4
$\begingroup$

The question reads:

Edit: The definition for uniform filter I was given is as follows: A filter $\mathcal{F}$ on $\kappa$ is uniform iff $\mathcal{F}$ contains all co-bounded sets in $\kappa$ iff $\mathcal{F}$ contains all intervals $(\alpha, \kappa)$ for $\alpha < \kappa$. This may not be standard, it seems uniformity usually only applies to ultrafilters.

"Work in $\sf ZF$. Assume $\kappa > \omega$ is regular and $\mathcal{F}$ is a uniform normal filter on $\kappa$.

  1. Prove that $\mathcal{F}$ is $\kappa$-complete.
  2. Prove that $\mathcal{F}^{\text{club}}_\kappa \subseteq \mathcal{F}$

Hint: For 1 for an ordinal $\lambda < \kappa$ and a sequence of sets $\langle A_\xi \mid \xi < \lambda \rangle$ of sets in $\mathcal{F}$, extend this sequence to a sequence of length $\kappa$ whose diagonal intersection differs from $\bigcap_{\xi < \lambda} A_\xi$ by a non-stationary set. For 2 given a club set $C \subseteq \kappa$, try to express $C$ as a diagonal intersection of intervals of the form $(\alpha, \kappa)$. Alternatively, using choice, use pressing down."

So I believe, I found the extended sequence for 1, but I'm not sure why having the diagonal intersection differ by a non-stationary set helps. For 2, I couldn't figure out the intervals. I tried enumerating the club $C$ in increasing order, and tried to create the intervals that way, but I can't seem to get anywhere. I believe, that it is sufficient to just consider club $C$ since any $X \in \mathcal{F}^{\text{club}}_\kappa$ contains a club so then by the upward-closure of $\mathcal{F}$ we will get $X \in \mathcal{F}$. I'm not sure how to do the pressing down argument, but I would love to see that.

My (partial) solution to 1.

Let $\lambda < \kappa$ and $\langle A_\xi \mid \xi < \lambda \rangle \subseteq \mathcal{F}$. Let $A := \bigcap_{\xi <\kappa} A_\xi$. Define a new sequence $\langle A'_\xi \mid \xi < \kappa \rangle$ by

$$A'_\xi = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} A_\xi & \quad \xi < \lambda \\ (\delta, \kappa) & \quad \lambda \leq \delta < \kappa \end{array} \right.$$

Since $\mathcal{F}$ is uniform, $(\delta, \kappa) \in \mathcal{F}$ for all $\delta < \kappa$ so that $\langle A'_\xi \mid \xi < \kappa \rangle$ is a sequence in $\mathcal{F}$. By normality, $A' := \bigtriangleup_{\xi < \kappa} A'_\xi \in \mathcal{F}$. Then $(A - A') \cup (A' - A) \subseteq [0, \lambda]$ which is bounded, so it is non-stationary.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

We have that $A\triangle A'$ is bounded; as you noted, thus by your definition of uniform filter we have that $(A\triangle A')^c\in\mathcal F$, but $(A\triangle A')^c=(A^c\cap A'^c)\cup(A'\cap A),$ hence as $A'\in\mathcal F$ we obtain, intersecting, that $(A'\cap A)\in\mathcal F$, which implies $A\in\mathcal F$.

For $(2)$, let $X_{\alpha}=(\alpha+1,\kappa),$ for each $\alpha<\kappa$, then each $X_{\alpha}\in\mathcal F$, and clearly $C_0=\triangle_{\alpha<\kappa}X_{\alpha}\in\mathcal F$, and $C_0$ is the set of all limit ordinals $<\kappa$.

Now let $C$ be a closed unbounded set. Let $\{a_{\xi}:\xi<\kappa\}$ be the increasing continuous enumeration of $C$. For each $\alpha<\kappa$ let $Y_{\alpha}=(a_{\alpha},\kappa)$. Let $\xi\in C_0\cap\triangle_{\alpha<\kappa}Y_{\alpha},$ then $a_{\alpha}<\xi$ for all $\alpha<\xi$, thus if $\beta=\lim_{\alpha\to\xi}a_{\alpha},$ then $\beta=a_{\xi}$ and $\beta\leq\xi$, thus $\xi\in C$. Hence $C\supseteq C_0\cap\triangle_{\alpha<\kappa}Y_{\alpha}$, but $\triangle_{\alpha<\kappa}Y_{\alpha}\in\mathcal F$, therefore $C\in\mathcal F$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The definition of uniform I was given is: "A filter on $\kappa$ is uniform iff it contains all co-bounded sets in $\kappa$ iff it contains all intervals $(\alpha, \kappa)$ for $\alpha < \kappa$." After searching, I now see your definition and it is only being applied to ultrafilters, so are they equivalent? And if I know a filter has all co-bounded sets is it automatically an ultrafilter? $\endgroup$ – Ryan Sullivant Sep 9 '13 at 20:56
  • $\begingroup$ And also, I was not sure how to proceed because I didn't know $\mathcal{F}$ was an ultrafilter, so is this proposition not true if it is not an ultrafilter? (It looks like you use the ultra property at the end). $\endgroup$ – Ryan Sullivant Sep 9 '13 at 21:01
  • $\begingroup$ So I see in Jech that Lemma 8.11 is my $2$ and that he does not call the above property uniformity but simply containing all final segments or containing all co-bounded sets. $\endgroup$ – Ryan Sullivant Sep 9 '13 at 21:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't know whether the notions are equivalent, regardless of that you exercise can be done with the hypothesis you've been given, I just corrected it. $\endgroup$ – Camilo Arosemena-Serrato Sep 9 '13 at 21:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No, but diagonal intersections and the pressing down lemma are the same, so you could replace the argument with the $\triangle_{\alpha<\kappa}Y_{\alpha}$ for an argument using the pressing down lemma. $\endgroup$ – Camilo Arosemena-Serrato Sep 11 '13 at 0:55

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.