0
$\begingroup$

Theorem 7.8 in Jech's Set Theory states that if $2^{\aleph_0} = \aleph_1$, there exists a Ramsey ultrafilter. The proof is constructive: We enumerate all partitions of $\omega$ (denoted $\mathcal{A}_\alpha$, where $\alpha = 1, 2, \ldots < \omega_1$) and define $X_{\alpha + 1} \subseteq X_\alpha$ as either a subset of some $A \in \mathcal{A}_\alpha$ or such that $|X_{\alpha+1} \cap A| \leq 1 \forall A \in \mathcal{A}_\alpha$. If $\alpha$ is a limit ordinal, then $X_\alpha$ is such that $X_\alpha - X_\beta$ is finite for all $\beta < \alpha$. The desired Ramsey ultrafilter is then given by $\{X: X_\alpha \subseteq X\, \text{for some $\alpha$}\}$.

My question is regarding the assumption that $2^{\aleph_0} = \aleph_1$; I don't see for example why the suggested construction could not also be applied if $2^{\aleph_0} = \aleph_n$, where $n \in \mathbb{N}$. Am I right in assuming that the proposed assumption is just a (weak?) sufficient condition?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ In the proof, Jech explicitly says that the existence of $X_{\alpha}$ depends on the fact that $\alpha$ is countable. $\endgroup$ – Karl Kroningfeld Jan 29 '19 at 0:05
  • $\begingroup$ There had been several questions about this already. Did you look around the site? $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jan 29 '19 at 8:17
  • $\begingroup$ Dear Karl and Asaf, Thank you for your comments. I have clarified my question in a comment to Eric's answer. $\endgroup$ – user480881 Feb 4 '19 at 11:42
4
$\begingroup$

The construction very crucially uses the assumption that $2^{\aleph_0}=\aleph_1$ in limit steps. To choose $X_\alpha$ such that $X_\alpha-X_\beta$ is finite for all $\beta<\alpha$, you must use the fact that there are only countably many such $\beta$, so that you can build $X_\alpha$ by a diagonal construction so that it is infinite and yet eventually contained in each $X_\beta$.

(The argument can be generalized to use weaker assumptions than $2^{\aleph_0}=\aleph_1$; for instance, Martin's axiom suffices. But the result is not provable in ZFC alone, and I don't know why you think it would be relevant to assume something like $2^{\aleph_0}=\aleph_n$ for $n\in\mathbb{N}$.)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Dear Eric, Thank you for your answer and please excuse the late reply. To make my question more precise: I don't claim that $2^{\aleph_0} = \aleph_n$ is any way necessary. I am merely pondering the following thought: Suppose for example that $2^{\aleph_0} = \aleph_2$. What if I construct $X_{\omega_1}$ by applying the diagonal construction (of $X_\omega$) to $\{X_\omega, X_{\omega + 1}, \ldots\}$? As far as I can see, the finite-intersection property still holds, and so does the property that $|\{X_{\omega_1} - X_\beta\}| < \infty\, \forall \beta < \omega_1$. Am I missing something? $\endgroup$ – user480881 Feb 4 '19 at 11:38
  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean by "applying the diagonal construction"? How would you apply it to $\aleph_1$ sets instead of countably many? The whole point of the "diagonal" is that it uses the fact that $\{X_\beta:\beta<\alpha\}$, like $\omega$, is countable. $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey Feb 4 '19 at 16:21
  • $\begingroup$ Dear Eric, Having returned to Jech's Set Theory after being occupied with different matters for a while, I now see that my misunderstanding stems from the terribly embarrassing fact of me for some reason believing that $\omega_1 = 2\omega$ (and hence assuming that the construction of $X_\omega$ can be continued...). Sorry for wasting your time. $\endgroup$ – user480881 Feb 6 '19 at 11:52

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.