large cardinal tree properties as properties of sheaves - MathOverflow most recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net2013-05-24T07:21:47Zhttp://mathoverflow.net/feeds/question/109695http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdfhttp://mathoverflow.net/questions/109695/large-cardinal-tree-properties-as-properties-of-sheaveslarge cardinal tree properties as properties of sheaveso a2012-10-15T08:25:07Z2012-10-15T22:39:26Z
<p>As follows from this talk Large Properties for Small Cardinals, p.7,p.4 <a href="http://www2.dm.unito.it/paginepersonali/viale/SEMINARS-TORINO/Fontanella-Torino-19.1.2012.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www2.dm.unito.it/paginepersonali/viale/SEMINARS-TORINO/Fontanella-Torino-19.1.2012.pdf</a>, the definitions of weakly compact and strongly compact large cardinals
can be formulated stated in the language of sheaf theory. <em>I am wondering whether
sheaf theory can be of any help, and whether supercompactness can be reformulated in a similar way.</em> </p>
<p>Let me describe these reformulations. </p>
<p>For an inaccesible cardinal $\kappa$, a $\kappa$-tree (in set theory) is a <em>sheaf of 0-1 valued functions</em> on ordinal $\kappa$ as a topological space with the initial interval topology: a subset of $\kappa$ is open iff it is an initial segment $\alpha\leq\kappa$. A $\kappa$ tree has <em>a cofinal branch</em> iff the sheaf has <em>a global section</em>, i.e. $T(\kappa)$ is non-empty.
For an arbitrary cardinal $\kappa$, a $\kappa$-tree $T(\kappa)$ corresponds to a sheaf $F:\kappa^{op}\longrightarrow Sets$ of 0-1 valued functions such that for every <em>successor</em> ordinal $\beta+1<\kappa$, $|F(\beta+1)|<\kappa$. (Corrections thanks to Joel and Nate's comments). </p>
<p>(WC) A inaccessible cardinal $\kappa$ is <em>weakly compact</em> iff any such sheaf of functions of $\kappa$
such that there is a section for every proper open subset $\alpha<\kappa$,
has a global section, i.e. eqv., any $\kappa$-tree has a cofinal branch. </p>
<p>Given a cardinal $\kappa$, define a Grothendieck topology on (the partial order viewed as) the category $(P(\lambda), \subseteq)$ (where $P(\lambda)=$ {$ X: X\subseteq \lambda $} as follows:
a collection $S=${$U_i\subseteq U$}$_i$ forms a <em>covering</em> of $U$ iff
for every $Y\subseteq U$ of size $|Y|<\kappa$,
there exists $U_i\subseteq U$ in $S$ such that $U_i\supseteq Y$. (By definition, a Grothendieck topology is a collection of these coverings; we shall denote $P(\lambda), \subseteq)_\kappa$
this category equipped with this topology.)</p>
<p>(SC) An <em>inaccessible</em> cardinal $\kappa$ is <em>strongly compact</em> iff forevery sheaf $T:(P(\lambda), \subseteq)_\kappa \longrightarrow Sets$ of Sets (with that topology),
the following implication holds: if $0<|T(X)|<\kappa$ for every $|X|<\kappa$, then
$T(\lambda)\neq \emptyset$, i.e. the sheaf has a global section. (Being somewhat vague,
one may drop the assumption of inaccessibility and require instead that every sheaf of <em>functions</em> has a global section). Set-theoretically, this is said as any $(\kappa,\lambda)$-tree has a cofinal branch. </p>
<p>If I understand correctly, an interesting question is whether for every(?) $\kappa$
every sheaf of sets with the condition $|X|<\kappa$ implies $|T(X)|<\kappa$ is consistent. </p>
<p>Let me say more about the definitions of sheaves and how to pass from a tree to a sheaf.
Recall (as e.g. stated in the talk above) a $\kappa$-tree $T(\kappa)$ can be viewed
as a subset of $2^{<\kappa}$. Define a sheaf $F$ on $\kappa$ as follows:
(i) for limit ordinal $\alpha$ $F(\alpha)$ is the set of all functions $f:\alpha\longrightarrow 2$ such that for every $\beta<\alpha$, the restriction of $f$ to $f|\beta:\beta \longrightarrow 2$ is in $T(\kappa)$.
(ii) for a successor ordinal,
$F(\alpha+1)=Lev_{\alpha+1}(T)$ where $Lev_{\alpha+1}(T)$ is the set $2^{\alpha+1}\cap T(\kappa)$ of functions $f:\alpha+1\longrightarrow 2$ of tree $T(\kappa)$.</p>
<p>The condition (*) is the sheaf condition for this topology: $\alpha=\cup{\beta<\alpha}\beta$ is an <em>open covering</em> of open set $\alpha$, and (*) says that every function on the open set $\alpha$ is uniquely defined by its restrictions on the sets in an open covering (and vice versa, any compatible set of functions on $\beta$'s defines a functions on $\alpha$).
Note that this condition is only non-trivial for <em>limit</em> ordinals: for successors there is no
non-trivial covering. </p>
<p>Finally, let me say why (WC) implies that $\kappa$ is inaccessible. Let $\kappa=2^\alpha$ and $\alpha<\kappa$. Let $f_i:\alpha\longrightarrow 2, i<\kappa$ be an enumeration of $2^\alpha$.
Define $F(j+1)=${$g: g|\alpha\neq f_i \forall i\leq j$} for every ordinal $j<\kappa$, and at limit stage define $F$ by sheaf property $(*)$ above. Then $F(j)$ is non-empty for every $j<\kappa$, yet $F(\kappa)$ is empty. </p>
<p>PS: I thank Joel and Nate for many corrections. </p>