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.

This is a question concerning the lemma discussed in Question about a proof about singular cardinals. In this question, it is proved that if an infinite cardinal $\kappa$ is singular, then it can be written as the sum of strictly smaller cardinals over a strictly smaller index set. What about the converse? If $\kappa=\sum_{\alpha<\lambda}\kappa_{\alpha}$, with $\lambda<\kappa$ and $\kappa_{\alpha}<\kappa$, then it follows easily that $\kappa=sup_{\alpha<\lambda}\kappa_{\alpha}$. But how do we get a strictly increasing sequence from this? Jech says by transfinite recursion, which I don't really know, so maybe there is a more elementary way of seeing it?

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

Let $\mu_\gamma=\sum_{\alpha<\gamma}\kappa_\alpha$, clearly $\mu_\alpha$ is a non-decreasing sequence, let $\{\mu_\alpha\mid\alpha<\lambda\}$ be the set of those cardinals. It has a strictly increasing natural order as a set of ordinals, which we can use to generate a strictly increasing sequence.

It remains to point out that this set has size $\lambda$, but it cannot have more elements, and not less because $\lambda$ is the cofinality of $\kappa$.

share|improve this answer

Given any cofinal function $f\colon \lambda\to\kappa$ it is a simple matter to derive a strictly increasing cofinal function $g\colon \lambda\to\kappa$ from it. This is defined as follows: $$g(\alpha)=\max\{f(\alpha),(\sup_{\beta<\alpha}g(\beta))+1\}$$ Note that this is really a definition by transfinite recursion, since we use the previous values of $g$ to define its value at $\alpha$. The $f(\alpha)$ term of the definition ensures that $g$ is cofinal and the $\sup_{\beta<\alpha} g(\beta)$ term ensures that it is strictly increasing.

share|improve this answer
    
This doesn’t ensure that $g$ is strictly increasing. –  Brian M. Scott Jan 17 '13 at 17:40
    
@BrianM.Scott You're right. I have a (bad) habit of ignoring finite quantities. What's +1 if there might be a measurable cardinal running around. –  Miha Habič Jan 17 '13 at 17:49
    
Immeasurably tiny! –  Brian M. Scott Jan 17 '13 at 17:59

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.