2
$\begingroup$

Suppose $\mathcal A$ is an uncountable family of pairwise disjoint non-stationary subsets of $\omega_1$. Show that there exists $\mathcal B \subseteq \mathcal A$ such that $\mathcal B$ is uncountable and $\bigcup \mathcal B$ is non-stationary subset of $\omega_1$.

This is what I have gotten.

$\bullet$ Pairwise disjoint: $\forall \beta<\alpha<\omega_1, X_\beta \cap X_\alpha= \varnothing$.

$\bullet Non-stationary: \forall \alpha < \omega_1,$ $\exists C \in Club(\omega_1), C \cap X_\alpha=0$

$\bullet Club(\omega_1)=\{C\subseteq \omega_1:(\exists D\subseteq C)(D $ is closed and unbounded in $\omega_1)\}$

Would it work if i take out countably many $X_a$ from $\mathcal A$ and call that set $\mathcal B$. $\mathcal B$ would be uncountable but I dont think that $\bigcup \mathcal B$ would be a subset of $\omega_1$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ that $\alpha>\omega_1$ seems misplaced. Also, that $\forall C$ looks like it should be $\exists C$. Try to think of this and perhaps show progress and edit question. Also, notation $Club(\mathcal A)$ confuses me, isn't the family of all club sets defined independent of $\mathcal A$? Like supersets of sets that are closed and UNbounded in $\omega_1$ (not $\mathcal A$). $\endgroup$ – Mirko Sep 12 '19 at 1:49
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your comments. Yes the $\forall C$ should be $\exists C$ and my previous definition of the Club filter was wrong. But I don't understand why $\alpha > \omega_1$ is misplaced since $\mathcal A$ is an uncountable family. $\endgroup$ – taupi Sep 12 '19 at 2:14
  • $\begingroup$ perhaps you mean (without loss of generality) that $\mathcal A=\{X_\alpha: \alpha<\omega_1\}$. Note here indexing is with $\alpha<\omega_1$, note $\omega_1$ is uncountable. Note also in the club definition bounded should be UNbounded. (Club is an abbreviation of closed UNbounded). $\bullet$ Pairwise disjoint: $\forall \beta<\alpha<\omega_1,X_{\beta}\cap X_{\alpha}=\emptyset$ $\bullet$ Non-stationary: $\forall \alpha<\omega_1, \exists C \in Club(\omega_1), C \cap X_\alpha=0$ $\bullet Club(\omega_1)=\{C\subseteq\omega_1:(\exists D\subseteq C)(D $ is closed and UNbounded in $\omega_1)\}$ $\endgroup$ – Mirko Sep 12 '19 at 2:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I believe the answer might have something to do with the diagonal intersection of a family of club sets (which one gets naturally here taking a club $C_\alpha$ disjoint from $X_\alpha$), see math.stackexchange.com/q/380626 Note that the condition in your question that the non-stationary sets are disjoint is essential. There is an easy counterexample, if they were not required to be disjoint, take $X_\alpha=\alpha=[0,\alpha)=\{\beta:\beta<\alpha\}$. I need to think of the details, but at the moment I do not see what else could be relevant, but the diagonal intersection. $\endgroup$ – Mirko Sep 12 '19 at 2:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you. I will take a look at it and try to do this question again. $\endgroup$ – taupi Sep 12 '19 at 2:45
3
$\begingroup$

There are two closely related questions (and answers) on MSE. Diagonal intersection of club sets, URL (version: 2013-07-30): Diagonal intersection of club sets , as well as Diagonal union of non-stationary sets, URL (version: 2016-05-14): Diagonal union of non-stationary sets .

The above two questions are closely related, as they involve "dual" notions. In the second of the above links there is a proof (using the first link) that the diagonal union of non-stationary sets is non-stationary. I will use this result to answer the present question.

We are given that $\mathcal A$ is an uncountable family of pairwise disjoint non-stationary (and non-empty) subsets of $\omega_1$. Since the sets in $\mathcal A$ are disjoint we have that $|\mathcal A|=\omega_1$, hence we may list $\mathcal A=\{A_\alpha:\alpha<\omega_1\}$ where $A_\alpha\not=A_\beta$ if $\alpha<\beta<\omega_1$.

