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

We Know that a cardinal $\kappa$ is measurable if there is a set $X$ with cardinal $\kappa$ and a {0,1}-measure $\mu: P(X) \rightarrow ${$0,1$} so that for all $x \in X$, $\mu(x)=0$ and $\mu(X)=1$. also a cardinal which is not measurable, is called non measurable.

Also we Know this is unprovable to find a set with measurable cardinal in "ZFC".

In topology an extremally disconnected space is a topological space in which all open subsets has open closure.

Also we call a topological space to be a P-space if all it's $G_{\delta}$- sets are open.

There is a well-Known theorem that says every extremally disconnected P-space with non measurable cardinal is discrete.

From the aforesaid summaries a question could be posed that:

Question: If we suppose that a measurable cardinal exists, can we construct an extremally disconnected P-space with only a finite number of isolated points.

share|improve this question
4  
What do you mean it is unsettled? We know exactly that from the axioms of ZFC it is unprovable that a measurable exists. In fact from ZFC and many other large cardinal axioms it is unprovable that a measurable exists. However from assumptions like "There is a Woodin cardinal" or "There is a supercompact cardinal" or "AD holds in $L(\mathbb R)$" we can prove that a measurable exists. –  Asaf Karagila Nov 22 '12 at 11:42
1  
(A minor point. I dont see the difference between finding "a cardinal number with measurable cardinal" and finding "a measurable cardinal". According to the definition you give, they're meant to be the same, right? ) –  Qfwfq Nov 22 '12 at 13:00
2  
AliReza, the term "unsettled" usually means "an open problem", for example it is unsettled if the nontrivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function lie on the line $Re(z)=\frac12$. Unprovable is a form of settled. It is an answer. We cannot prove the existence of measurable cardinals, nor we can disprove it. –  Asaf Karagila Nov 22 '12 at 14:31
1  
Well, you probably know that you cannot prove the consistency of ZFC from the axioms of ZFC. The theory "ZFC+There exists a measurable cardinal" is a very strong theory compared to ZFC, in particular it proves the consistency of ZFC (if we assume a measurable exists then we can prove that ZFC is consistent). So assuming a measurable is a stronger assumption than assuming that there are no measurable cardinals. There is a lot of delicacy in those arguments, especially if you are unfamiliar with consistency results. But if there is a measurable, then there is a least measurable cardinal. –  Asaf Karagila Nov 22 '12 at 17:45
1  
Your title "On the existence of measurable cardinals" is extremally non-descriptive. I suggest "extremally disconnected spaces without isolated points" instead. –  Goldstern Nov 22 '12 at 19:24
show 7 more comments

1 Answer

Let $\kappa$ be a measurable cardinal with $\sigma$-complete ultrafilter $U$. Let $X$ be the set of all finite sequences from $\kappa$. For $s\in X$, $i\in \kappa$, we write $(s,i)$ for the sequence you get by appending $i$ to $s$, similarly $(s,i,j)$, etc. We call a subset $A \subseteq X$ closed if it has the following property:

  • Whenever $s$ in $X$, and almost all successors of $s$ are in $A$, then also $s$ is in $A$:

More precisely: If the set $\{i \in \kappa: (s,i)\in A\}$is in $U$, then also $s\in A$.

[EDITED:] In other words: A set $O$ is open if for all $s\in O$ also almost all successors of $s$ are in $O$. (Using the countable completeness of $U$, a neighborhood base of $s$ is given by the sets $O_{s,F}:=\{s\}\cup \{(s,i,j,\ldots, k): i,j,\ldots ,k\in F\}$, for $F\in U$. Using the fact that $U$ is non-principal one can show that these sets are clopen.)(DELETED, see Joseph's comment below.)

We check that $X$ is extremally disconnected: If $O$ is open, and $A$ is the closure of $O$, we claim that $A$ is open. So let $s\in A$. If $s\in O$, then $s$ has a neighborhood in $A$, and we are done. So assume that $s$ is not in $O$. Then almost all successors of $s$ must also be in $A$, otherwise $A\setminus \{s\}$ is closed. So $A$ is open.

The fact that $X$ is a p-space follows from the countable closure of $U$. It is clear that $X$ has no isolated points.

share|improve this answer
    
@ Goldstern, is this space hausdorff and zero- dimensional? for zero-dimensionality of a topological space, I mean it has a base of clopen subsets. –  Ali Reza Nov 23 '12 at 4:31
    
My characterization of open sets was incorrect. I have now corrected it, I hope. The basis that I describe contains only clopen sets. Yes, the space is Hausdorff. –  Goldstern Nov 23 '12 at 8:49
1  
I don't think the sets $O_{s,F}$ really form a neighborhood basis for $s$. It seems like a way to get around this is to only take increasing sequences from $\kappa$ and assume that the ultrafilter is a normal ultrafilter. Or you can just take another basis. –  Joseph Van Name Nov 25 '12 at 0:36
    
You are right. Thank you. For some stupid reason I thought that there are only countably many finite sequences. Thinking too much about Laver trees. –  Goldstern Nov 25 '12 at 1:29
    
Whenever $s\in X$, and $\bar A=(A_t:s \le t)$ is a family of sets in $U$, then $\bar A$ naturally defines a clopen neighborhood $O=O_{\bar A}$ of $s$, and these neighborhoods form a base: $s\in O$, all elements of $O$ extend $s$, and for each $t\in O$ we have $(t,i)\in O$ iff $i\in A_t$. –  Goldstern Nov 25 '12 at 1:39
add comment

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.