In Chang and Keisler's Model Theory I came across the following theorem (Theorem 7.2.13):

Theorem There exists a (first-order) sentence $\sigma$ such that for all infinite cardinals $\alpha$, $\sigma$ admits $(\alpha^{++},\alpha)$ iff there exists an $\alpha$-Kurepa tree.


(1) Fix a predicate $P$ in the language of $\sigma$. Then $\sigma$ admits $(\kappa,\lambda)$ if there is a model $M$ of $\sigma$ with $|M|=\kappa$ and $|P^M|=\lambda$. Obviously, $\kappa\ge\lambda$.

(2) An $\alpha$-Kurepa tree has height $\alpha^+$, each level has at most $\alpha$ elements and there are at least $\alpha^{++}$ elements of height $\alpha^+$.

Although $\sigma$ is not explicitly defined in Chang and Keisler, I am assuming it says something like:

There is a predicate $P$, there is a surjection from $P$ to each level, the levels of the tree are linearly ordered, and there is a surjection from $P$ to every initial segment of this linear order.

I see this sentence works under GCH, but I have a hard time when GCH fails. Consider for instance the case when $\alpha=\aleph_0$ and, say $2^{\aleph_0}=\aleph_2$. Then we can cook up a model of the above sentence that resembles $(\omega^{<\omega},\subset)$ with $\omega^\omega$ many cofinal branches. This model will be have type $(\aleph_2,\aleph_0)$.

By a theorem of Devlin, we can find a model of ZFC where there is no Kurepa tree and the continuum is $\aleph_2$. Thus, it is consistent that $\sigma$ will have models of type $(\aleph_2,\aleph_0)$, while there are no Kurepa trees.

My question: Do I miss something "obvious", or is the above theorem true only under GCH?

  • $\begingroup$ What if you add an extra predicate $U$, and require it has size successor to $|P|$, and require the tree has height of size $U$. $\endgroup$ Nov 7, 2015 at 5:06
  • $\begingroup$ I think if we require a first order theory, it might be easier: say we have a model of enouph of $ZFC\setminus $power set, $P$ is an infinite cardinal, $P^+$ is the largest cardinal and require you have a Kurepa family coded by elements of the universe. $\endgroup$ Nov 7, 2015 at 5:09
  • $\begingroup$ @Mohammad Because of the Downward Lowenheim-Skolem theorem, we can not require that a certain predicate has size the successor to |P|. $\endgroup$ Nov 9, 2015 at 16:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ When I was writing the note, I had the following idea: We have an ordering of the universe, U is ordered, any large enough initial segment of it is in one-one correspondence with P, and any initial segment of the universe is the one-one image of a map from U. In general the idea is that if we can realize both a cardinal $\kappa$ and $\kappa^{++}$, then by adding a new predicate and extra axioms we can also realize $\kappa^+.$ $\endgroup$ Nov 10, 2015 at 8:18
  • $\begingroup$ @Mohammad Yes this will work. The same idea is behind Andreas Blass' answer. $\endgroup$ Nov 11, 2015 at 16:28

1 Answer 1


The problem, as I see it, is to build into the sentence $\sigma$ something that makes a certain definable set $A$ (in this case a set indexing the levels of your tree) have cardinality $\aleph_1$. You've already ensured that $A$ isn't any bigger than $\aleph_1$ by having surjections from $P$ to all of the initial segments of $A$. I claim the same idea can be used to ensure that $A$ isn't any smaller than $\aleph_1$, as follows. Since the universe of your model is guaranteed to have cardinality $\aleph_2$, you can ensure that $A$ is big enough by having a linear ordering of the universe and requiring surjections from $A$ onto all the initial segments of this ordering. The point is that there is no linear ordering of cardinality $\aleph_2$ in which all proper initial segments are countable. (Here, and also in the $\sigma$ that you described in the question, "initial segment" should mean a set of the form $\{x:x\leq a\}$ for some $a$, not just a downward-closed set.)

  • $\begingroup$ Sorry I was gone for the weekend. This will work. $\endgroup$ Nov 9, 2015 at 16:41

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.