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

For any limit ordinal $\alpha$, $C$ is a c.u.b. set (closed unbounded set) in $\alpha$ iff $C$ is closed and unbounded in $\alpha$.

In Kunen's book, the Lemma of II 6.8 says:If $cf(\alpha) > \omega,$ then the intersection of any family of less than $cf(\alpha)$ c.u.b. subsets of $\alpha$ is c.u.b.

I think the his proof is a little complex. I prove it by this.

Prove: Let $C_\beta$ be c.u.b. in $\alpha$ for $\beta< \lambda$, where $\lambda<cf(\alpha),$ and let $D=\bigcap_{\beta<\lambda} C_\beta$. Of course $D$ is closed in $\alpha$. We only need to show that $D$ is unbounded in $\alpha$. To see this, for any $\xi<\alpha$, we want to find a ordinal $\gamma$ in $D$ such that $\xi<\gamma.$ For the given $\xi$, for every $\beta<\lambda$, there is a $\gamma_\beta \in C_\beta$ such that $\xi<\gamma_\beta$ for every $C_\beta$ is unbounded in the $\alpha$. Let $\gamma=\bigcup\{\gamma_\beta: \beta<\lambda\}$. Since $\lambda<cf(\alpha),$ we have $\gamma<\alpha$. For every $C_\beta$ is unbounded in $\alpha$, there is a ordinal in $C_\beta$ which is bigger than $\gamma$, by the transitive, we have $\gamma \in C_\beta$ for every $\beta$. Therefore $\gamma \in D$. This completes the proof.

However, I proof the lemma without applying the condition $cf(\alpha) > \omega$. I don't know where I am wrong. Could someone give some suggestions to me on this question? Thanks:)

In Kunen's argument, why does the $g^\omega(\xi)$ is in every $C_\beta$? It is said" for each $\beta$, $C_\beta$ is unbounded in $g^\omega(\xi)$, so $g^\omega(\xi)\in C_\beta$." I can't reach this point. Any help will be appreciated:P

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 2 down vote accepted

If $\operatorname{cf}(\alpha)=\omega$, $D$ can be empty even if $\lambda=2$. Take $\alpha=\omega$: $\{2n:n\in\omega\}$ and $\{2n+1:n\in\omega\}$ are disjoint cub’s in $\omega$. If you want an uncountable example, take $\alpha=\omega_\omega$; $\{\omega_n:n\in\omega\}$ and $\{\omega_n+1:n\in\omega\}$ are disjoint cub’s. (The last sentence before Definition 6.7 even points this out.)

The specific error in your argument is the claim that $\gamma\in C_\beta$ for every $\beta$: the fact that $\gamma$ is less than some member of $C_\beta$ does not imply that $\gamma\in C_\beta$: $C_\beta$ is in general not a transitive set.

Added: In the textbook argument you have a strictly increasing sequence $\langle g^n(\xi):n\in\omega\rangle$ of ordinals less than $\alpha$; since $\operatorname{cf}(\alpha)>\omega$, $g^\omega(\xi)\triangleq\sup\{g^n(\xi):n\in\omega\}<\alpha$ as well. Moreover, $g^0(\xi)=\xi$, so $g^\omega(\xi)>\xi$. Now consider the cub $C_\beta$. Recall that $f_\beta(\xi)$ is the smallest member of $C_\beta$ larger than $\xi$ and that $g(\xi)=\sup\{f_\gamma(\xi):\gamma<\lambda\}\ge f_\beta(\xi)$, so at this point we have $$\xi<f_\beta(\xi)\le g(\xi)\;.\tag{1}$$ Then we repeat the process: $g^1(\xi)=g(g^0(\xi))=g(g(\xi))$, so $(1)$ becomes $$g(\xi)<f_\beta(g(\xi))\le g(g(\xi))=g^1(\xi)\;.\tag{2}$$ In general we have

$$g^n(\xi)<f_\beta(g^n(\xi))\le g(g^n(\xi))=g^{n+1}(\xi)$$ for each $n\in\omega$, so we have an infinite chain

$$\xi=g^0(\xi)<f_\beta(g^0(\xi))\le g^1(\xi)<f_\beta(g^1(\xi))\le g^2(\xi)<\dots\;, $$ where $f_\beta(g^n(\xi))\in C_\beta$ for each $n\in\omega$. Since the strictly increasing sequences $\langle f_\beta(g^n(\xi)):n\in\omega\rangle$ and $\langle g^n(\xi):n\in\omega\rangle$ are ‘interlocked’, they have the same supremum, and therefore $g^\omega(\xi)=\sup\{f_\beta(g^n(\xi)):n\in\omega\}$. Again, recall that $f_\beta(g^n(\xi))\in C_\beta$ for each $n\in\omega$, so $g^\omega$ is the limit from below of members of $C_\beta$: $C_\beta\cap g^\omega(\xi)$ is an unbounded subset of $g^\omega(\xi)$, and therefore, by the definition of cub, $g^\omega\in C_\beta$. And since $\beta<\lambda$ was arbitrary, $g^\omega\in D$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Oh..., however, in Kunen's argument, why does the $g^\omega(\xi)$ is in every $C_\beta$? It is said" for each $\beta$, $C_\beta$ is unbounded in $g^\omega(\xi)$, so $g^\omega(\xi)\in C_\beta$." I can't reach this point. – Paul Jan 14 '12 at 5:15
@John: I’ve added an explanation of Ken’s argument to my original answer. – Brian M. Scott Jan 14 '12 at 6:19
@Brain, your explanation is very helpful for me. The result $g^\omega \in C_\beta$ is obtained for $C_\beta$ is closed, since $f_\beta{(g^n(\xi))} \in C_\beta$ and $g^\omega$ is a limit. Am I right? However, why we need "$C_\beta\cap g^\omega(\xi)$ is an unbounded subset of $g^\omega(\xi)$"? – Paul Jan 14 '12 at 7:45
@John: That’s just another way of saying that $g^\omega(\xi)$ is a limit point of $C_\beta\cap g^\omega(\xi)$, and therefore (since $C_\beta$ is closed) $g^\omega(\xi)\in C_\beta$. It also matches the way that cub was defined in Definition 6.6; that definition was chosen because it doesn’t require the reader to know any topology. – Brian M. Scott Jan 14 '12 at 7:52
@Brain: O...I see:) Now the lemma of c.u.b is very clear to me. Thanks Brain for your much help. Very grateful:) – Paul Jan 14 '12 at 8:00

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.