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.

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

For a measurable cardinal $\kappa$, we define an ordering over $\kappa$-complete ultrafilters as follows:

Suppose $W,U$ are both $\kappa$-complete free ultrafilters over $\kappa$, we say that $U\lhd W$ if and only if $U\in M_W$ (where $M_W$ is the Mostowski collapse of $Ult_W(V)$).

I am trying to give an alternative definition which will ease the proofs I have to write regarding this order (it is a well-founded, irreflexive and transitive ordering, for example). However I am getting somewhat confused about the minor details.

We know that $U\lhd W \iff U\in M_W\iff \exists g\in V^\kappa\colon\pi([g]_W)=U$ (where $\pi$ is the collapse of $V^\kappa/W$ to $M_W$, and $[g]_W$ is the equivalence class of $g$ in $V^\kappa/W$).

In Mitchell's original paper he defined the order for normal measures as follows:

$U\lhd W$ if and only if there is some $A\in W$ and a sequence $U_i,\ i\in A$ such that $x\in\kappa$ (I guess it supposed to be $x\subseteq\kappa$) then $x\in U$ if and only if $\{i\in A\mid x\cap i\in U_i\}\in W$.

This seems like a definition which relies to some extent on the normality of $W$, and I wonder if this is really the case and if so, whether or not my intuition is correct and there is a similar extension of the definition to all the measures on $\kappa$.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 6 down vote accepted

The $U_i$ sequence in Mitchell's definition is playing the role of your function $g$, and his formulation relies on normality in that it assumes that $U_i$ concentrates on $i$, which would be true when $W$ is normal.

Without any normality assumption on $W$, you can say $U$ is Mitchell below $W$ if and only if there is $A\in W$ and measures $U_i$ for $i\in A$, concentrating on $k(i)$, for which $[k]_W=\kappa$ and

$$x\in U\quad\text{ if and only if }\quad\{\ i\in A\mid x\cap k(i)\in U_i\ \}\in W,$$

which seems to be the style of statement that you desire.

The right hand side is equivalent to $x\in [\langle U_i\rangle_i]_W$ by Los, since $x=j(x)\cap \kappa$.

share|cite|improve this answer
I'm not sure what would the sequence of measures is going to be if $o(W)=2$, is it just going to be $W$ itself or $U$ itself? – Asaf Karagila Jul 24 '11 at 14:56
For $o(W)=2$, you could just insist that each $U_i$ have $o(U_i)=1$. Alternatively, $W$ has order $2$ if there is a normal $U$ with $U_i$ as indicated, and each $U_i$ concentrates on measurable cardinals. – JDH Jul 24 '11 at 22:20
I think that I got confused about the role of $U_i$ along the way. I will sleep over that and give it a fresh try in the morning. (I was told that in the lack of amphetamines one should opt for REM sleep as a source of energy :-)) – Asaf Karagila Jul 24 '11 at 23:17
Okay, I think I understood the whole idea further (that sleep thing really works!), $U\lhd W$ if there is a sequence of measures over $k(i)$ (where $k$ represents $\kappa$) such that $U$ is coherent with respect to the sequence and to $W$. Now to see why the definitions are equivalent... – Asaf Karagila Jul 25 '11 at 7:06
It took some time to chew and swallow, but I think I got it! Many thanks! – Asaf Karagila Jul 26 '11 at 9:54

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.