Sign up ×
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.

Let $A$ be a set of infinite cardinals. Assume that for every regular $\lambda$, the subset $A \cap \lambda$ of $\lambda$ is not stationary. Then I want to prove that there is an injective function $g$ on $A$ which satisfies $g(\alpha) < \alpha$ for all $\alpha \in A$.

This is an exercise in Kunen's set theory. I dont' understand if $g$ should be a map from $A \to A$. But then the claim would be false if $A = \{\kappa\}$. But if $g$ may have arbitrary ordinal values, then the claim is somehow trivial, also without the assumptions. So I don't know what this exercise about.

share|cite|improve this question
What does "stationary" mean? Why is a singleton not stationary? – Arturo Magidin Sep 24 '10 at 16:35
Thanks. Unfortunately, it does not help me answer your question. – Arturo Magidin Sep 24 '10 at 17:27
@Arturo: if you look at the measure which gives all sets containing a closed and unbounded set a measure of 1, and all sets which are complements of such a measure of 0, then stationary sets are those of positive measure. – Asaf Karagila Sep 24 '10 at 22:47

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

The exercise is asking for a map from $A$ to the ordinals, not to itself. Why do you think the exercise is trivial? If $\lambda$ is regular and $A\cap\lambda$ is non-stationary (in $\lambda$) then there is a club subset of $\lambda$ disjoint from $A$. You can then pick $g(\lambda)$ in this club. You need to ensure, however, that this element is not $g(\tau)$ for some prior $\tau$, and this requires some argument: If, as suggested in another answer, you are to pick something larger than $\sup(g(\alpha)\mid\alpha\in A\cap\lambda)$, you need to argue that this supremum is strictly below $\lambda$. But this is not automatic (or true in general), as $A$ may contain all cardinals up to and including some inaccessible. Also, $A$ may contain singular cardinals, and you need to define $g$ on them as well.

share|cite|improve this answer
Ok, so how do we define $g$ in general? – Martin Brandenburg Sep 25 '10 at 9:59
Here is one way: Do you know how to prove that a subset A of a cardinal lambda is non-stationary iff there is an injective regressive function on A? The first step would be to prove this. Then, for the A of the exercise, take lambda=sup(A) (note lambda is indeed a cardinal). To do the first step, consider a club disjoint from A, and note that elements of A sit between consecutive elements of the club. This should give you a head start. – Andrés Caicedo Sep 25 '10 at 16:19
Hm no I don't know this lemma. And why is your $\lambda$ regular? – Martin Brandenburg Sep 27 '10 at 10:29
It needs not be. That's part of the point. – Andrés Caicedo Sep 27 '10 at 16:20
@AndresCaicedo You wrote "Do you know how to prove that a subset A of a cardinal lambda is non-stationary iff there is an injective regressive function on A?" But this cannot be true for silly reasons like $A = \omega_1 \subseteq \lambda = \omega_2$. I think the best one can do is the following: For any subset $A$ of a regular cardinal $\lambda$, $A$ is non stationary iff there is a regressive map $h:A \to \lambda$ which is not constant on an unbounded subset of $\lambda$. – hot_queen Jul 7 at 13:58

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.