Is $lambda < kappa leq 2^lambda$ special?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












It is known that if cardinal $kappa$ is such that there is a cardinal $lambda$ with $lambda < kappa le 2^lambda$ then any $kappa$-complete ultrafilter on $kappa$ is principal.



Do such $kappa$ have a special name and is this property equivalent to some other well known properties? Is this equivalent to being measurable?



It seems pretty special to me and relates to GCH and critical points of elementary embeddings.



$mathfrakc$ has the property but $omega$ doesn't.



A consequence is that any ultrafilter on $mathbbR$ closed under countable intersections is principle (assuming CH).







share|cite|improve this question


















  • 1




    You mean it's not a strong limit? Strong limit cardinals exist just fine, $beth_delta$ for any limit ordinal $delta$ is a strong limit cardinal pretty much by definition. So in a sense "almost all cardinals are strong limit cardinals". If you also require regularity you get strongly inaccessible cardinals, which you need to assume more to actually have, but it's still pretty far from measurable cardinals.
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Aug 25 at 5:06










  • Thanks @AsafKaragila you have actually answered my question by saying it is not a strong limit. The other info is also helpful. I probably should have figured it out myself. Regards.
    – Mark Kortink
    Aug 26 at 1:06










  • The least k such that there is a countably closed free (non-principal) ultra-filter on k is also the least measurable cardinal, which is necessarily a regular strong limit. So your last sentence holds regardless of CH,
    – DanielWainfleet
    Aug 27 at 0:03















up vote
2
down vote

favorite












It is known that if cardinal $kappa$ is such that there is a cardinal $lambda$ with $lambda < kappa le 2^lambda$ then any $kappa$-complete ultrafilter on $kappa$ is principal.



Do such $kappa$ have a special name and is this property equivalent to some other well known properties? Is this equivalent to being measurable?



It seems pretty special to me and relates to GCH and critical points of elementary embeddings.



$mathfrakc$ has the property but $omega$ doesn't.



A consequence is that any ultrafilter on $mathbbR$ closed under countable intersections is principle (assuming CH).







share|cite|improve this question


















  • 1




    You mean it's not a strong limit? Strong limit cardinals exist just fine, $beth_delta$ for any limit ordinal $delta$ is a strong limit cardinal pretty much by definition. So in a sense "almost all cardinals are strong limit cardinals". If you also require regularity you get strongly inaccessible cardinals, which you need to assume more to actually have, but it's still pretty far from measurable cardinals.
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Aug 25 at 5:06










  • Thanks @AsafKaragila you have actually answered my question by saying it is not a strong limit. The other info is also helpful. I probably should have figured it out myself. Regards.
    – Mark Kortink
    Aug 26 at 1:06










  • The least k such that there is a countably closed free (non-principal) ultra-filter on k is also the least measurable cardinal, which is necessarily a regular strong limit. So your last sentence holds regardless of CH,
    – DanielWainfleet
    Aug 27 at 0:03













up vote
2
down vote

favorite









up vote
2
down vote

favorite











It is known that if cardinal $kappa$ is such that there is a cardinal $lambda$ with $lambda < kappa le 2^lambda$ then any $kappa$-complete ultrafilter on $kappa$ is principal.



Do such $kappa$ have a special name and is this property equivalent to some other well known properties? Is this equivalent to being measurable?



It seems pretty special to me and relates to GCH and critical points of elementary embeddings.



$mathfrakc$ has the property but $omega$ doesn't.



A consequence is that any ultrafilter on $mathbbR$ closed under countable intersections is principle (assuming CH).







share|cite|improve this question














It is known that if cardinal $kappa$ is such that there is a cardinal $lambda$ with $lambda < kappa le 2^lambda$ then any $kappa$-complete ultrafilter on $kappa$ is principal.



Do such $kappa$ have a special name and is this property equivalent to some other well known properties? Is this equivalent to being measurable?



It seems pretty special to me and relates to GCH and critical points of elementary embeddings.



$mathfrakc$ has the property but $omega$ doesn't.



