2
$\begingroup$

The following is stated on Wikipedia for Mahlo cardinals. Unfortunately, it's not sourced. Where can I find details? I wasn't able to google any articles dealing with Mahlo cardinals in $L$.

Since $On⊂L⊆V$, properties of ordinals that depend on the absence of a function or other structure (i.e. $\Pi_1^{ZF}$ formulas) are preserved when going down from $V$ to $L$. Hence initial ordinals of cardinals remain initial in L. Regular ordinals remain regular in $L$. Weak limit cardinals become strong limit cardinals in $L$ because the generalized continuum hypothesis holds in $L$. Weakly inaccessible cardinals become strongly inaccessible. Weakly Mahlo cardinals become strongly Mahlo. And more generally, any large cardinal property weaker than 0# (see the list of large cardinal properties) will be retained in $L$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Did you check Jech or Kanamori? Probably Drake has a proof of that too. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila May 19 '16 at 13:19
  • $\begingroup$ I've checked Jech and Kanamori, but I was looking for Mahlo in the register, it may be proven via Weakly Compact cardinals and then just by the way mentioning, that a weakly compact cardinal is also Mahlo. I would prefer a direct proof for Mahlo cardinals, do you think it's done that way somewhere? $\endgroup$ – mikulas May 19 '16 at 20:18
4
$\begingroup$

Let $\kappa$ be a Mahlo cardinal in $V$, i.e. let $\kappa$ be inaccessible such that $S:= \{ \alpha \in \kappa \mid \alpha \text{ is regular} \}$ is stationary in $\kappa$.

First, note that $L \models \kappa \text{ is inaccessible}$. Indeed, if $L \models \kappa \text{ is not a cardinal}$, then there is some $\mu < \kappa$ and some $f \in L$ such that $L \models f \colon \mu \to \kappa \text{ is surjective}$. However, this is a $\Sigma_{0}$ property and hence, in $V$, $f \colon \mu \to \kappa$ is surjective. Contradiction. Since $\kappa > \omega$ (as an ordinal), this also yields that $L \models \kappa \text{ is uncountable}$. Repeating this argument with cofinal $f \colon \mu \to \kappa$ yields that $L \models \kappa \text{ is regular}$.

Since $L \models \operatorname{GCH}$, it now suffices to prove that $L \models \kappa \text{ is a limit cardinal}$. This is trivial, because for any ordinal $\gamma < \kappa$, we have that $(\gamma^{+})^V < \kappa$ and since cardinals in $V$ are cardinals in $L$, this proves $$L \models \forall \gamma < \kappa \exists \gamma < \mu < \kappa \colon \mu \text{ is a cardinal}.$$

Now let $T := \{ \alpha \in \kappa \mid L \models \alpha \text{ is regular} \}$. By the argument given above, any $\alpha$ that is regular in $V$ is regular in $L$ and hence $S \subseteq T$. Suppose that $L \models \kappa \text{ is not Mahlo}$. Then there is some $C \subseteq \kappa$ such that $L \models C \text{ is club in } \kappa \text{ and } C \cap T = \emptyset$. Being club is a $\Sigma_0$, property and hence $C \subseteq \kappa$ is club in $\kappa$. Since $S \subseteq T$, we have that $C \cap S = \emptyset$ and hence $S$ is not stationary in $V$. This is a contradiction and we therefore must have that $L \models T \text{ is stationary}$.

Thus, $\kappa$ remains Mahlo in $L$.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Let $C(k)$ be the set of club subsets of $k.$ Let $R(k)=\{l\in k: l=cf(l)\}.$ Observe that for any set $S\subset On,$ if $S\in L$ then

(1) $\forall a\in On \;[\;\{b\cap S :b\in a\} \in L\;], \; \text {and}$

(2) $\forall a\in On\;[\;a=\cup (a\cap S)\iff L\Vdash (a= \cup (a\cap S)\;].$

(3) Also observe that $\forall a\in On\;[a=|a|\implies L\Vdash a=|a|.)]$

Let $C(k)$ be the set of club subsets of $k.$ From (1) and (2) we have $ C(k)\supset (C(k))^L.$ Let $R(k)=\{l<k: l=|l|\}.$ From (3), we have $R(k)\subset (R(k))^L.$

So for any $c\in (C(k))^L$ we have $c\in C(k), $ so $\emptyset\ne c\cap R(k)\subset c\cap (R(k))^L.$

Remark. If $k=|k|>\omega$ and $R(k)$ is stationary in $k,$ then $k$ must be weakly inaccessible. Obviously $k$ can't be a successor cardinal. If $k$ is singular then

(i): If $k>cf(k)=\omega $ let $f(n):\omega \to k$ be a co-final strictly increasing map with $f(0)=\omega.$ Let $g(n)=f(n)+1$ for $n\in \omega.$ Then $\{g(n):n\in \omega\}$ is club in $k$ and contains no cardinals.

(ii): If $k>cf (k)=l>\omega,$ let $S\subset k$ with $|S|=l$ and $\cup S=k.$ Let $C=\{a\in k: l<a=\cup (a\cap S)\}.$ It is easy to show that $C$ is club in $k.$ For $a\in C$ we have $cf (a)\leq |a\cap S|\leq l<a.$ So $C$ has no regular members.

$\endgroup$

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.