4
$\begingroup$

the aim of my exercise is to give a proof of the König's lemma. So, let $\kappa, \lambda$, be cardinals such that $cf(\kappa)\leq \lambda$. My professor's suggested us to prove that there exists a sequence $(\kappa_\alpha)_{\alpha\in \kappa}$ of cardinals such that $\kappa=\sum_{\alpha\in \lambda}\kappa_\alpha$ and $\kappa_\alpha<\kappa$ for each $\alpha < \lambda$.

Now, I've tried to prove it, but I'm not sure that what I've done is correct. I know that there exists a cofinal map $f: cf(\kappa)\rightarrow \kappa$ and, simply by definition of cofinal map, we have that $\kappa=\text{sup}\{f(\gamma):\gamma\in cf(\kappa)\}=\bigcup_{\gamma\in cf(\kappa)}f(\gamma)$. Now I set $f(\gamma)=\kappa_\gamma$ for each $\gamma\in cf(\kappa)$ and I define $\kappa_\delta=\varnothing$ for each $cf(\kappa)\leq \delta<\lambda$.

So, we have that $\kappa=\bigcup_{\alpha\in \lambda}\kappa_\alpha$ and each $\kappa_\alpha<\kappa$. But now my problems are:

1) I'm not sure that each $f(\gamma)=\kappa_\gamma$ is a cardinal, I only know that it is an ordinal;

2)Can I conclude that $\kappa=\bigcup_{\alpha\in \lambda}\kappa_\alpha=\sum_{\alpha\in \lambda}\kappa_\alpha$?

Can someone help me? Am I on the right way to solve the exercise or should I solve it in a different way?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ What is your definition of cofinality (I'm asking because there are two possible definitions here). $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Apr 23 '14 at 21:28
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila: The cofinality of an ordinal $\kappa$ is the least ordinal $cf(\kappa)$ such that there exists a cofinal map $f:cf(\kappa)\rightarrow \kappa$. A cofinal map is a map with unbounded image. (Sorry my delay in answering ) $\endgroup$ – batman Apr 24 '14 at 7:50
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry for the even longer delay in answering! $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jun 3 '14 at 10:38
2
$\begingroup$

Your approach slightly fails if $\kappa$ is not a limit cardinal. For example $\kappa=\aleph_1=\lambda$.

In that case $f(\gamma)$ are all countable ordinals, and almost none are actual cardinals, and if you "correct" $\kappa_\alpha$ to be $|f(\gamma)|$ then you get on one hand the sum is indeed $\aleph_1$, but on the other hand the union is $\omega$.

So to point out, there are two problems, the first is that indeed $\kappa_\alpha$ need not be a cardinal and the second is that indeed $\bigcup\kappa_\alpha$ need not be equal to $\sum\kappa_\alpha$. However, if you take $\kappa_\alpha=|f(\gamma)|$ (or $0$ for $\alpha$ large enough), the sum is $\kappa$, but the union might not be.

To correct this, prove the following equality:

$$\sum_{i\in I}\kappa_i = \sup\{\kappa_i\mid i\in I\}\cdot|\{i\in I\mid\kappa_i>0\}|.$$ (If $\kappa_i>0$ for all $i\in I$, then this is just $|I|$.)

Now you don't care that the union is $\kappa$ again.


Another way to prove this would be to take the intervals $\Bigl[f(\gamma),f(\gamma+1)\Bigr)$ and consider their cardinality. Then you get the benefit of a disjoint union which is obviously the sum of their cardinality as $\kappa_\gamma$ (and $0$ for sufficiently large $\alpha$ as you have done). And it is always the case that a non-cofinal subset of a cardinal has strictly smaller cardinality.

$\endgroup$

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.