to restrict to uncountable regular cardinals - or at least, ordinals of uncountable cofinality - to get a nontrivial theory. For example, both ${$evens$}$ and ${$odds$}$ are club in $omega$, but their intersection is empty; so it's not even diagonal intersection that fails, but regular (hehe) intersection!
answered Dec 9 '18 at 19:15
Noah SchweberNoah Schweber
123k10150285
answered Dec 9 '18 at 19:15
Noah SchweberNoah Schweber
123k10150285
answered Dec 9 '18 at 19:15
Noah SchweberNoah Schweber
123k10150285
answered Dec 9 '18 at 19:15
Noah SchweberNoah Schweber
123k10150285
123k10150285
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3032620%2fclub-sets-and-diagonal-intersection%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
2
$begingroup$
I looked at a few set theory books on my shelves (because I mainly know about the situation for $kappa = {omega}_1$ and wasn't sure of the exact hypothesis used for other cardinals), and the assumption for this diagonal intersection result is that $kappa$ is a regular cardinal with uncountable cofinality. Perhaps you overlooked this aspect, or maybe what you're looking at overlooked saying this (or made this assumption earlier in the discussion and you didn't notice)?
$endgroup$
– Dave L. Renfro
Dec 9 '18 at 17:22
$begingroup$
Ok, so there really was some confusion. Thank you for the clarification!
$endgroup$
– Uri George Peterzil
Dec 9 '18 at 17:29
$begingroup$
This result (when $kappa=cf (kappa)geq omega_1$) is used in proving an important tool known as Fodor's Lemma, or the Pressing-Down Lemma.
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Dec 9 '18 at 20:37