A consequence is that any ultrafilter on $mathbbR$ closed under countable intersections is principle (assuming CH).









share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 25 at 1:06









David G. Stork

8,05621232




8,05621232










asked Aug 25 at 0:38









Mark Kortink

1485




1485







  • 1




    You mean it's not a strong limit? Strong limit cardinals exist just fine, $beth_delta$ for any limit ordinal $delta$ is a strong limit cardinal pretty much by definition. So in a sense "almost all cardinals are strong limit cardinals". If you also require regularity you get strongly inaccessible cardinals, which you need to assume more to actually have, but it's still pretty far from measurable cardinals.
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Aug 25 at 5:06










  • Thanks @AsafKaragila you have actually answered my question by saying it is not a strong limit. The other info is also helpful. I probably should have figured it out myself. Regards.
    – Mark Kortink
    Aug 26 at 1:06










  • The least k such that there is a countably closed free (non-principal) ultra-filter on k is also the least measurable cardinal, which is necessarily a regular strong limit. So your last sentence holds regardless of CH,
    – DanielWainfleet
    Aug 27 at 0:03













  • 1




    You mean it's not a strong limit? Strong limit cardinals exist just fine, $beth_delta$ for any limit ordinal $delta$ is a strong limit cardinal pretty much by definition. So in a sense "almost all cardinals are strong limit cardinals". If you also require regularity you get strongly inaccessible cardinals, which you need to assume more to actually have, but it's still pretty far from measurable cardinals.
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Aug 25 at 5:06










  • Thanks @AsafKaragila you have actually answered my question by saying it is not a strong limit. The other info is also helpful. I probably should have figured it out myself. Regards.
    – Mark Kortink
    Aug 26 at 1:06










  • The least k such that there is a countably closed free (non-principal) ultra-filter on k is also the least measurable cardinal, which is necessarily a regular strong limit. So your last sentence holds regardless of CH,
    – DanielWainfleet
    Aug 27 at 0:03








1




1




You mean it's not a strong limit? Strong limit cardinals exist just fine, $beth_delta$ for any limit ordinal $delta$ is a strong limit cardinal pretty much by definition. So in a sense "almost all cardinals are strong limit cardinals". If you also require regularity you get strongly inaccessible cardinals, which you need to assume more to actually have, but it's still pretty far from measurable cardinals.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Aug 25 at 5:06




You mean it's not a strong limit? Strong limit cardinals exist just fine, $beth_delta$ for any limit ordinal $delta$ is a strong limit cardinal pretty much by definition. So in a sense "almost all cardinals are strong limit cardinals". If you also require regularity you get strongly inaccessible cardinals, which you need to assume more to actually have, but it's still pretty far from measurable cardinals.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Aug 25 at 5:06












Thanks @AsafKaragila you have actually answered my question by saying it is not a strong limit. The other info is also helpful. I probably should have figured it out myself. Regards.
– Mark Kortink
Aug 26 at 1:06




Thanks @AsafKaragila you have actually answered my question by saying it is not a strong limit. The other info is also helpful. I probably should have figured it out myself. Regards.
– Mark Kortink
Aug 26 at 1:06












The least k such that there is a countably closed free (non-principal) ultra-filter on k is also the least measurable cardinal, which is necessarily a regular strong limit. So your last sentence holds regardless of CH,
– DanielWainfleet
Aug 27 at 0:03





The least k such that there is a countably closed free (non-principal) ultra-filter on k is also the least measurable cardinal, which is necessarily a regular strong limit. So your last sentence holds regardless of CH,
– DanielWainfleet
Aug 27 at 0:03











1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote













As Asaf points out the name of such $kappa$s is not a strong limit



$kappatext is not a strong limit$



$iffnegforalllambdaleft(left(lambda<kapparight)toleft(2^lambda<kapparight)right)$



$iffexistslambdanegleft(negleft(lambda<kapparight)veeleft(2^lambda<kapparight)right)$



$iffexistslambdaleft(left(lambda<kapparight)wedgenegleft(2^lambda<kapparight)right)$



$iffexistslambdaleft(lambda<kappale2^lambdaright)$.



When $kappa$ is not a strong limit then any $kappa$-complete ultrafilter
$U$ on $kappa$ is principal (ie.has the form $left Asubseteqkappamid ain Aright $). This is proved here.



Therefore in particular no infinite cardinal of the form $2^lambda$
can have a $2^lambda$-complete free ultrafilter, and that includes
$mathbbR$ which has cardinality $2^omega$.



