Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:43:42.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On large cardinals and partition relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

E. M. Kleinberg
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
R. A. Shore
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

Extract

A significant portion of the study of large cardinals in set theory centers around the concept of “partition relation”. To best capture the basic idea here, we introduce the following notation: for x and y sets, κ an infinite cardinal, and γ an ordinal less than κ, we let [x]γ denote the collection of subsets of x of order-type γ and abbreviate with the partition relation for each function F frominto y there exists a subset C of κ of cardinality κ such that (such that for each α < γ) the range of F on [С]γ ([С]α) has cardinality 1. Now although each infinite cardinal κ satisfies the relation for each n and m in ω (F. P. Ramsey [8]), a connection with large cardinals arises when one asks, “For which uncountable κ do we have κ → (κ)2?” Indeed, any uncountable cardinal κ which satisfies κ → (κ)2 is strongly inaccessible and weakly compact (see [9]). As another example one can look at the improvements of Scott's original result to the effect that if there exists a measurable cardinal then there exists a nonconstructible set. Indeed, if κ is a measurable cardinal then κ → (κ)< ω, and as Solovay [11] has shown, if there exists a cardinal κ such that κ → (κ)< ω3 (κ → (1)< ω, even) then there exists a nonconstructible set of integers.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1]Erdös, P. and Hajnal, A., On the structure of set mappings, Acta Mathematica Academia Scientiarum Hungaricae, vol. 9 (1958), pp. 11131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Erdös, P. and Rado, R., A partition calculus in set theory, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 62 (1956), pp. 427489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Galvin, F., A generalization of Ramsey's theorem, Notices of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 14 (1967), p. 253.Google Scholar
[4]Galvin, F. and Prikry, K., to appear.Google Scholar
[5]Kleinberg, E. M., Strong partition properties for infinite cardinals, this Journal (to appear).Google Scholar
[6]Kleinberg, E. M., Somewhat homogeneous sets II, Notices of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 16 (1969), pp. 840, 1088, Abstract # 69T-E49, 69T-E89.Google Scholar
[7]Mathias, A. R. D., On a generalization of Ramsey's theorem, Notices of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 15 (1968), p. 931, Abstract #68T–E19.Google Scholar
[8]Ramsey, F. P., On a problem of formal logic, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, (2) vol. 30 (1930), pp. 264286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Silver, J., Some applications of model theory in set theory, Doctoral dissertation, University of California (Berkeley), 1966.Google Scholar
[10]Silver, J., Every analytic set is Ramsey, this Journal, vol. 35. (1970), pp. 6064.Google Scholar
[11]Solovay, R. M., A nonconstructable set of integers, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 127 (1967), pp. 5075.Google Scholar