4
$\begingroup$

A well-known result of Solovay states that $ZFC$ + "the continuum is real-valued measurable" is equiconsistent with $ZFC$ + "there is a measurable cardinal", over $ZFC$. That the continuum is mentioned here is no coincidence. A theorem of Ulam back in 1930 gave evidence that the continuum is some sort of a dividing line: any real-valued measurable cardinal above the continuum must be measurable. On the other hand, cardinals at or below the continuum cannot be measurable (or even strongly inaccessible), and in general are a lot more tame.

A natural question to follow-up would be, where can the least real-valued measurable cardinal lie, using the continuum as a benchmark? In particular, I would like to ask if each of the following is known to be consistent with $ZFC$ in conjunction with any large cardinal axiom:

  1. the least real-valued measurable cardinal $< \mathfrak{c}$.
  2. the least real-valued measurable cardinal $= \mathfrak{c}$.
  3. the least real-valued measurable cardinal $> \mathfrak{c}$.

Solovay's result means that either 1. or 2. is consistent, but I cannot find any hint as to which of the two holds in his model.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think the following works: Let $\kappa$ be the least measurable cardinal in $V$. For 1), take $\lambda>\kappa$ such that $\lambda^\omega=\lambda$, then adding $\lambda$ many random reals will produce $2^\omega=\lambda$ and $\kappa<\lambda$ is real-valued meas. For 2), you can start with $V=L[U]$ and choose $\lambda=\kappa$ as in the first case. If there is a real-valued meas below $\mathfrak{c}=\kappa$ I think you produce an inner model of measurable cardinal $<\kappa$, this will contradicts uniqueness. For 3), any model of CH works. $\endgroup$ – Jing Zhang May 2 '18 at 16:55
3
$\begingroup$

All of them are equiconsistent with the existence of a measurable cardinal. I find that a nice reference for this stuff, in addition to Solovay's article, is Jech's Set Theory: Third Millennium Edition.

I will discuss 3 first. Any measurable cardinal is real-valued measurable (it just happens not to use any of the values between 0 and 1). Solovay proved that if $\kappa$ is real-valued measurable, $\mu$ is a normal measure on it with $I$ the ideal of null sets, then in $L[I]$ the cardinal $\kappa$ is measurable. Section 3.6 of his paper has a reference to a paper by Kunen proving that the generalized continuum hypothesis holds in $L[I]$, so $\mathfrak{c} = \aleph_1$ is not real-valued measurable in $L[I]$ (nor is any smaller cardinal).

Case 2 is what occurs if we do Solovay's construction of adding $\kappa$ random reals, where $\kappa$ is a measurable cardinal (which becomes an atomlessly real-valued measurable in the forcing extension).

Case 1 happens if we take a $\lambda > \kappa$ where $\lambda$ has uncountable cofinality (this is automatic if $\kappa = \lambda$ itself because it is regular, but the extra assumption is needed here), and force $\lambda$ random reals. In the forcing extension, $\mathfrak{c} = \lambda$ and $\kappa$ is atomlessly real-valued measurable, and $\kappa < \lambda$ is unchanged. This, and case 2, are explained in section 4 of Solovay's paper, and also in Chapter 2 of Jech's book, around page 415.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Regarding 1: If by "real-valued measurable" we mean atomlessly measurable (rather than measurable in the usual sense of large cardinals), then any real-valued measurable cardinal is of size at most the continuum. $\endgroup$ – Andrés E. Caicedo May 2 '18 at 23:31
  • $\begingroup$ Can you briefly illustrate how adding $\kappa$ random reals in Case 2 would not make any cardinal below $\kappa$ real-valued measurable? $\endgroup$ – Zoorado May 3 '18 at 2:42
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Zoorado If you start with $L[\mu]$, the smallest model with a measurable cardinal $\kappa$ (with $\kappa$ as small as possible) and add $\kappa$ random reals, Solovay's argument shows that in the extension $\kappa$ is real-valued measurable and the continuum. If $\lambda<\kappa$ is also real-valued measurable, Solovay's argument using the null ideal for a witnessing measure on $\lambda$ would give you an inner model with $\lambda$ measurable. This contradicts the minimality of $\kappa$. (The one technical further detail is that minimality of $L[\mu]$ is absolute under forcing extensions.) $\endgroup$ – Andrés E. Caicedo May 3 '18 at 3:24

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.