9
$\begingroup$

A shallow answer would just point to theorem 6.2 in Jensen's 1972 paper "The fine structure of the constructible hierarchy", where Jensen introduces this property. Or was this symbol used already earlier for the combinatorial principle?

Is there some (deeper) reason explaining how $\diamondsuit$ got its name? Perhaps because $\Box$ was already established as a combinatorial principle?

$\endgroup$
11
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I've always assumed it came next after $\clubsuit$ $\endgroup$
    – user13113
    Jul 13, 2015 at 11:50
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Asaf Karagila. The phrase "A diamond is forever" is simply a very successful slogan from the diamond industry to make people buy diamonds. Also, diamonds only appear rare because a certain organization has a near monopoly on diamonds and diamond mines and they want us to think they are rare. In reality, they have piles and piles of diamonds. $\endgroup$ Jul 13, 2015 at 17:16
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Avshalom. My source is Nicky Oppenheimer, the director of DeBeers and richest man in South Africa who made all of his money from diamonds, who said "Diamonds are intrinsically worthless, except for the deep psychological need they fill." The story I gave about diamonds is well known. $\endgroup$ Jul 13, 2015 at 19:42
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Joseph: I am fully aware of this. Unfortunately, textual conversation does not always convey humor properly. The correct reply would have been that diamonds can be easily destroyed by adding many reals, so they can't be that precious, strong or forever. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Jul 14, 2015 at 4:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Avshalom: That's why I got into set theory. Fertile ground for awesome titles. :-P (Also, I was instantly good at set theory, and rarely good in anything else. But that's besides the point...) $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Jul 14, 2015 at 6:42

1 Answer 1

15
$\begingroup$

I once asked Jensen this question, when we were at a conference at Oberwolfach.

I told him that I had always assumed that the diamond $\Diamond$ principle was called $\Diamond$ because it expresses that there is an object exhibiting an elaborate degree of internal reflection. After all, if $\langle A_\alpha\mid\alpha<\omega_1\rangle$ is a $\Diamond$-sequence, then it very often happens for $\alpha<\beta$ that $A_\beta\cap\alpha=A_\alpha$, which is an instance of $A_\beta$ reflecting to $A_\alpha$.

But alas, this was not his reason. The actual reason was less interesting, having mainly to do, he said, with him simply needing a new symbol that had not yet been used, and that one was available.

Meanwhile, I believe that we should all adopt my explanation anyway! Henceforth, let it be known that a $\Diamond$ sequence is one exhibiting beautifully captivating internal reflections!

$\endgroup$
14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I don't know. I like the original explanation. It's like the origin of the Ctrl-Alt-Delete combination. They just needed a way to reboot the system quickly, and that was an unused combination. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Jul 13, 2015 at 14:32
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Just to amplify "available": Anyone who printed work in logic would have the diamond and square symbols available, because of their use in modal logic. Jensen probably expected that his use of these symbols for combinatorial principles would never clash with their use for modal operators. That was too optimistic; I once wrote a paper in which both uses of square occur. But I"m not aware of any clash involving diamond. $\endgroup$ Jul 13, 2015 at 15:38
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ In the modal logic of forcing, the assertion $\Diamond\Diamond$ is a theorem of ZFC, where the first diamond means "forceable" and the second is the combinatorial principle. Meanwhile, $\neg\Diamond\square\Diamond$ is also provable, which is to say that the combinatorial principle is not possibly necessary. $\endgroup$ Jul 13, 2015 at 15:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The use in modal logic was as early as 1932 when Lewis and Langford introduced $\diamondsuit$ in the book $\textit{Symbolic Logic}$. $\endgroup$
    – Avshalom
    Jul 13, 2015 at 18:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Andreas: So you had a proof there you had $\square\square\square$, where the first one is a modal statement, the second is a combinatorial property, and the third one means "QED"? :-) $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Jul 14, 2015 at 4:26

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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