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

Is there a simple, direct proof that the open coloring axiom contradicts CH (straight from the definitions, no machinery allowed)? The separable metric spaces version of OCA, if that helps.

Edit: probably it wasn't clear what I was asking. Let's say, hypothetically, that I'm writing a book on forcing that is meant to be as elementary and readable as possible. I've just introduced OCA and I have half a page to show the reader that it contradicts CH. Can I do this without quoting external theorems?

share|improve this question
1  
When you say OCA, I suppose you mean the one from Todorcevic's work, and not the one from the Abraham-Rubin-Shelah paper, right? –  Asaf Karagila Oct 5 '13 at 15:55
    
Yes, I mean Todorcevic's axiom. –  Nik Weaver Oct 5 '13 at 15:56

1 Answer 1

Here are two suggestions, whether they follow your instructions of "no machinery allowed", I will leave to you.

The following seems fairly direct to me, and I would think is the "standard" answer to your question:

First, partially order $\mathbb N^{\mathbb N}$ by eventual domination: $f<g$ iff $f(n)<g(n)$ for all $n$ large enough.

If $X\subseteq\mathbb N^{\mathbb N}$ is unbounded and countably directed, then there are $f\ne g$ in $X$ such that $f(n)\le g(n)$ for all $n$. This is proved as Lemma 0.7 in Todorcevic's Partition problems in topology.

From this it follows that under $\mathsf{OCA}$, any subset of $\mathbb N^{\mathbb N}$ of size $\aleph_1$ is bounded. (For example, this follows from Proposition 8.4.(c) and the proof of Theorem 3.5 in Todorcevic's book.)

(Refining this argument (eventually) gives us that $\mathsf{OCA}$ implies that ${\mathfrak b}=\aleph_2$.) The only technical tool this uses is the notion of oscillation, and what is needed can be developed directly in the proof of the statements above.

A different approach goes by building on Proposition 8.4.(c) directly: $\mathsf{OCA}$ implies that if $X,Y$ are uncountable sets of reals, then there is an uncountable subset of $X$ and a strictly increasing map of this subset into $Y$. This easily clashes with $\mathsf{CH}$, for example, using the results of Sierpiński on Sur un problème concernant les types de dimensions.

share|improve this answer
    
(I expect there are more elegant/direct ways of verifying the claim in the fifth paragraph than the 8.4-3.5 route I suggest, but I tried to stay as close to Stevo's book as possible, to avoid sneaking in machinery through additional developments.) –  Andres Caicedo Oct 5 '13 at 19:36
    
I'm afraid this is exactly the sort of thing I didn't have in mind --- quoting a consequence X of OCA and then showing that X contradicts CH. I would only consider this a "direct" proof if you include the proof that OCA implies X --- which in your case makes your answer not so simple ... –  Nik Weaver Oct 5 '13 at 21:57
    
(I guess I do not understand what you mean, since the proofs are direct implications that are spelled out in good amount of detail in the book.) –  Andres Caicedo Oct 5 '13 at 22:03
    
Yes, well, every complete proof is a "direct implication", isn't it? –  Nik Weaver Oct 5 '13 at 22:11
2  
Here is an inclusive version of Andres' answer: blog.assafrinot.com/?p=3243 –  saf Oct 8 '13 at 22:22

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.