Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I am trying to understand the proof of the statement (Jech 7.15)

If $B$ is an infinite complete Boolean algebra, then $\operatorname{sat}(B)$ is a regular uncountable cardinal. I understand the following:

If we let $\kappa = \operatorname{sat}(B)$, then it must be uncountable. Assume $\kappa$ is singular, and we hope to get a contradiction. We define $B_u:= \{v \in B \mid v \le u \}$ and let $\operatorname{sat}(u)$ denote $\operatorname{sat}(B_u)$. An element $u \in B$ is stable if $\operatorname{sat}(v) = \operatorname{sat}(u)$ whenever $v \le u$. The set $S$ forms a dense subalgebra of B, and if we construct a maximal set of pairwise disjoint elements of $S$ (via Zorn's Lemma), then this in fact forms a partition of $B$, with $|T| < \kappa$.

Now here is the part I don't understand

"First we show that $\operatorname{sup}\{ sat(u) | u \in T \} = \kappa$. For every regular $\lambda < \kappa$ such that $\lambda > |T|$, consider a partition $W$ of $B$ of size $\lambda$. Then at least one $u \in T$ is partitioned by $W$ into $\lambda$ pieces."

Now why does only considering regular cardinals $\lambda$ give any information about what the supremum of that set is? And why is the last sentence true?

Any help would be appreciated.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

Since $\kappa$ is singular then it is not a successor. So let say $\kappa=sup\{\theta_\xi: \xi<cof(\kappa)\}$ then $\kappa=sup\{\theta^+_\xi: \xi< cof(\kappa)\}$. Thus, it suffices to consider the regular cardinals.

On the other hand, the partition $W$ induces a partition on the elements of $T$ if every element $u\in T$ is partitioned by $W$ in less than $\lambda$ pieces then by the regularity of $\lambda$ and $\lambda > |T|$ would imply that $W$ has cardinality strictly less than $\lambda$.

share|cite|improve this answer
    
Thank you, you gave me just enough information to work it out (eventually) ! – Paul Slevin Feb 9 '12 at 21:22
    
Why does the partition on W induce a partition on each element of T? – qwert4321 Jun 13 at 8:14

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.