Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Short version: what can we say about the place of idempotent ultrafilters in the Rudin-Keisler ordering?

Longer version:

If $U$, $V$ are (nonprincipal) ultrafilters on $\omega$, then we write $U\ge_{RK}V$ in case there is some function $f:\omega\rightarrow\omega$ such that $$ \forall X\subseteq\omega,\quad f^{-1}(X)\in U\iff X\in V.$$

An ultrafilter $U$ is Ramsey if given any two-coloring of pairs $c: [\omega]^2\rightarrow 2$, there is a homogeneous set for $c$ in $U$. Equivalently, $U$ is Ramsey if whenever $\lbrace C_n\rbrace_{n\in\omega}$ is a partition of $\omega$ with each $C_n\not\in U$, there is some $H\in U$ such that for all $n\in\omega$, $$\vert H\cap C_n\vert=1.$$ An ultrafilter $U$ is idempotent if $U\oplus U=U$, where $$ V\oplus W=\lbrace X: \lbrace x: \lbrace y: x+y\in X \rbrace \in W \rbrace \in V\rbrace.$$ Idempotent ultrafilters can be proved to exist in $ZFC$: this amounts to showing that $\oplus$ is left-continuous and associative on the compact space $\beta\mathbb{N}$, and then applying Ellis' theorem that every left-continuous semigroup on a compact space has an idempotent element. By contrast, Ramsey ultrafilters cannot be shown to exist in $ZFC$, although their existence is equiconsistent with $ZFC$ (in particular, if the Continuum Hypothesis - or weaker statements - holds, then there are Ramsey ultrafilters).

Now, an easy argument shows that no Ramsey ultrafilter is idempotent. On the other hand, the Ramsey ultrafilters enjoy a special property with respect to the RK-ordering: they are precisely the RK-minimal ultrafilters. So combining these facts shows that no idempotent ultrafilter can be RK-minimal.

My question is, what else can be said about the idempotent ultrafilters in terms of RK-reducibility? For example, can we have an idempotent ultrafilter U with exactly one RK-class of (necessarily, Ramsey) ultrafilters strictly RK-below U? This seems clearly impossible, but I don't see how to prove it.


Motivation: a few weeks ago, I taught a one-week course on the proof of Hindman's theorem from additive combinatorics using idempotent ultrafilters. On the last day, I talked a bit about other types of ultrafilters, and spent a bit of time defining Ramsey ultrafilters and explaining (not proving) their place in the RK-ordering. One of my students asked whether anything similar could be said about idempotent ultrafilters; besides the obvious, I couldn't come up with anything, so I'm asking here.

share|improve this question
1  
The last section of Andreas's "Ultrafilters: Where Dynamics = Algebra = Combinatorics" has some remarks on the relationship between idempotents, Ramsey ultrafilters, and P-points. –  Todd Eisworth Aug 3 '13 at 15:34
1  
Random Conjecture: Suppose U is idempotent, let $f$ ($g$) be the map sending n to the position of the rightmost (leftmost) 1 in its binary expansion. Then $f(U)$ and $g(U)$ are not RK-equivalent to each other or to $U$. –  Todd Eisworth Aug 3 '13 at 15:36
1  
Todd, see my comment to Andreas's answer -- given any two ultrafilters $p,q$ you'll find an idempotent u with $f(u)=p, g(u)=q$. –  Peter Krautzberger Aug 4 '13 at 1:26

1 Answer 1

up vote 9 down vote accepted

The idempotent ultrafilters closest to being Ramsey are the stable ordered-union ultrafilters. These are officially defined as certain ultrafilters on the set $\mathbb F$ of finite subsets of $\omega$, but they can be transferred to $\omega$ via the "binary expansion" map $\mathbb F\to\omega: s\mapsto\sum_{n\in s}2^n$. The image on $\omega$ of a stable ordered-union ultrafilter is idempotent and has has exactly three non-isomorphic non-principal ultrafilters RK-below it. Two of these are the ones Todd Eisworth mentioned in his comment; the third is the "pairing" of these two, i.e, the image of the idempotent under the map to $\omega^2$ given by $n\mapsto($position of leftmost $1,\,$position of rightmost $1)$. For details, see my paper "Ultrafilters related to Hindman's finite-unions theorem and its extensions" ["Logic and Combinatorics", Contemporary Math 65 (1987) 89-124] also available at http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~ablass/uf-hindman.pdf (this is a scanned picture and therefore not searchable; the stable ordered-union stuff starts on page 113).

share|improve this answer
    
I'm curious: is it known to what extent (assuming CH, say) the Ramsey ultrafilters below a given ultrafilter $U$ characterize $U$? That is, are there non-RK-equivalent $U, V$ which RK-bound the same Ramsey ultrafilters? Alternatively, is it consistent that there are no such pairs of ultrafilters? (It is certainly consistent that such a pair exists, since all pairs of ultrafilters satisfy this property if there are no Ramsey ultrafilters.) –  Noah S Aug 3 '13 at 18:25
    
A more relevant question: do idempotent ultrafilters exist RK-above an arbitrary ultrafilter? I suspect the answer is yes, but I'm having trouble proving it: given a function $f: \omega\rightarrow\omega$ and an ultrafilter $U$, the set of $V$ RK-above $U$ via $f$ is compact as a subset of $\beta\mathbb{N}$, but it's not clear to me that it is closed under $\oplus$ (if it were, I could apply Ellis' theorem and be done). Is this known? –  Noah S Aug 3 '13 at 20:39
1  
@NoahS for your first comment: Under CH, the Ramsey ultrafilters below a given ultrafilter U don't characterize U (up to isomorphism). For one thing, there are lots of ultrafilters (including some P-points) with no Ramsey ultrafilters below them. Also, if you fix a Ramsey ultrafilter V, then there are several (undoubtedly $2^{\aleph_1}$, but I haven't checked carefully) isomorphism classes of ultrafilters that are RK-above U and no other Ramsey ultrafilters - in fact above no other ultrafilters at all (except of course themselves and principal ultrafilters). –  Andreas Blass Aug 3 '13 at 21:32
    
@NoahS for your second comment: I don't know but I would expect that there are ultrafilters on $\omega$ with no idempotent ultrafilters RK-above them. I would be surprised if there exist (say under CH if it helps) any nonprincipal ultrafilter U and any function f such that the set of ultrafilters mapped to U by f is nonempty and closed under addition. –  Andreas Blass Aug 3 '13 at 21:37
5  
There are idempotents RK-above any ultrafilter, e.g., you can extend the inverse filter under the map that maps each $n$ to the minimum (or maximum) of its binary expension. See my dissertation –  Peter Krautzberger Aug 3 '13 at 23:53

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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