2
$\begingroup$

Can we explicitly define two ordinals $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in the language of $\{\in\}$ such that the following hold?

  1. ZFC proves that $\alpha$ and $\beta$ exist.
  2. ZFC proves that $\beth_\beta \neq \aleph_\alpha$
  3. The following statements are independent of ZFC: $$\aleph_\alpha \leq \beth_\beta,\qquad\beth_\beta \leq \aleph_\alpha$$
$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Doesn't this happen if $\alpha=\omega$ and $\beta=1$?

Fact 2 follows from Konig's theorem and fact 3 can be proved by forcing arguments.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ :-) I type too slow. $\endgroup$ Apr 3 '14 at 14:40
  • $\begingroup$ Sounds reasonable. Would it be fair to say that if $\alpha$ is a limit ordinal and $\beta$ is a non-limit ordinal, then $\aleph_\alpha$ and $\beth_\beta$ must be distinct? (Btw I do not see how to use Konig's theorem to show Fact 2). $\endgroup$ Apr 3 '14 at 14:44
  • $\begingroup$ @Andres: It's time you buy a good mechanical keyboard, then! $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Apr 3 '14 at 14:45
  • $\begingroup$ @user18921: Yes, for limit $\beta$, the cardinal $\beth_\beta$ is always a limit cardinal, so it cannot be $\aleph_\alpha$ for any successor cardinal $\alpha$; as for Koenig's theorem, it shows that $\aleph_\omega$ cannot be $\beth_1$. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Apr 3 '14 at 14:48
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ To clarify: Konig's thoerem gives us that $cf(2^{\aleph_{0}})>cf(\aleph_{0})$. Since $\aleph_{\omega}$ has cofinality $\omega$, we get the result. $\endgroup$
    – UserB1234
    Apr 3 '14 at 14:57

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.