Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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 have a problem with an argument in Fine structure and iteration trees by Mitchell and Steel. Let $E$ be a $(\kappa, \lambda)$-extender. Let $\dot E^{\mathcal{M}}$ the a unary predicate with is interpreted as the extender sequence at $\alpha$. Let $\dot F^{\mathcal{M}}$ be a 3-ary predicate interpreted as the weakly amenable coding of $E_{\alpha}$.

Mitchell and Steel define the ultrapower in the case $\mathcal{M}$ is active. In the first page in there is case 1 where $\mu < \kappa$ ($\mu$ is the critical point of $\dot F^{\mathcal{M}}$).

The authors claim this directly implies that $g$ is constant almost everywhere ($g$ is defined a couple of line before the argument). I don't understand why that is so. Thanks for any help.

share|cite|improve this question
FSIT?${}{}{}{}$ – Asaf Karagila Oct 19 '12 at 4:54
Fine Structure and Iteration Trees, [MS] 1994 – user33714 Oct 19 '12 at 5:04
You want to put a proper citation, not everyone reading this will be aware of that. – Asaf Karagila Oct 19 '12 at 5:07
OK, I am editing this right now. Actually, looking a second time at it, I think I've got the answer I'm looking for. The above thing is true just by definition of an equivalence class in the ultrapower. If $\mu$ is less than $\kappa$ then nothing is moved by the embedding at the level of $\mu$ – user33714 Oct 19 '12 at 5:11
If you have an answer you can post it as an answer to your own question. Give it a day or two for some feedback, and then accept it if you are certain it is correct. – Asaf Karagila Oct 19 '12 at 5:18

Your Answer


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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.