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

Assume $\kappa > \omega$ is a cardinal of uncountable cofinality and $S$ is a stationary set in $\kappa$. If $\alpha < \kappa$ is a successor ordinal then the set $S+\alpha=\{\sigma+\alpha : \sigma \in S\}$ is not stationary in $\kappa$ because it does not intersect the subset of limit ordinals in $\kappa$ (which is club in $\kappa$). Is $S + \alpha$ stationary in $\kappa$ if $\alpha < \kappa$ is a limit ordinal? What about the set $\{\sigma + \sigma : \sigma \in S\}$?

share|cite|improve this question
You should make it that $\operatorname{cf}(\kappa)>\omega$, otherwise there are clubs without any limit points as well. – Asaf Karagila Jun 21 '11 at 18:17
I also believe that this needs to be modified that $\operatorname{cf}(\alpha)<\operatorname{cf}(\kappa)$ in this case. I will address both these cases in my answer (granted I will have one... feel free to change your question in the meantime). – Asaf Karagila Jun 21 '11 at 18:30
@Asaf Karagila: Indeed, if we don't assume that $\kappa$ is of uncountable cofinality, then the limit ordinals might not be club in $\kappa$. Then $S+\alpha$ might be stationary even though $\alpha$ is a successor. I added the assumption on uncountable cofinality of $\kappa$. – LostInMath Jun 21 '11 at 18:39
I believe that you can cook something for $\alpha>\operatorname{cf}(\kappa)$ so it doesn't work (e.g. take $C$ a club of limit ordinals of minimal order type and $\alpha>\operatorname{cf}(\kappa)$ we might be able to cook some stationary set meeting $C$ and $C$ has no point with cofinality same as $\alpha$) – Asaf Karagila Jun 21 '11 at 18:45
If I recall correctly, the set of limits of limits is a club. Then if $\alpha=\omega,\ S+\alpha$ does not intersect this club. – Ross Millikan Jun 21 '11 at 18:50
up vote 5 down vote accepted

If $\kappa$ is regular and uncountable, then no set of the form $S = A + \alpha$ can be stationary (for any $A \subseteq \kappa$ and $\alpha \in \kappa$) by Fodor's lemma. The function which sends each $\beta \in S$ to the least $\gamma$ such that $\gamma + \alpha = \beta$ is regressive.

A similar argument shows that no set of the form $\{\alpha + \alpha : \alpha \in A\}$ is stationary (again, for regular $\kappa$).

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you for the answer. I think the same argument works also in the case $\kappa$ is singular. In that case, assuming $f:S \to \kappa$ is a regressive function from a stationary set $S$, Fodor's lemma guarantees a stationary set $f^{-1}[0,\gamma)$ for some ordinal $\gamma < \kappa$. And if we take your function $f$, then the sets $f^{-1}[0,\gamma)$ are clearly bounded by $\gamma+\alpha$, thus nonstationary. – LostInMath Jun 21 '11 at 21:25
You have to work a little harder than that, since regularity of $\kappa$ is part of the hypothesis of Fodor's lemma. – Brian M. Scott Jun 22 '11 at 20:45
@Brian M. Scott: It's true that in most formulations of Fodor's lemma the regularity of $\kappa$ is assumed. However, the following proposition is also true: if $\alpha$ is a limit ordinal with uncountable cofinality and $f: S \to \alpha$ is a regressive function from a stationary set $S \subset \alpha$, then the set $f^{-1}[0,\beta)$ is stationary in $\alpha$ for some $\beta < \alpha$. – LostInMath Jun 23 '11 at 11:35

Your Answer


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.