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

Clash 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).
set-theory
add a comment |Â
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).
set-theory
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.
â Asaf Karagilaâ¦
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.
â 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,
â DanielWainfleet
Aug 27 at 0:03
add a comment |Â
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).
set-theory
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).
set-theory
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.
â Asaf Karagilaâ¦
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.
â 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,
â DanielWainfleet
Aug 27 at 0:03
add a comment |Â
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.
â Asaf Karagilaâ¦
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.
â 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,
â 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.
â Asaf Karagilaâ¦
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.
â Asaf Karagilaâ¦
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.
â 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.
â 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,
â 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,
â DanielWainfleet
Aug 27 at 0:03
add a comment |Â
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.
1
I don't understand your last sentence; measurables are not successors, regardless of GCH.
â Noah Schweber
Aug 30 at 23:14
I am sure that is true, all i point out is it's really obvious with GCH.
â Mark Kortink
Sep 2 at 23:22
add a comment |Â
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.
1
I don't understand your last sentence; measurables are not successors, regardless of GCH.
â Noah Schweber
Aug 30 at 23:14
I am sure that is true, all i point out is it's really obvious with GCH.
â Mark Kortink
Sep 2 at 23:22
add a comment |Â
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.
1
I don't understand your last sentence; measurables are not successors, regardless of GCH.
â Noah Schweber
Aug 30 at 23:14
I am sure that is true, all i point out is it's really obvious with GCH.
â Mark Kortink
Sep 2 at 23:22
add a comment |Â
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.
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.
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.
â Noah Schweber
Aug 30 at 23:14
I am sure that is true, all i point out is it's really obvious with GCH.
â Mark Kortink
Sep 2 at 23:22
add a comment |Â
1
I don't understand your last sentence; measurables are not successors, regardless of GCH.
â Noah Schweber
Aug 30 at 23:14
I am sure that is true, all i point out is it's really obvious with GCH.
â Mark Kortink
Sep 2 at 23:22
1
1
I don't understand your last sentence; measurables are not successors, regardless of GCH.
â Noah Schweber
Aug 30 at 23:14
I don't understand your last sentence; measurables are not successors, regardless of GCH.
â Noah Schweber
Aug 30 at 23:14
I am sure that is true, all i point out is it's really obvious with GCH.
â Mark Kortink
Sep 2 at 23:22
I am sure that is true, all i point out is it's really obvious with GCH.
â Mark Kortink
Sep 2 at 23:22
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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.
â Asaf Karagilaâ¦
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.
â 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,
â DanielWainfleet
Aug 27 at 0:03