4
$\begingroup$

For a cardinal $\kappa$ let $[\kappa]^{<\kappa}$ denote the family of subsets of cardinality $<\kappa$ in $\kappa$. The family $[\kappa]^{<\kappa}$ is endowed with the partial order of inclusion. A simple diagonal argument shows that for any infinite cardinal $\kappa$ the poset $[\kappa]^{<\kappa}$ has cofinality $\ge\kappa$. It is easy to see that for a regular cardinal $\kappa$ this is an equality: the poset $[\kappa]^{<\kappa}$ has cofinality $\kappa$.

Problem. What is known about the cofinality of the poset $[\kappa]^{<\kappa}$ for a singular cardinal $\kappa$?

Can it be equal to $\kappa$ for some special singular cardinals $\kappa$?

What is the cofinality of the poset $[\kappa]^{<\kappa}$ for $\kappa=\aleph_\omega$?

I hope that the answers should be known to specialists but I cannot find anything relevant in the books.


Added in Edit: In this answer @YCor proved that for any singular cardinal $\kappa$ the poset $[\kappa]^{<\kappa}$ has cofinality $>\kappa$. From this fact we can conclude that a cardinal $\kappa$ is regular if and only if $\mathrm{cof}([\kappa]^{<\kappa})=\kappa$. I suspect that this characterization (answering this MO-question) should be known. Does anybody know a suitable reference?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ @YCor No, it is (more-or-less) obvious that $\mathrm{cof}([\kappa]^{<\kappa})\ge\mathrm{cf}(\kappa)$. But I doubt that $\mathrm{cof}([\kappa]^{<\kappa})=\mathrm{cf}(\kappa)$ is true for all singular $\kappa$. Let us wait for experts. $\endgroup$ – Taras Banakh Oct 21 '18 at 10:41
  • $\begingroup$ @YCor I have just realized that a simple diagonal argument shows that $\mathrm{cof}([\kappa]^{<\kappa})\ge\kappa$, so my second question always has negative answer. Now I will make corresponding changes in the problem. $\endgroup$ – Taras Banakh Oct 21 '18 at 10:55
3
$\begingroup$

If $\kappa$ is singular, the cofinality of the poset $[\kappa]^{<\kappa}$ is $>\kappa$.

Indeed, $\kappa$ singular means that there is a limit ordinal $\alpha<\kappa$ and an increasing family $(\lambda_\xi)_{\xi<\alpha}$ such that $\lambda_\xi<\kappa$ for each $\xi$ and $\sup_{\xi<\alpha}\lambda_\xi=\kappa$.

Suppose by contradiction that $[\kappa]^{<\kappa}$ has cofinality $\le\kappa$. So there is a family of subsets $(A_i)_{i<\kappa}$, with $A_i\subset\kappa$, $|A_i|<\kappa$ for all $i<\kappa$, and such that for every $A\subset\kappa$ such that $|A|<\kappa$ there exists $i<\kappa$ such that $A\subset A_i$.

For $\xi<\alpha$ define $$B_\xi=\bigcup_{i\le \lambda_\xi,|A_i|\le\lambda_\xi}A_i.$$

For each $B_\xi$ is union of $\le\lambda_\xi$ sets of cardinal $\le\lambda_\xi$, hence has cardinal $<\kappa$. (This is an adjustment of Mohammad Golshani's initial argument: we have to restrict the cardinal in the union to ensure that $B_\xi$ has cardinal $<\kappa$.)

Then $(B_\xi)_{\xi<\alpha}$ is cofinal in $[\kappa]^{<\kappa}$. If $A\subset\kappa$ and $|A|<\kappa$, there exists $j<\kappa$ such that $A\subset A_i$. There exists $\eta<\kappa$ such that $j\le\lambda_\eta$. In turn, there is $\xi$ with $\eta\le\xi<\kappa$ such that $|A_{\lambda_\eta}|\le\lambda_\xi$. Then $A\subset A_j\subset A_{\lambda_\eta}$. Also we have $\max(\lambda_\eta,|A_{\lambda_\eta}|)\le\lambda_\xi$, so $A_{\lambda_\eta}\subset B_\xi$. Hence $A\subset B_\xi$.

This proves that $[\kappa]^{<\kappa}$ has cofinality $<\kappa$, which is a contradiction to the obvious diagonal argument.


The idea of the proof is that the cofinality of a poset "shouldn't" be a singular cardinal; nevertheless this does not work under further assumptions. For instance, if $\kappa$ is any infinite cardinal, then $[\kappa]^{<\aleph_0}$ has cofinality (and cardinal) $\kappa$, which can be singular.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the answer. In the first line it is better write that the cofinality of $[\kappa]^{<\kappa}$ is $>\kappa$ (not just cardinality). $\endgroup$ – Taras Banakh Oct 22 '18 at 7:47
  • $\begingroup$ By the way, your answer resolves also the other my MO-problem: mathoverflow.net/questions/313402/… $\endgroup$ – Taras Banakh Oct 22 '18 at 7:49
4
$\begingroup$

In general, one can prove the following:

1) if $2^{< \kappa} \leq \lambda,$ then $\mathrm{cf}([\lambda]^{< \kappa})=\lambda^{<\kappa}$.

2) If $cf(\lambda) < cf(\kappa),$ then $\mathrm{cf}([\lambda]^{< \kappa})\geq \lambda^+$. Furthermore if $0^\sharp$ does not exist, then we have the equality.

Proof of (1). If $\lambda^{<\kappa}=\lambda,$ this is clear, so suppose $\lambda < \lambda^{<\kappa}$ and suppose by contradiction that $cf([\lambda]^{< \kappa}) < \lambda^{<\kappa}$, as witnessed by a set $X$.

Then for each $x \in X,$ there are at most $2^{|x|} \leq \lambda$ many subsets of $x$, and so

$\lambda^{< \kappa} = |[\lambda]^{< \kappa}|\leq |X| \cdot \lambda < \lambda^{< \kappa}$, which is impossible.

Proof of (2). Suppose by contradiction that $\{x_\alpha : \alpha < \lambda \}$ is cofinal in $[\lambda]^{< \kappa}$. Let also $(\lambda_\xi: \xi < \mathrm{cf}(\lambda))$ be increasing and cofinal in $\lambda$. For each $\xi< \mathrm{cf}(\lambda)$ pick some $y_\xi \in [\lambda]^{< \kappa}$ which is not covered by $\{x_\alpha : \alpha < \lambda_\xi\}$. Then $y= \bigcup_{\xi < \mathrm{cf}(\lambda)}y_\xi \in [\lambda]^{< \kappa}$ and is not covered by $\{x_\alpha : \alpha < \lambda \}$. A contradiction.

If $0^\sharp$ does not exist, one can use Jensen's covering lemma to get the equality.

In particular, it follows from (1) that if $\kappa$ is a singular strong limit cardinal, then $\mathrm{cf}([\kappa]^{< \kappa})=\kappa^{<\kappa} > \kappa.$.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You can see the definition at zero-sharp. what is used here is Jensen's covering lemma $\endgroup$ – Mohammad Golshani Oct 21 '18 at 12:18
  • $\begingroup$ @MohammadGolshani It is not clear to me why the set $y$ has cardinality $<\kappa$. In order to have $|y|<\kappa$, we need to assume that $\mathrm{cf}(\lambda)<\mathrm{cf}(\kappa)$ by we have merely that $\mathrm{cf}(\lambda)<\kappa$. So, the proof (and maybe also the formulation) of (2) should be adjusted. $\endgroup$ – Taras Banakh Oct 21 '18 at 14:11

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.