While searching for exercises dealing with CH and GCH, I encountered an exercise with the following statement:

Study if:


Is equivalent to the Continuum Hypothesis

My first thought is that the statement has nothing to do with CH for it only gives a relation between $\aleph_{1}$ and $2^{\aleph_{0}}$.

I am getting started with this topic, so if you could give a clear and full answer, I would really appreciate it.

Thanks in advance.

EDIT: deleted part of the original question, as it was pretty ill-posed

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If CH is true, then $\aleph_1^{\aleph_0} = (2^{\aleph_0})^{\aleph_0} = 2^{\aleph_0\aleph_0} = 2^{\aleph_0} = \aleph_1\lt \aleph_2 \leq \aleph_2^{\aleph_0}$. So CH certainly implies the inequality. $\endgroup$ – Arturo Magidin Apr 26 at 20:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes... but that's just the contrapositive of what I just said! CH implies the inequality, so Not(inequality) implies Not(CH). That is not the question you should ask next however; the question that remains is whether the inequality implies CH, or if the negation of CH implies that the inequality is false. $\endgroup$ – Arturo Magidin Apr 26 at 21:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ We can have $\aleph_1^{\aleph_0} = \aleph_2^{\aleph_0}$ in models of MA and non-CH, say with continuum equal to $\aleph_3$. $\endgroup$ – Henno Brandsma Apr 26 at 21:21
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Arthur There is a binary operation on the ordinals called exponentiation. Under this operation, $2^\omega = \omega$. $\endgroup$ – Alex Kruckman Apr 26 at 21:21
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Akerbeltz No, that's not true: we could have CH$_{\aleph_1}$ hold even if CH itself fails. (Here "CH$_\kappa$" means "$2^\kappa=\kappa^+$," so e.g. CH$_{\aleph_1}$ means $2^{\aleph_1}=\aleph_2$; and usual CH is CH$_{\aleph_0}$ in this notation.) $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Apr 26 at 21:57

The key is to observe that $\aleph_1^{\aleph_0}=(2^{\aleph_0})^{\aleph_0}$ regardless of whether CH holds. In particular, it's going to help in a bit to not simplify the right hand side.

Here's a proof of that observation:

  • $\le$: immediate, since we know without assumptions that $\aleph_1\le 2^{\aleph_0}$ and raising both sides to $\aleph_0$ doesn't break $\le$.

  • $\ge$: the right hand side simplifies to $2^{\aleph_0}$, and (by the same reasoning as the previous bullet) we know that $2^{\aleph_0}\le \aleph_1^{\aleph_0}$.

Now back to the main problem.

The comparison we're really trying to make is, by the observation above, $$(2^{\aleph_0})^{\aleph_0}\mbox{ versus }(\aleph_2)^{\aleph_0}.$$

We know that we get "$<$" if CH holds. Now suppose CH fails; what does that tell us about $2^{\aleph_0}$ versus $\aleph_2$ (and hence, what does that tell us about the comparison we want to make)?

  • $\begingroup$ So if HC doesn't hold, $\aleph_{2}\le 2^{\aleph_0}$ $\endgroup$ – Akerbeltz Apr 26 at 22:15
  • $\begingroup$ @Akerbeltz CH, but yes. $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Apr 26 at 22:57
  • $\begingroup$ In Spanish it's all the way around, it's lame that comments can't be edited... $\endgroup$ – Akerbeltz Apr 26 at 22:58

Using Hausdorff formula we have $$\aleph_2^{\aleph_0}=\aleph_1^{\aleph_0}\cdot\aleph_2,$$ Now using the fact that $\aleph_0^{\aleph_0}\leq\aleph_1^{\aleph_0}\leq (2^{\aleph_0})^{\aleph_0}=2^{\aleph_0}$, we get that $$\aleph_2^{\aleph_0}=2^{\aleph_0}\cdot\aleph_2.$$

If $2^{\aleph_0}\geq\aleph_2$, then $\aleph_1^{\aleph_0}=\aleph_2^{\aleph_0}$. Therefore, the assumption that $\aleph_1^{\aleph_0}<\aleph_2^{\aleph_0}$ implies that CH holds.


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.