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


I wonder if anyone knows this.


  1. $ded\left(\lambda\right)$ is the supremum of all sizes of linear orders with a dense subset of size $\lambda$.

  2. $ded^{*}\left(\lambda\right)$ is the supremum of all sizes of branches of the same hight of set theoretic trees with $\lambda$ many nodes.

(i.e. a partial order such that for every $x$, the set of elements smaller than $x$ is well-ordered)

It is known that $\lambda< ded^{*}\left(\lambda\right)\leq ded\left(\lambda\right)\leq2^{\lambda}$.

Can it be that $ded^{*}\left(\lambda\right)< ded\left(\lambda\right)$?

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

EDIT: I added some more comments at the end.

I am not sure if this exactly what you want, but here is a theorem that might help:

Definition Assume $\mu\le\kappa\le\lambda$ and $\mu$ is a regular cardinal. (1) Let $D(\kappa,\lambda)$ iff there is a linear order of size $\lambda$ and a dense set of size $\kappa$. (2) Let $D(\kappa,\lambda,\mu)$ iff there is a linear order of size $\lambda$, character $\mu$ that has a dense subset of size $\kappa$.


Theorem (1) $D(\kappa,\lambda,\mu)$ iff there is a tree of height $\mu$, cardinality $\le\kappa$ and at least $\lambda$ branches of length $\mu$. (2) $D(\kappa,\lambda)$ iff there is a tree of height $\le\kappa$, cardinality $\le\kappa$ and at least $\lambda$ branches.

This is from J.E. Baumgartner, Almost-disjoint sets the dense set problem and the partition calculus, Annals of Mathematical Logic, Volume 9, Issue 4, May 1976, Pages 401-439

Let me combine and expand on the definitions: $$ded(λ)=sup_κD(λ,κ)$$ $$ded(λ,μ)=sup_κD(λ,κ,μ)$$ $$ded^*(\lambda,\mu)=\sup_\kappa \mbox{ There is a tree T with height $\mu$ and $\lambda$ many nodes}$$

$$\mbox{and the set of $\mu$−branches through T has size $\kappa$}$$

$$ded^∗(λ)=\sup_μded^∗(λ,μ).$$ I am not sure if this is your intended definition or not. Assume so.

Then by Baumgartner's theorem, part (1): $$ded^*(\lambda,\mu)=\sup_\kappa D(\lambda, \kappa,\mu)=ded(\lambda,\mu)$$ and $$ded^*(λ)=\sup_μ ded(λ,μ).$$

So the question becomes whether or not $$ded^*(\lambda)=\sup_μ ded(λ,μ)\le ded(\lambda).$$

I hope I am not misinterpreting your definition. I have to give it some thought for this last inequality, but it is not obvious to me why it should hold. On the other hand, I don't have a counterexample either.

share|improve this answer
Thanks. What do you mean by character $\mu$? –  ikp Aug 5 '11 at 14:51
The left character of a point $x$ is the least cardinal $\kappa$ such that there is a cofinal sequence in the set $\{y|y<x\}$. The right character is defined symmetrically by considering coinitial sequences in $\{y|y>x\}$. The character of $x$ is the minimum of these two. –  Ioannis Souldatos Aug 5 '11 at 16:07
Thanks. So $ded^{*}$ can be defined using (1). Does Baumgartner also answers my original question? –  ikp Aug 5 '11 at 16:51

Your Answer


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.