I don't know much about singular cardinal combinatorics, so I apologize in advance if I write something that is wrong or looks funny. First let me recall some basic definitions.

Let $\lambda$ be a singular cardinal and let $(\kappa_i : i < \text{cf}(\lambda))$ be a sequence of regular cardinals cofinal in $\lambda$. A sequence $(f_\alpha : \alpha < \lambda^+)$ of functions $f_\alpha \in \prod_{i < \text{cf}(\lambda)} \kappa_i$ is called a scale if it is:

(1) increasing modulo $<^*$, where $f <^* g$ means that $f(i) < g(i)$ for all but a bounded set of $i < \text{cf}(\lambda)$, and

(2) cofinal in $\prod_{i < \text{cf}(\lambda)} \kappa_i$ modulo $<^*$.

A scale is said to be good if it satisfies the additional property

(3) for club many $\alpha < \lambda^+$, if $\text{cf}(\alpha) > \text{cf}(\lambda)$ then $\alpha$ is a good point, meaning that there is an unbounded set $S \subset \alpha$ and an ordinal $i < \text{cf}(\lambda)$ such that the sequence $(f_\alpha \restriction [i,\text{cf}(\lambda)): \alpha \in S)$ is pointwise increasing.

The proof of the fact "if $\lambda$ is a singular cardinal and there is a strongly compact cardinal between $\text{cf}(\lambda)$ and $\lambda$, then there is no good scale of length $\lambda^+$" seems to use only properties (1) and (3) but not property (2). So my questions are:

(A) Do sequences of length $\lambda^+$ satisfying (1) and (3) have a name (e.g. "good pseudo-scale")?

(B) Is their existence equivalent to the existence of good scales?

  • $\begingroup$ If it looks like a scale; and it proves like a scale; it's a duck. Big, red, scaly duck, which looks suspiciously like a dragon. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Sep 1, 2014 at 17:27
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ (Also, after two votes up, your reputation is so last year! ;-)) $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Sep 1, 2014 at 17:27

1 Answer 1


Your pseudo-good scale is indeed equivalent to a good scale, although the good scale possibly lives on a different product. This follows easily from the construction of a scale given in Cummings' Notes on Singular Cardinal Combinatorics.

A basic theorem of Shelah: If a $<^*$-increasing sequence of functions has stationary many good points of cofinality $\kappa$ for some $\kappa<\lambda$, then it has an exact upper bound $g$ such that $\mathrm{cf}(g(i))>\kappa$ for but boundedly many $i$.

Taking such an exact upper bound, you can thin to $X\subseteq \mathrm{cf}(\lambda)$ so that $i\mapsto \mathrm{cf}(g(i)): i\in X$ is increasing and unbounded in $\lambda$. Then you can fix cofinal subsets of $g(i)$ of order-type $\mathrm{cf}(g(i))$ for each $i\in X$ and modify the functions to live on $\prod_{i\in X} \mathrm{cf}(g(i))$. You can check that this preserves (3), and the resulting sequence of functions is cofinal in the new product.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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