Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

If $\kappa$ is a measurable cardinal, and $\mathcal{U}$ is a normal ultrafilter which is $\kappa$-complete then $\mathcal{U}$ extends the club filter (i.e. every club is a member of $\mathcal{U}$).

One result is that all the sets in the ultrafilter are stationary.

Now, given a stationary set $S$ such that its complement in $\kappa$ is also stationary (i.e. there is no club subset in $S$) we can choose either to include $S$ or $\kappa\setminus S$ in an extension of an ultrafilter.

I am stuck in showing that I can have a normal ultrafilter with either $S$ or $\kappa\setminus S$ for every stationary $S$.

(I have to prove something else, but it really reduces to this claim.)

Edit:
In light of how the above statement is false, I will just give the original question:
I have to show that there can be a normal ultrafilter such that the set of measurable cardinals below $\kappa$ is not in the ultrafilter.

If there aren't stationary many of them - then clearly it's true. And since the limit of $\omega$ measurable cardinals is singular (ergo non-measurable); the only nontrivial case is when there is a stationary set of measurable cardinals.

I prefer hints over partial solutions, and partial solutions over complete solutions. Thanks.

share|improve this question
    
I do not understand what you mean by "an extension of an ultrafilter". Such a thing wouldn't be a filter (unless it is the trivial extension where nothing is added). –  Andres Caicedo Dec 30 '10 at 17:37
    
Andres: I meant to say extension to an ultrafilter, but that's irrelevant anyway... –  Asaf Karagila Dec 30 '10 at 17:44

1 Answer 1

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Asaf, what you are saying is false. In $L[\mu]$, for example, there is a unique normal ultrafilter. (Unless I misunderstand. You are saying that for every $S$ stationary-costationary, you can find a normal $U$ with $S\in U$, right? Obviously, any normal $U$ satisfies that either $S$ or $\kappa\setminus S$ is in $U$, which is what you wrote.)


Edit : This is a nice homework problem. There are several different solutions, and you may want to study them afterward. Here is a way of thinking about this; it is perhaps not the most efficient, but it is very useful. Suppose $U$ on $\kappa$ is normal and concentrates on measurables. Then $\kappa$ is measurable in $M$, where $j:V\to M$ is given by $U$. So there is a normal $U'$ on $\kappa$ in $M$, and $U'$ really is normal (in $V$, not just in $M$). Let $k:V\to N$ be given by $U'$. what can you say about the sizes of $j(\kappa)$ vs $k(\kappa)$ ?

Here is another approach: Use induction, use that you are at a measurable (so you have a normal $U$) and "integrate" the measures on small cardinals witnessing the claim. Check that the resulting measure is as you want.


Let me add a couple of details to the first approach (I know it is more elaborate than the other one, but the payoff is worth the effort):

If $j:V\to M$ is the ultrapower embedding by a normal measure $U$ on $\kappa$, then ${}^\kappa M\subset M$ and from this it is easy to check that if $M\models$"$U'$ is a normal measure on $\kappa$", then $U'$ is a normal measure on $\kappa$ in $V$.

Now, suppose that $U$ concentrates on measurables. Since the identity represents $\kappa$ in $M$, it follows that $\kappa$ is measurable in $M$, and there is $U'$ as mentioned.

Essentially, we want to iterate this process: Form the embedding $k:V\to N$ given by $U'$, and if $U'$ concentrates on measurables, then we get $U''$ in $N$ and form $l:V\to P$, etc. We would like this process to stop after finitely many times. For this, we want to associate to a normal measure $U$ on $\kappa$ an ordinal $\alpha_U$ in such a way that if $U'$ is in the ultrapower by $U$, then $\alpha_{U'}<\alpha_U$.

The easiest way to do this is to set $\alpha_U=j(\kappa)$. If $U'\in M$, we can form in $M$ the ultrapower embedding by $U'$, call $k'$ the result, so $k':M\to M'$, and recall we called $k:V\to N$ the ultrapower of $V$ by $U'$. The point is that $k'(\kappa)=k(\kappa)$, because ${}^\kappa M\subset M$, so all functions $f:\kappa\to\kappa$ are in $M$, and this and $U'$ is all we need to compute the value of the embedding at $\kappa$.

But $M\models$"$j(\kappa)$ is inaccessible, while $k'(\kappa)<(2^\kappa)^+$", so $k'(\kappa)<j(\kappa)$, so $k(\kappa)<j(\kappa)$ or $\alpha_{U'}<\alpha_U$.

A posteriori, this argument shows that the relation $\prec$ on normal ultrafilters on $\kappa$ given by "$U'\prec U$ iff $U'$ belongs to the ultrapower by $U$" is well-founded, and so we can assign to $U$ the ordinal $o(U)$ given by its rank in this well-founded relation. This is Mitchell's ordering, and it is a very useful tool in large cardinal theory.

share|improve this answer
    
Andres, this reminds me what my discrete math teacher used to tell us: if you can't manage to prove something, and you later find out it's false it means you did a good job. I guess I'll just write the original question then ;) –  Asaf Karagila Dec 30 '10 at 17:40
    
We did not meet the term "really normal" in the course, nor I can recall seeing it on Jech, could you elaborate on this please? (or just rephrase in case you just wanted to make a point which was lost in the words) –  Asaf Karagila Dec 30 '10 at 18:11
    
@Asaf : I simply meant "it is normal in $V$, not just in $M$", I reworded the sentence to make this clear, and added another approach. The first one is Bill Mitchell's, the second is Solovay's. –  Andres Caicedo Dec 30 '10 at 19:30
    
@Asaf: Let me know once the homework is due and I'll add a few details. –  Andres Caicedo Jan 1 '11 at 1:30
    
@Andres: It is due tomorrow. I took the second approach, and I think I did well. –  Asaf Karagila Jan 1 '11 at 6:12

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.