MathOverflow will be down for maintenance for approximately 3 hours, starting Monday evening (06/24/2013) at approximately 9:00 PM Eastern time (UTC-4).
2

We Know that a cardinal $\kappa$ is measurable if there is a set $X$ with cardinal $\kappa$ and a {0,1}-measure $\mu: P(X) \rightarrow ${$0,1$} so that for all $x \in X$, $\mu(x)=0$ and $\mu(X)=1$. also a cardinal which is not measurable, is called non measurable.

Also we Know this is unprovable to find a set with measurable cardinal in "ZFC".

In topology an extremally disconnected space is a topological space in which all open subsets has open closure.

Also we call a topological space to be a P-space if all it's $G_{\delta}$- sets are open.

There is a well-Known theorem that says every extremally disconnected P-space with non measurable cardinal is discrete.

From the aforesaid summaries a question could be posed that:

Question: If we suppose that a measurable cardinal exists, can we construct an extremally disconnected P-space with only a finite number of isolated points.

flag
4 
 What do you mean it is unsettled? We know exactly that from the axioms of ZFC it is unprovable that a measurable exists. In fact from ZFC and many other large cardinal axioms it is unprovable that a measurable exists. However from assumptions like "There is a Woodin cardinal" or "There is a supercompact cardinal" or "AD holds in $L(\mathbb R)$" we can prove that a measurable exists. – Asaf Karagila Nov 22 at 11:42
1 
 (A minor point. I dont see the difference between finding "a cardinal number with measurable cardinal" and finding "a measurable cardinal". According to the definition you give, they're meant to be the same, right? ) – Qfwfq Nov 22 at 13:00
2 
 AliReza, the term "unsettled" usually means "an open problem", for example it is unsettled if the nontrivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function lie on the line $Re(z)=\frac12$. Unprovable is a form of settled. It is an answer. We cannot prove the existence of measurable cardinals, nor we can disprove it. – Asaf Karagila Nov 22 at 14:31
1 
 Well, you probably know that you cannot prove the consistency of ZFC from the axioms of ZFC. The theory "ZFC+There exists a measurable cardinal" is a very strong theory compared to ZFC, in particular it proves the consistency of ZFC (if we assume a measurable exists then we can prove that ZFC is consistent). So assuming a measurable is a stronger assumption than assuming that there are no measurable cardinals. There is a lot of delicacy in those arguments, especially if you are unfamiliar with consistency results. But if there is a measurable, then there is a least measurable cardinal. – Asaf Karagila Nov 22 at 17:45
1 
 Your title "On the existence of measurable cardinals" is extremally non-descriptive. I suggest "extremally disconnected spaces without isolated points" instead. – Goldstern Nov 22 at 19:24
show 7 more comments

1 Answer

6

Let $\kappa$ be a measurable cardinal with $\sigma$-complete ultrafilter $U$. Let $X$ be the set of all finite sequences from $\kappa$. For $s\in X$, $i\in \kappa$, we write $(s,i)$ for the sequence you get by appending $i$ to $s$, similarly $(s,i,j)$, etc. We call a subset $A \subseteq X$ closed if it has the following property:

  • Whenever $s$ in $X$, and almost all successors of $s$ are in $A$, then also $s$ is in $A$:

More precisely: If the set $\{i \in \kappa: (s,i)\in A\}$is in $U$, then also $s\in A$.

[EDITED:] In other words: A set $O$ is open if for all $s\in O$ also almost all successors of $s$ are in $O$. (Using the countable completeness of $U$, a neighborhood base of $s$ is given by the sets $O_{s,F}:=\{s\}\cup \{(s,i,j,\ldots, k): i,j,\ldots ,k\in F\}$, for $F\in U$. Using the fact that $U$ is non-principal one can show that these sets are clopen.)(DELETED, see Joseph's comment below.)

We check that $X$ is extremally disconnected: If $O$ is open, and $A$ is the closure of $O$, we claim that $A$ is open. So let $s\in A$. If $s\in O$, then $s$ has a neighborhood in $A$, and we are done. So assume that $s$ is not in $O$. Then almost all successors of $s$ must also be in $A$, otherwise $A\setminus \{s\}$ is closed. So $A$ is open.

The fact that $X$ is a p-space follows from the countable closure of $U$. It is clear that $X$ has no isolated points.

link|flag
@ Goldstern, is this space hausdorff and zero- dimensional? for zero-dimensionality of a topological space, I mean it has a base of clopen subsets. – AliReza Olfati Nov 23 at 4:31
My characterization of open sets was incorrect. I have now corrected it, I hope. The basis that I describe contains only clopen sets. Yes, the space is Hausdorff. – Goldstern Nov 23 at 8:49
1 
 I don't think the sets $O_{s,F}$ really form a neighborhood basis for $s$. It seems like a way to get around this is to only take increasing sequences from $\kappa$ and assume that the ultrafilter is a normal ultrafilter. Or you can just take another basis. – Joseph Van Name Nov 25 at 0:36
You are right. Thank you. For some stupid reason I thought that there are only countably many finite sequences. Thinking too much about Laver trees. – Goldstern Nov 25 at 1:29
Whenever $s\in X$, and $\bar A=(A_t:s \le t)$ is a family of sets in $U$, then $\bar A$ naturally defines a clopen neighborhood $O=O_{\bar A}$ of $s$, and these neighborhoods form a base: $s\in O$, all elements of $O$ extend $s$, and for each $t\in O$ we have $(t,i)\in O$ iff $i\in A_t$. – Goldstern Nov 25 at 1:39

Your Answer

Get an OpenID
or

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.