$M\models 2^\alpha=\alpha^+\ \forall \alpha<\kappa\longrightarrow 2^\kappa=\kappa^+$ if $M$ is a model of ZFC given by a measurable cardinal

In Jech 1978, page 319 (lemma 28.13), we read:

Let $\kappa$ be a measurable cardinal. If $2^{\kappa} > \kappa^+$, then the set $\{\alpha < \kappa : 2^α > α^+\}$ has measure one for every normal measure on κ. Consequently, if $2^α = α^+$ for all cardinals $α < κ$, then $2^κ = κ^+$.

Proof. Let $D$ be a normal measure on $κ$, and let $M = Ult_D(V )$. If $2^α = α^+$ for almost all $α$, then, since $[d]_D = κ$, we have $M \models 2^κ = κ^+$.

Now why is the latter true? I proved that $[d]^+=[d^+]$, where $d$ is the identity function of $\kappa$ seen in the ultrapower and $d^+$ is the function $d(\alpha)=\alpha^+$ for all cardinals $\alpha<\kappa$ (and arbitrarily defined on the other ordinals less than $\kappa$, since they have measure $0$). But now I don't know how to use this to conclude.

Thank you in advance for any suggestions.

EDIT: Sorry for my previous question,the comouter saved it wrong.

  • $\begingroup$ So, what's your question? (Also: Please improve the formatting of your question. The MathJax code in your quote is broken in many places.) $\endgroup$ – Stefan Mesken Oct 22 '17 at 16:12
  • $\begingroup$ Now your quote is missing part of the argument, e.g. that $M$ and $\operatorname{Ult}_D(V)$ have the same powerset of $\kappa$. $\endgroup$ – Stefan Mesken Oct 22 '17 at 16:21
  • $\begingroup$ Yes: the latter part was clear, so I omitted it from the quote: my question is about the last sentence of the actual quote. Thank you. $\endgroup$ – W. Rether Oct 22 '17 at 16:24
  • $\begingroup$ The latter part depends on the argument that you now omitted from the proof. $\endgroup$ – Stefan Mesken Oct 22 '17 at 16:26
  • $\begingroup$ Are you sure? I thought that the last part showed only that, assuming the statement true in $M$, then it is true in $V$. $\endgroup$ – W. Rether Oct 22 '17 at 16:33

The fact that $M \models 2^{\kappa} = \kappa^{+}$ follows immediately from Łoś's theorem. In fact $$ \{ \alpha < \kappa \mid 2^{\alpha} = \alpha^+ \} = \{ \alpha < \kappa \mid \operatorname{GCH}_{d(\alpha)} \} \in D $$ and thus $$ M \models \operatorname{GCH}_{[d]}, $$ i.e. $$ M \models 2^{\kappa} = \kappa^{+}. $$

However, we also get:

Claim. $V \models 2^{\kappa} = \kappa^{+}$.

Proof. Since $M \subseteq V$, we have that $(\kappa^{+})^{M} \ge (\kappa^{+})^{V}$ and, since $V$ and $M$ have the same powerset of $\kappa$, we get that $V \models 2^{\kappa} \le (\kappa^{+})^{M}$. It hence suffices to show that $(\kappa^{+})^{V} = (\kappa^{+})^{M}$.

Suppose otherwise. Then $(\kappa^{+})^{V} < (\kappa^{+})^{M}$ and thus, in $M$, there is a well-order $R \subseteq \kappa \times \kappa$ of order type $(\kappa^{+})^{V}$. This set exists in $V$ which is absurd. Q.E.D.

  • $\begingroup$ It took you six minutes. You lied in the comments! $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Oct 22 '17 at 17:45
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila Yes, I'm painfully aware. Turns out that - in my draft - I considered $M$ as my model and $\operatorname{Ult}_{D}(M)$ as its ultrapower. It took a bit extra time to fix that. $\endgroup$ – Stefan Mesken Oct 22 '17 at 17:58
  • $\begingroup$ C'mon, either $M$ is a set model, or an ultrapower. What next? $\beta$ for Woodin cardinals??? :P $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Oct 22 '17 at 17:59
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila You are the one who called $\kappa$ a Woodin cardinal! Plus, in my part of the universe, $M$ is an inner model ;-) $\endgroup$ – Stefan Mesken Oct 22 '17 at 18:05
  • $\begingroup$ So... supercompact cardinals cannot be called $\kappa$ anymore? Or are you claiming that supercompact cardinals are not Woodin cardinals? ;-) $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Oct 22 '17 at 19:14

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.