Note that if $U$ is an ultrafilter on $mathbbR$ and CH is false
then there is a $omega<kappa<2^omega$ so the above theorem would
enable us to conclude that if $U$ is $kappa$-complete then it is
principal.



A measurable cardinal is an uncountable cardinal $kappa$ with a
non-principle $kappa$-complete ultrafilter and so is a strong limit.
If the GCH is true then $lambda^+=2^lambda$ for every infinite
cardinal so if measurable cardinals exist they are not successor cardinals.






share|cite|improve this answer
















  • 1




    I don't understand your last sentence; measurables are not successors, regardless of GCH.
    – Noah Schweber
    Aug 30 at 23:14










  • I am sure that is true, all i point out is it's really obvious with GCH.
    – Mark Kortink
    Sep 2 at 23:22










Your Answer




StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2893707%2fis-lambda-kappa-leq-2-lambda-special%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest






























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
0
down vote













As Asaf points out the name of such $kappa$s is not a strong limit



$kappatext is not a strong limit$



$iffnegforalllambdaleft(left(lambda<kapparight)toleft(2^lambda<kapparight)right)$



$iffexistslambdanegleft(negleft(lambda<kapparight)veeleft(2^lambda<kapparight)right)$



$iffexistslambdaleft(left(lambda<kapparight)wedgenegleft(2^lambda<kapparight)right)$



$iffexistslambdaleft(lambda<kappale2^lambdaright)$.



When $kappa$ is not a strong limit then any $kappa$-complete ultrafilter
$U$ on $kappa$ is principal (ie.has the form $left Asubseteqkappamid ain Aright $). This is proved here.



Therefore in particular no infinite cardinal of the form $2^lambda$
can have a $2^lambda$-complete free ultrafilter, and that includes
$mathbbR$ which has cardinality $2^omega$.



Note that if $U$ is an ultrafilter on $mathbbR$ and CH is false
then there is a $omega<kappa<2^omega$ so the above theorem would
enable us to conclude that if $U$ is $kappa$-complete then it is
principal.



A measurable cardinal is an uncountable cardinal $kappa$ with a
non-principle $kappa$-complete ultrafilter and so is a strong limit.
If the GCH is true then $lambda^+=2^lambda$ for every infinite
cardinal so if measurable cardinals exist they are not successor cardinals.






share|cite|improve this answer
















  • 1




    I don't understand your last sentence; measurables are not successors, regardless of GCH.
    – Noah Schweber
    Aug 30 at 23:14










  • I am sure that is true, all i point out is it's really obvious with GCH.
    – Mark Kortink
    Sep 2 at 23:22














up vote
0
down vote













As Asaf points out the name of such $kappa$s is not a strong limit



$kappatext is not a strong limit$



$iffnegforalllambdaleft(left(lambda<kapparight)toleft(2^lambda<kapparight)right)$



$iffexistslambdanegleft(negleft(lambda<kapparight)veeleft(2^lambda<kapparight)right)$



$iffexistslambdaleft(left(lambda<kapparight)wedgenegleft(2^lambda<kapparight)right)$



$iffexistslambdaleft(lambda<kappale2^lambdaright)$.



When $kappa$ is not a strong limit then any $kappa$-complete ultrafilter
$U$ on $kappa$ is principal (ie.has the form $left Asubseteqkappamid ain Aright $). This is proved here.



Therefore in particular no infinite cardinal of the form $2^lambda$
can have a $2^lambda$-complete free ultrafilter, and that includes
$mathbbR$ which has cardinality $2^omega$.



Note that if $U$ is an ultrafilter on $mathbbR$ and CH is false
then there is a $omega<kappa<2^omega$ so the above theorem would
enable us to conclude that if $U$ is $kappa$-complete then it is
principal.



