6
$\begingroup$

Let $M$ be a transitive model of $\operatorname{ZFC-}$ and let $$ j \colon M \rightarrow N $$ be elementary with $\operatorname{crit}(j) = \kappa \in \operatorname{wfp}(N)$. Let $U_j$ be defined by $$ X \in U_j :\Leftrightarrow X \in \mathcal P(\kappa)^M \text{ and } \kappa \in j(X). $$

We say that $j$ is $\kappa$-pp ($\kappa$-powerset preserving) iff $\mathcal P(\kappa)^M = \mathcal P(\kappa)^N$. And we say that $U_j$ is $M$-amenable iff for all $f \in ^\kappa \mathcal P(\kappa) \cap M \colon \{ \alpha < \kappa \mid f(\alpha) \in U_j \} \in M$.

I'd like to see that $U_j$ to be $M$-amenable implies $j$ to be $\kappa$-pp.


My thoughts:

If $N = \operatorname{ult}(M; U_j)$, this is easy: Let $X \in \mathcal P(\kappa)^N$ and fix $h \in ^\kappa \kappa \cap M$ with $X = [h]$. Then for all $\alpha < \kappa \colon$ $$\begin{align} \alpha \in X & \Leftrightarrow [c_\alpha] \widetilde \in [h] \\ & \Leftrightarrow \{ \xi < \kappa \mid \alpha \in h(\xi) \} \in U_j \end{align}$$ Thus defining $f \colon \kappa \rightarrow \mathcal P(\kappa), \alpha \mapsto \{\xi < \kappa \mid \alpha \in h(\xi)\}$ yields $X = \{ \alpha < \kappa \mid f(\alpha) \in U_j \}$. As $f \in M$ (provided $\kappa \times \mathcal P(\kappa)^M \in M$), the $M$-amenability of $U_j$ yields $X \in M$.

So far, I don't see how to adopt the above to the situation where $N \neq \operatorname{ult}(M; U_j)$.

$\endgroup$
6
$\begingroup$

I think that your claim is false. I will try to construct a counterexample. Suppose that $\kappa$ is measurable and $U$ is a normal measure on $\kappa$. Let $j:V\to M$ be the ultrapower by $U$. First, we build $M\prec H_{\kappa^+}$ such that $U'=U\cap M$ is $M$-amenable. Let $M_0$ be any transitive elementary substructure of $H_{\kappa^+}$ of size $\kappa$. Let $M_1$ be a transitive elementary substructure of $H_{\kappa^+}$ which contains $M_0$ and $U\cap M_0$ as elements. Continuing in this way construct a sequence $\langle M_n\mid n<\omega\rangle$ and let $M=\bigcup_{n<\omega}M_n$. It is easy to see that $U'=U\cap M$ is $M$-amenable. Consider the restriction $j:M\to j(M)$. Note that by elementarity $j(M)\prec H_{j(\kappa)^+}^{M}$. Find some $j(M)\prec N\prec H_{j(\kappa)^+}^{M}$ such that $N$ has a subset of $\kappa$ not in $M$. Note that $j:M\to N$ is elementary and clearly the ultrafilter for $M$ generated from $j$ is precisely $U'$, which is $M$-amenable by construction.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Lookie lookie what the cardinal dragged in! :-) Welcome! $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Nov 25 '15 at 19:31
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, Asaf! It's all Neil Barton's fault with his $KM$ questions :). $\endgroup$ – Victoria Gitman Nov 25 '15 at 19:33
  • $\begingroup$ @Victoria Thank you very much. $\endgroup$ – Stefan Mesken Nov 25 '15 at 21:51
  • $\begingroup$ @Stefan You are welcome. It was a nice question. $\endgroup$ – Victoria Gitman Nov 25 '15 at 23:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.