Let $\omega^\omega$ denote the set of all functions $f:\omega\to\omega$ and suppose that ${\cal U}$ is a free ultrafilter on $\omega$. We write $f \leq_{\cal U} g$ if $$\{n\in\omega: f(n) \leq g(n)\}\in{\cal U}.$$

Similar to the usual bounding and dominating numbers, we define $${\frak b}_{\cal U} = \min\{|B|: B\subseteq \omega^\omega \land \forall f\in\omega^\omega \exists g\in B(g\not \leq_{\cal U} f)\},$$ and $${\frak d}_{\cal U} = \min\{|D|: D\subseteq \omega^\omega \land \forall f\in\omega^\omega \exists g\in D(f \leq_{\cal U} g)\}.$$

Do we have ${\frak b} = {\frak b}_{\cal U}$ and ${\frak d} = {\frak d}_{\cal U}$?


For any two functions $f,g$ the sets $\{n\in\omega:f(n)\leq g(n)\}$ and $\{n\in\omega:g(n)\leq f(n)\}$ cover $\omega$, so one of them must be in $\mathcal U$. Hence we have a dichotomy $f\leq_{\mathcal U}g$ or $f\leq_{\mathcal U}g$.

It follows that every unbounded family is dominating: if $B$ is an unbounded with respect to $\leq_{\mathcal U}$family, then for any $f\in\omega^\omega$ there is $g\in B$ such that $f\not\geq_{\mathcal U}g$ and hence $f\leq_{\mathcal U}g$, hence $B$ is dominating. Since every dominating set is clearly unbounded, it follows that $\frak b_{\mathcal U}=\frak d_{\mathcal U}$. However, it is consistent that $\frak b<\frak d$, so it is consistent that $\frak b_{\mathcal U}\neq\frak b$ or $\frak d_{\mathcal U}\neq\frak d$.

We can say something more: every set unbounded with respect to $\leq_{\mathcal U}$ is unbounded with respect to $\leq^*$ (because $f\not\leq_{\mathcal U}g\Rightarrow f\not\leq^*g$) and every set dominating with respect to $\leq^*$ is dominating with respect to $\leq_{\mathcal U}$ (because $f\leq^*g\Rightarrow f\leq_{\mathcal U}g$), so $\frak b\leq\frak b_{\mathcal U}=\frak d_{\mathcal U}\leq\frak d$, hence it's consistent that one of these inequalities is strict.

Of course assuming $CH$ we would have $\frak b=\frak b_{\mathcal U}=\frak d_{\mathcal U}=\frak d=\frak c$, hence the only open question left is whether we can (consistently) have $\frak b<\frak b_{\mathcal U}=\frak d_{\mathcal U}<\frak d$, which is a question I can't answer.

  • $\begingroup$ Very nice and clear answer, thanks! $\endgroup$ – Dominic van der Zypen Feb 12 '16 at 9:49

The relation $\leq_{\cal U}$ is very well-studied: it is the order relation on the model of the hyperreals obtained by taking an ultrapower of $\mathbb{R}$ with respect to $\cal U$.

Letting $\mathbb{R}^*_{\cal U}$ denote this ultrapower, you are asking for the smallest size of an unbounded set in $\mathbb{R}^*_{\cal U}$ (which you call $\frak b_{\cal U}$) and the smallest size of a cofinal set in $\mathbb{R}^*_{\cal U}$ (which you call $\frak d_{\cal U}$).

As Wojowu points out, these cardinals are the same because $\leq_{\cal U}$ is a linear order on $\mathbb{R}^*_{\cal U}$. Also, this cardinal is bounded below by $\frak b$ and above by $\frak d$.

But one can say a bit more. Andreas Blass has proved (in this paper) that $\frak g \leq \frak b_{\cal U}$. Mike Canjar proved that, if you add lots of Cohen reals to a model of CH, then any uncountable regular cardinal $\leq \frak c$ is equal to $\frak b_{\cal U}$ for some free ultrafilter $\cal U$. In other words, he showed that the value of $\frak b_{\cal U}$ can depend not only on your model of set theory, but within a single model it can also depend on $\cal U$.

If you want to learn more, I suggest you look at Andreas's paper, and also his answer to this related question of Joel David Hamkins.

  • $\begingroup$ Fantastic, and thanks for pointing me to the hyperreals and the references! $\endgroup$ – Dominic van der Zypen Feb 12 '16 at 20:44

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.