A measurable cardinal is an uncountable cardinal $kappa$ with a
non-principle $kappa$-complete ultrafilter and so is a strong limit.
If the GCH is true then $lambda^+=2^lambda$ for every infinite
cardinal so if measurable cardinals exist they are not successor cardinals.






share|cite|improve this answer
















  • 1




    I don't understand your last sentence; measurables are not successors, regardless of GCH.
    – Noah Schweber
    Aug 30 at 23:14










  • I am sure that is true, all i point out is it's really obvious with GCH.
    – Mark Kortink
    Sep 2 at 23:22












up vote
0
down vote










up vote
0
down vote









As Asaf points out the name of such $kappa$s is not a strong limit



$kappatext is not a strong limit$



$iffnegforalllambdaleft(left(lambda<kapparight)toleft(2^lambda<kapparight)right)$



$iffexistslambdanegleft(negleft(lambda<kapparight)veeleft(2^lambda<kapparight)right)$



$iffexistslambdaleft(left(lambda<kapparight)wedgenegleft(2^lambda<kapparight)right)$



$iffexistslambdaleft(lambda<kappale2^lambdaright)$.



When $kappa$ is not a strong limit then any $kappa$-complete ultrafilter
$U$ on $kappa$ is principal (ie.has the form $left Asubseteqkappamid ain Aright $). This is proved here.



Therefore in particular no infinite cardinal of the form $2^lambda$
can have a $2^lambda$-complete free ultrafilter, and that includes
$mathbbR$ which has cardinality $2^omega$.



Note that if $U$ is an ultrafilter on $mathbbR$ and CH is false
then there is a $omega<kappa<2^omega$ so the above theorem would
enable us to conclude that if $U$ is $kappa$-complete then it is
principal.



A measurable cardinal is an uncountable cardinal $kappa$ with a
non-principle $kappa$-complete ultrafilter and so is a strong limit.
If the GCH is true then $lambda^+=2^lambda$ for every infinite
cardinal so if measurable cardinals exist they are not successor cardinals.






share|cite|improve this answer












As Asaf points out the name of such $kappa$s is not a strong limit



$kappatext is not a strong limit$



$iffnegforalllambdaleft(left(lambda<kapparight)toleft(2^lambda<kapparight)right)$



$iffexistslambdanegleft(negleft(lambda<kapparight)veeleft(2^lambda<kapparight)right)$



$iffexistslambdaleft(left(lambda<kapparight)wedgenegleft(2^lambda<kapparight)right)$



$iffexistslambdaleft(lambda<kappale2^lambdaright)$.



When $kappa$ is not a strong limit then any $kappa$-complete ultrafilter
$U$ on $kappa$ is principal (ie.has the form $left Asubseteqkappamid ain Aright $). This is proved here.



Therefore in particular no infinite cardinal of the form $2^lambda$
can have a $2^lambda$-complete free ultrafilter, and that includes
$mathbbR$ which has cardinality $2^omega$.



Note that if $U$ is an ultrafilter on $mathbbR$ and CH is false
then there is a $omega<kappa<2^omega$ so the above theorem would
enable us to conclude that if $U$ is $kappa$-complete then it is
principal.



A measurable cardinal is an uncountable cardinal $kappa$ with a
non-principle $kappa$-complete ultrafilter and so is a strong limit.
If the GCH is true then $lambda^+=2^lambda$ for every infinite
cardinal so if measurable cardinals exist they are not successor cardinals.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Aug 30 at 21:47









Mark Kortink

1485




1485







  • 1




    I don't understand your last sentence; measurables are not successors, regardless of GCH.
    – Noah Schweber
    Aug 30 at 23:14










  • I am sure that is true, all i point out is it's really obvious with GCH.
    – Mark Kortink
    Sep 2 at 23:22












  • 1




    I don't understand your last sentence; measurables are not successors, regardless of GCH.
    – Noah Schweber
    Aug 30 at 23:14










  • I am sure that is true, all i point out is it's really obvious with GCH.
    – Mark Kortink
    Sep 2 at 23:22







1




1




I don't understand your last sentence; measurables are not successors, regardless of GCH.
– Noah Schweber
Aug 30 at 23:14




I don't understand your last sentence; measurables are not successors, regardless of GCH.
– Noah Schweber
Aug 30 at 23:14












I am sure that is true, all i point out is it's really obvious with GCH.
– Mark Kortink
Sep 2 at 23:22




I am sure that is true, all i point out is it's really obvious with GCH.
– Mark Kortink
Sep 2 at 23:22

















 

draft saved


draft discarded















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2893707%2fis-lambda-kappa-leq-2-lambda-special%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest













































































這個網誌中的熱門文章

tkz-euclide: tkzDrawCircle[R] not working

How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

1st Magritte Awards