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.

I have the following well-known exercise in cardinal arithmetics:

If $\kappa, \lambda$ are cardinals such that $\lambda$ is infinite, then $\kappa^{<\lambda}$ equals the supremum of the $\kappa^{\theta}$, where $\theta < \lambda$ is a cardinal.

1) Isn't this false for $\kappa=1$? The left side is $\lambda$ and the right side $1$. Remark that $\kappa^{<\lambda}$ is defined to be the cardinality of the disjoint(?) union of the function sets $map(\alpha,\kappa)$, where $\alpha < \lambda$ is an ordinal.

2) Is this supremum understood as a cardinal supremum or an ordinal supremum? If the latter is the case, why should the supremum be a cardinal at all?

3) Anyway, I don't know how to solve this exercise. I've already seen it several times, but 1) and 2) remain obscure in the literature I know.

share|improve this question
    
Certainly, the sets $map(\alpha,\kappa)$ are disjoint for distinct $\alpha$: each element is a function with domain $\alpha$, so if $\alpha\neq\beta$, then $map(\alpha,\kappa)$ is disjoint from $map(\beta,\kappa)$ (the functions have different domains, so they are different as sets of ordered pairs). –  Arturo Magidin Sep 1 '10 at 19:10
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

First, (2): if you define a cardinal to be an ordinal that is not bijectable with any strictly smaller ordinal, then suppose that $\alpha$ is the ordinal supremum of $\kappa^{\theta}$, $\theta\lt\lambda$. Let $\beta$ be a strictly smaller ordinal than $\alpha$. By the definition of supremum, there must exist a $\theta\lt\lambda$ such that $\beta\lt\kappa^{\theta}\leq\alpha$; in particular, $\kappa^{\theta}$ cannot be bijected with $\beta$ (being a cardinal), and therefore neither can $\alpha$ (that would give an embedding of $\kappa^{\theta}$ into $\beta$, and Cantor-Bernstein would give you $|\beta|=\kappa^{\theta}$, contradicting that the latter is not bijectable with any strictly smaller ordinal). Thus, $\alpha$ is not bijectable with any strictly smaller ordinal, and so must be a cardinal. So whether you define the supremum as the ordinal-sup or the cardinal-sup, you will still get a cardinal (this holds for any set of cardinals).

Second, (1): you are correct that the definition does not match this for $\kappa=1$ (or for $\kappa = 0$); as noted by Carl in the comments, this is likely an erratum or ommission; it should hold for any $\kappa>1$.

Edit: The definition as a sum is done running over all ordinals, rather than all cardinals, so I'm fixing this below.

Finally, (3): you are trying to show that the supremum of the $\kappa^{\theta}$ equals the sum over all ordinals $\alpha<\lambda$ of $|\kappa^{\alpha}$, assuming $\kappa\geq 2$ (to prevent the problems noted). This because $|\kappa^{\alpha}|=|map(\theta,\kappa)|$ by definition, and the cardinality of the disjoint union is the cardinal sum. I believe this can be shown by transfinite induction on $\lambda$ as I do below, but there probably is a simpler method.

So, the proposition we want to show is that for any infinite ordinal $\lambda$, we have $$\sup_{\alpha\lt\lambda}|\kappa^{\alpha}| = \sum_{\alpha\lt\lambda}|\kappa^{\alpha}|.$$

First, the equality holds for $\lambda=\omega$: if $2\leq \kappa\lt\aleph_0$, then $\sup\{|\kappa^n|\,|\, n=0,1,2,3,\ldots\} = \aleph_0$ and $\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}|\kappa^n| = \aleph_0$; if $\aleph_0\leq\kappa$, then $|\kappa^n|=\kappa$ for all $n$, and $\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}|\kappa^n| = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\kappa = \kappa\aleph_0=\kappa$, so both sides agree.

Assume the result holds for $\lambda$; then the supremum of $|\kappa^{\alpha}|$ with $\alpha\lt\lambda^+$ is $|\kappa^{\lambda}|$; on the other hand, $$\sum_{\alpha\lt\lambda^+}|\kappa^{\alpha}| = \left(\sum_{\alpha\lt\lambda}|\kappa^{\alpha}|\right) + \kappa^{\lambda} = \sup_{\alpha\lt\lambda}|\kappa^{\alpha}|+|\kappa^{\lambda}|=|\kappa^{\lambda}|,$$ where the last equality holds because $|\kappa^{\alpha}|\leq |\kappa^{\lambda}|$ for each $\alpha\lt \lambda$, so the supremum is at most $|\kappa^{\lambda}|$, and the sum of two infinite cardinals is equal to their maximum. So again the two expressions agree.

Finally, we want to show that if $\lambda$ is a limit ordinal and the result holds for all $\beta\lt\lambda$, then it holds for $\lambda$. Then $$\sup_{\alpha\lt\lambda}(|\kappa^{\alpha}|) = \sup_{\beta\lt\lambda}\left(\sup_{\alpha\lt\beta}(|\kappa^{\alpha}|\right) = \sup_{\beta\lt\lambda}\sum_{\alpha\lt\beta}|\kappa^{\alpha}| = \sum_{\alpha\lt\lambda}(|\kappa^{\alpha}|).$$ So the equality holds for $\lambda$ as well. This establishes the result by transfinite induction for all infinite ordinals $\lambda$

Further Edit, 2 Sep 2010: Clarify how to finish it off.

So, the above shows that for any ordinal $\lambda$, $\sup_{\alpha\lt\lambda}|\kappa^{\alpha}| = \sum_{\alpha\lt\lambda}|\kappa^{\alpha}|$. To finish the exercise, we need to show that if $\lambda$ is a cardinal (that is, an ordinal that is not bijectable with any strictly smaller ordinal), then $\sup\{|\kappa^{\alpha}|\colon\alpha$ is an ordinal and $\alpha\lt\lambda\} = \sup\{|\kappa^{\theta}|\colon \theta$ is a cardinal and $\theta\lt\lambda\}$. To see this, note that $|\kappa^{\alpha}|=|\kappa|^{|\alpha|}$, and since $\lambda$ is assumed to be a cardinal, if $\alpha\lt\lambda$, then there exists a cardinal $\theta$, $\theta\lt\lambda$, such that $|\alpha|=|\theta|$, and hence $|\kappa^{\alpha}|=|\kappa^{\theta}|$. Thus, the two sets are equal, so their suprema are equal as well.

share|improve this answer
1  
The question matches up with the definitions in Kunen's book, and the exercise mentioned above is problem 15 on page 44. Kunen defines $\kappa^{<\lambda}$ on p. 34. I think this may just be an erratum. –  Carl Mummert Sep 1 '10 at 19:08
    
Thanks for the citation. I think the only problems arise if $\kappa = 0$ or $\kappa=1$; otherwise, I think the sum equals the supremum (as all summands will be infinite), so it is indeed likely to be just an error of omission. –  Arturo Magidin Sep 1 '10 at 19:27
1  
Thanks. But this uses the definition $\kappa^{<\lambda} = \sum_{\theta} |\kappa^\alpha|$, where $\theta$ runs through the cardinals below $\lambda$. However, in Kunen's book, it runs through all ordinals. –  Martin Brandenburg Sep 2 '10 at 0:00
    
This shouldn't be a problem with the induction. Let me try fix it and see. –  Arturo Magidin Sep 2 '10 at 2:22
    
Sorry, another correction: The exercise talks about the supremum of the $\kappa^{\theta}$, where $\theta$ are cardinals. However, in the sum, we take arbitrary ordinals. This is actually the whole problem ... –  Martin Brandenburg Sep 2 '10 at 7:41
show 2 more comments

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.