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

This is (a variation on) exercise 20.4 in Jech's "Set Theory." Let $j : V \to M$ witness $\lambda$-supercompactness of $\kappa$, and consider the normal measure $U$ on $P_{\kappa}(\lambda)$ consisting of those $x$ such that $j[\lambda] \in j(x)$. (How do you make the left quotation mark symbol to denote 'j-image-of-lambda'?)

We want to show that this measure extends the club filter.

This hint is as follows: Suppose $C$ is club. Then define $D = j[C]$. Then:

  1. $D$ is a directed subset of $j(C)$.
  2. $D$ has size $|C| \leq \lambda ^{< \kappa} < j(\kappa )$.
  3. Therefore $\bigcup D \in j(C)$.
  4. $\bigcup D = j[\lambda ]$

I'm fine with 1. I'm not sure about 2 - where is the argument taking place, in $V$ or in $M$, or both? For 3, it appears the underlying argument is this:

$V \vDash \forall E \subset C\ (E$ directed and $|E| < \kappa \Rightarrow \bigcup E \in C)$

and so

$M \vDash \forall E \subset j(C)\ (E$ directed and $|E| < j(\kappa) \Rightarrow \bigcup \in j(C))$

I can accept this assuming that 2 means "$D \in M$ and $M \vDash |D| < j(\kappa )$." I'm having trouble with 4 as well - I believe that $j[\lambda] \subseteq \bigcup D$, but why does the reverse inclusion hold, i.e. why is it that $x \in C, \beta \in j(x) \Rightarrow \beta \in j[\lambda]$?

share|improve this question
    
A partial answer for 2 and 3: As the ultrafilter $U$ is a fine measure we even have $M^{\lambda^{<\kappa}} \subset M$, and as $D \in M^{\lambda^{<\kappa}}$ we know that $D \in M$ (See Prop 22.11. in Kanamoris Book for a proof of this). Moreover as $M$ is transitive and $V$ thinks that the size of $C$ = size of $D$ $\le \lambda^{<\kappa} < j(\kappa)$, $M$ thinks that the size of $D$ is less than $j(\kappa)$. So both things that you wanted to accept 2 and 3 are done. –  Stefan Hoffelner Apr 8 '11 at 19:11
    
Hi oktan. Why does the fineness of $U$ give us said closure property of $M$? We're obtaining $U$ from $j : V \to M$, not vice versa. Also, sorry this may be a basic question, but how do we know $\lambda ^{<\kappa} < j(\kappa)$? –  Amit Kumar Gupta Apr 8 '11 at 21:04
    
The first question in the comment above is not so serious though; for the application I'm interested in I'm happy to assume $j : V \to M$ arises from some fine measure, say $U'$, on $P_{\kappa}(\lambda)$. –  Amit Kumar Gupta Apr 8 '11 at 21:06

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Suppose $\kappa$ is $\lambda$-supercompact for some $\lambda \geq \kappa$, and let $j: V \rightarrow M$ be an elementary embedding with critical point $\kappa$ such that $j(\kappa) > \lambda$ and $M^{\lambda} \subseteq M$ for some inner model $M$. First, observe that $V$ and $M$ agree on $P_{\kappa}\lambda$ because $M$ is closed under ${<}\kappa$ sequences. In particular, this means that $\lambda^{{<}\kappa} \leq (\lambda^{{<}\kappa})^M$ since $M \subseteq V$. But this then means that $j(\kappa) > (\lambda^{{<}\kappa})^M \geq \lambda^{{<}\kappa}$ because $j(\kappa)$ is inaccessible in $M$ and $j(\kappa)$ is greater than both $\lambda$ and $\kappa$. Next, note that any $x \in P_{\kappa}\lambda$ will be a subset of $\lambda$ having size less than the critical point $\kappa$ so that $j(x) = j''x \subseteq j''\lambda$.

[Specifically, if for some $\alpha < \kappa$, we have a bijection $f: \alpha \rightarrow x$, then $j(f)$ will be a bijection between $j(\alpha) = \alpha$ and $j(x)$. So every element of $j(x)$ is of the form $j(f)(\beta)$ for some $\beta < \alpha$, but $j(f)(\beta) = j(f(\beta)) \in j''x$ since $\beta$ is also below the critical point.]

Also, $M$ will contain $h = j \upharpoonright \lambda$ by its closure under $\lambda$ sequences. Therefore, $M$ will have $j''P_{\kappa}\lambda = \{j(x)| x \in P_{\kappa}\lambda\} = \{j''x| x \in P_{\kappa}\lambda\} = \{h''x| x \in P_{\kappa}\lambda\}$. Now letting $g: P_{\kappa}\lambda \rightarrow \lambda^{{<}\kappa}$ be a bijection in $V$, we will have a bijection $j(g) \upharpoonright j''P_{\kappa}\lambda: j''P_{\kappa}\lambda \rightarrow j''\lambda^{{<}\kappa}$ in $M$. Therefore, $M$ will have the range of $j(g)$, which is exactly $j''\lambda^{{<}\kappa}$. Now, since $C$ has size at most $\lambda^{{<}\kappa}$ (in $V$), we may let $e: \lambda^{{<}\kappa} \rightarrow C$ be a surjection. Then $j(e) \upharpoonright j''\lambda^{{<}\kappa}: j''\lambda^{{<}\kappa} \rightarrow j''C$ is a surjection in $M$ so similarly, its range, $D = j''C$, will be in $M$. But $M$ will also know that $j''\lambda^{{<}\kappa}$ has size $\lambda^{{<}\kappa} < j(\kappa)$ because $M$ can construct $j \upharpoonright \lambda^{{<}\kappa}$ from $j''\lambda^{{<}\kappa}$ by virtue of $j$ being order-preserving. Therefore $\bigcup D \in j(C)$ by the ${<}j(\kappa)$-directed closure of $j(C)$ in $M$, as you mention.

Also, if $x \in C$, then $|x| < \kappa$ and $x \subseteq \lambda$ so $j(x) = j''x \subseteq j''\lambda$. Therefore, $\bigcup D = \bigcup j''C \subseteq j''\lambda$.

share|improve this answer
    
Small omission: should say range of $j(g)$ *restricted to $j''P_{\kappa}\lambda$*, which is exactly $j''\lambda^{{<}\kappa}$. –  Jason Apr 9 '11 at 6:31
1  
Thanks for the response! I think the argument in the second last paragraph can be simplified a little: If $g:P_{\kappa}(\lambda)\to C$ is a surjection in V, then $j(g)\upharpoonright j''P_{\kappa}(\lambda)$ belongs to $M$ by your observation that $j''P_{\kappa}(\lambda)$ does, and it surjects onto D. Also, by your observation that $P_{\kappa}^M(\lambda) = P_{\kappa}^V(\lambda)$, we can define a surjection $e : P_{\kappa}(\lambda) \to j''P_{\kappa}(\lambda)$ by $e(x) = h''x$. Thus in M, $|D| \leq |P_{\kappa}(\lambda)| = \lambda^{<\kappa} < j(\kappa)$ since $j(\kappa)$ is inaccessible in $M$. –  Amit Kumar Gupta Apr 10 '11 at 15:40

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.