Let $\delta_0=\min\{\alpha:\min(A_\alpha)>0\}$ (where $\min(A_\alpha)$ denotes the smallest element of $A_\alpha$, using that $\omega_1$ is well-ordered). Recursively, if $\gamma<\omega_1$ and $\delta_\beta$ have been defined for all $\beta<\gamma$, define $\delta_\gamma=\min\{\alpha\ge\sup_{\beta<\gamma}(\delta_\beta+1):\min(A_\alpha)>\gamma\}$. Note that for any given $\gamma<\omega_1$ there are uncountably many $\alpha$ such that $\min(A_\alpha)>\gamma$: Indeed, otherwise there will be some $\gamma$ with $\min(A_\alpha)\le\gamma$ for uncountably many $\alpha$, and hence there will be some $\nu\le\gamma$ with $\min(A_\alpha)=\nu$ for uncountably many $\alpha$ contradicting that $\mathcal A$ is a disjoint family.

Therefore we define $\delta_\gamma$ as above, for all $\gamma<\omega_1$. Let $\mathcal B=\{B_\gamma:\gamma<\omega_1\}$, where $B_\gamma=A_{\delta_\gamma}$ for each $\gamma$. Clearly $\mathcal B$ is uncountable, $\mathcal B\subseteq\mathcal A$. Note that, by the above construction, $\min(B_\gamma)=\min(A_{\delta_\gamma})>\gamma$, that is $B_\gamma\subseteq(\gamma,\omega_1)$ for all $\gamma<\omega_1$. We have that:
$\cup\mathcal B=\cup_{\gamma<\omega_1}B_\gamma=$ $\cup_{\gamma<\omega_1}\bigl((\gamma,\omega_1)\cap B_\gamma\bigr)=$ $\nabla_{\gamma<\omega_1}B_\gamma$. The last expression denotes the diagonal union, and, as indicated earlier, it is non-stationary.

Remark. We could have also assumed that $\mathcal A=\{A_\alpha:\alpha<\omega_1\}$ where $\min(A_\alpha)<\min(A_\beta)$ if $\alpha<\beta$. Indeed, if $M=\{\min(A):A\in \mathcal A\}$ then $M$ is an uncountable subset of $\omega_1$ and hence order-isomorphic to $\omega_1$ (that is, there is an order-preserving bijection between $M$ and $\omega_1$, which could be used to list $\mathcal A$ as in this remark).

Edit. If we were to work with club sets and diagonal intersection directly (instead of the dual notions), we may define $B_\gamma$ as earlier and then finish off the proof as follows. For each $\gamma$ fix a club (closed unbounded) $C_\gamma$ disjoint from $B_\gamma$. Then $[0,\gamma]\cup C_\gamma$ is a club disjoint from $B_\gamma$, so (replacing $C_\gamma$ with $[0,\gamma]\cup C_\gamma$ if necessary) we may assume that $C_\gamma$ is a club disjoint form $B_\gamma$, and that $[0,\gamma]\subseteq C_\gamma$. Then the set $C:=\cap_{\gamma<\omega_1}C_\gamma$ is clearly disjoint from $\cup\mathcal B$ (using De Morgan's laws). On the other hand $C=\cap_{\gamma<\omega_1}\bigl([0,\gamma]\cup C_\gamma\bigr)$ $=\Delta_{\gamma<\omega_1}C_\gamma$ , where the latter expression is the diagonal intersection, and is hence a club. Thus the club $C$ is disjoint from $\cup\mathcal B$, hence $\cup\mathcal B$ is non-stationary.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ +1... A counter-example if $A$ is not assumed to be pair-wise disjoint, is $A=\omega_1.$ If $B$ is an uncountable subset of $A=\omega_1$ then $\cup B=\omega_1.$ $\endgroup$ – DanielWainfleet Sep 15 '19 at 3:14

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.