1
$\begingroup$

I want to show that, assuming AC, that if $\kappa$ is a regular cardinal then $\kappa^{<\kappa} = \max\{\kappa, 2^{<\kappa}\}$ where $\kappa^{<\lambda}$ is defined by $$\kappa^{<\lambda} = \sup\{\kappa^{\nu}\mid\nu \in Card , \nu < \lambda\}.$$
If $\kappa= \aleph_0$ then $\aleph_0^{<\aleph_0} = \sup\{\aleph_0^n\mid n \in \omega\} =\aleph_0^{\aleph_0} = 2^{\aleph_0} = \max\{\kappa, 2^{\kappa}\} = \max\{\kappa,2^{<\kappa}\}$.

If $\kappa$ is a successor cardinal, then $\kappa = \aleph_{S(\alpha)} = \aleph_{\alpha + 1}$ and, using Hausdorff's formula, we have $$\aleph_{\alpha+1}^{<\aleph_{\alpha +1}} = \sup\{\aleph_{\alpha+1}^{\aleph_{\beta}} \mid \beta < \alpha + 1\} = \sup\{\max\{\aleph_{\alpha+1},\aleph_{\alpha}^{\aleph_{\beta}}\} \mid\beta < \alpha + 1\} = \max\{ \aleph_{\alpha+1}, \sup\{{\aleph_{\alpha}^{\aleph_{\beta}}\mid\beta < \alpha + 1\}}\} = \max\{\aleph_{\alpha+1},\aleph_{\alpha}^{\aleph_{\alpha}}\}$$ and, since $\aleph_{\alpha}^{\aleph_{\alpha}} = 2^{\aleph_{\alpha}} = 2^{<\kappa}$ this case is proved.

I cannot prove the result for $\kappa$ limit. If $\kappa$ is limit and regular cardinal then it is weakly inaccessible, i.e. $\kappa = \aleph_\kappa$. I'm asking an hint for this part and if the rest of the proof is correct.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Note that $2^{<\kappa}\ge\kappa$, so all you are claiming is that if $\kappa$ is regular, then $\kappa^{<\kappa}=2^{<\kappa}$. $\endgroup$ – Andrés E. Caicedo Jan 16 '18 at 16:35
2
$\begingroup$

Your proof about $\aleph_0$ is definitely not correct. Note that $\aleph_0^n=\aleph_0$ for all $n>0$. Therefore $\sup\{\aleph_0^n\mid n\in\omega\}$ is literally $\sup\{1,\aleph_0\}=\max\{1,\aleph_0\}$. And I will let you figure that part out on your own.

Now, for the successor case, note that since this function is increasing, $\aleph_{\alpha+1}^{<\aleph_{\alpha+1}}=\aleph_{\alpha+1}^{\aleph_\alpha}$. This is equal to $\aleph_{\alpha+1}\cdot 2^{\aleph_\alpha}$, and incidentally $2^{\aleph_\alpha}=2^{<\aleph_{\alpha+1}}$, so the result follows.

But actually this proof also translates to the inaccessible case. If $\kappa$ is regular, limit or otherwise, and $\lambda<\kappa$, then every function from $\lambda$ to $\kappa$ is bounded. So $\kappa^\lambda$ is exactly $\sup\{\alpha^\lambda\mid\alpha<\kappa\}$.

Now, if $\kappa$ is a successor say $\lambda^+$, then this just $\kappa\cdot\lambda^\lambda=\kappa\cdot2^\lambda=\kappa\cdot2^{<\kappa}$; but if $\kappa$ is a limit cardinal, then we get $\kappa^\lambda$ to be $\sup\{\mu^\lambda\mid\mu<\kappa\text{ regular}\}$ which by the inductive hypothesis is eventually (read: for $\mu>\lambda$) equals to either $\mu$ or $2^\lambda$; since there are $\kappa$ many options for $\lambda$, we get exactly $\sup\{2^\lambda\mid\lambda<\kappa\}$ which is at least $\kappa$, but also exactly $2^{<\kappa}$ by definition.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I understand my mistake for $\aleph_0$-case but when i consider $\aleph_0^n$ for $n=0$, that is the cardinality of the set of all function from the empty set to $\aleph_0$, but in that set there's the empty function, so its cardinality is 1, isn't it? so $\aleph_0^{< \aleph_0} = max{1, \aleph_0}$ and $2^{<\aleph_0} = \aleph_0 = k $, am i right? $\endgroup$ – M.B. Jan 16 '18 at 16:01
  • $\begingroup$ Err, yeah, that's a typo. Sorry. And yes for the second part. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jan 16 '18 at 16:02
  • $\begingroup$ oh ok, thank you so much! It was really helpful! $\endgroup$ – M.B. Jan 16 '18 at 16:06

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.