I am reading Indecomposable ultrafilters and $0^\sharp$ by Jack Silver (pp.357-363 in Proceedings of the Tarski Symposium (Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics XXV), 1974).

He gives the definition of a indecomposable ultrafiler over $\kappa$ as:

$\mathcal{U}$ is a uniform ultrafilter over $\kappa$, and, whenever $\kappa=\bigcup_{\alpha<\lambda}I_\alpha$ where $\lambda<\kappa$, there is some countable subset $C$ of $\lambda$ such that $\bigcup_{\alpha \in C} I_\alpha \in \mathcal{U}$.

I.e. "any decomposition of $\kappa$ lies, countably, in $\mathcal{U}$", so to speak.

Then he gives an equivalent definition:

$\mathcal{U}$ is a uniform ultrafilter over $\kappa$, and $D$ is $\lambda$ descendingly complete for any regular $\lambda$ such that $\omega < \lambda < \kappa$ (i.e., if $\langle S_\alpha\mid\alpha<\lambda\rangle$ is a descending sequence of members of $\mathcal{U}$, then $\bigcap_{\alpha<\lambda} S_\alpha\in\mathcal{U}$).

The thing is: I am not able to see this equivalence. Any advice?

  • $\begingroup$ Is there a part that you can prove? $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Feb 5 '17 at 4:57
  • $\begingroup$ Nope, there isn't :( $\endgroup$ – edgar alonso Feb 5 '17 at 20:51

I think it's solved:

($\rightarrow$)Suppose indecomposability. Let $\langle I_\alpha:\alpha<\lambda\rangle$ be descending, $\omega<\lambda<\kappa$ regular and $I_\alpha \in D$ for $\alpha<\lambda$. If $\bigcap_{\alpha<\lambda}I_\alpha\notin\ D$ then $\kappa\setminus\bigcap_{\alpha<\lambda}I_\alpha=\bigcup_{\alpha<\lambda}\kappa\setminus I_\alpha\in D$. So, by the previous equivalence we can extract a $C\subset\lambda$ countable with: \begin{equation} \bigcup_{\alpha\in C}\kappa\setminus I_\alpha\in D. \end{equation} But $\langle \kappa\setminus I_\alpha:\alpha<\lambda\rangle$ is an increasing sequence, so $\bigcup_{\alpha\in C}\kappa\setminus I_\alpha= \kappa\setminus I_\gamma$, where $\gamma=\max C$, and thanks to regularity it is $<\lambda$. So $I_\gamma \notin D$ a contradiction.

($\leftarrow$)Now suppose $\lambda$-descending completeness for $\omega<\lambda<\kappa$ regular. Let $\lambda<\kappa$ and $\langle I_\alpha:\alpha<\lambda\rangle$ be such that $\bigcup_{\alpha<\lambda}I_\alpha=\kappa$. Without lost of generality we can take $\langle I_\alpha:\alpha<\lambda\rangle$ increasing --properly\footnote{If not we redefine $E_\alpha=\bigcup_{\beta\leq\alpha}I_\beta$, which is increasing.}. Now we suppose that $D$ is not indecomposable; therefore $I_\alpha\notin D$, $\alpha<\lambda$. Being $D$ an ultrafilter we know: $\kappa\setminus I_\alpha\in D$ and $\langle\kappa\setminus I_\alpha:\alpha<\lambda\rangle$ is descending --properly-- therefore $\bigcap_{\alpha<\lambda}\kappa\setminus I_\alpha\in D$ and $\neq\kappa$.

First suppose $cf(\lambda)=\omega$. Let $\langle \alpha_i:i<\omega\rangle$ be cofinal in $\lambda$. So that $\bigcap_{i<\omega}\kappa\setminus I_{\alpha_i}=\bigcap_{\alpha<\lambda}\kappa\setminus I_\alpha\in D$. But, because $\langle\kappa\setminus I_\alpha\rangle_{\alpha<\lambda}$ is descending properly, we know \begin{equation} \kappa\setminus(\bigcap_{i<\omega}\kappa\setminus I_{\alpha_i})\neq\kappa; \end{equation} but \begin{equation} \kappa\setminus(\bigcap_{i<\omega}\kappa\setminus I_{\alpha_i})=\bigcup_{i<\omega}I_{\alpha_i}=\bigcup_{\alpha<\lambda}I_{\alpha}=\kappa. \end{equation} a contradiction.

Now we assume $cf(\lambda)>\omega$. We remember that \begin{equation} E=E_\omega^\lambda=\{\eta<\lambda:cf(\eta)=\omega\} \end{equation} is stationary in $\lambda$. As before, for each $\eta\in E_\omega^\lambda$ we obtain $C_\eta\subset\eta$ countable and cofinal, for which $\bigcup_{\alpha\in C_\eta}I_\alpha\notin D$, so \begin{equation} \bigcap_{\alpha\in C_\eta}\kappa\setminus I_\alpha = \bigcap_{\alpha<\eta}\kappa\setminus I_\alpha \in D. \end{equation} Therefore $\langle D_\eta :\eta\in E\rangle$, $D_\eta=\bigcap_{\alpha\in C_\eta}\kappa\setminus I_\alpha$, is a descending sequence in $D$, and $\bigcap_{\eta\in E}D_\eta=\bigcap_{\alpha<\lambda}\kappa\setminus I_{\alpha}\in D$, but $\neq\kappa$. Exactly as before we obtain a contradiction.


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.