Let $[\omega]^\omega$ denote the collection of infinite subsets of $\omega$. We say $a,b\in [\omega]^\omega$ are almost disjoint if $a\cap b$ is finite. A subset $A\subseteq [\omega]^\omega$ is said to be an almost disjoint family if $a, b$ are almost disjoint for all $a \neq b \in A$. A standard application of Zorn's Lemma shows that every almost disjoint family is contained in a maximal almost disjoint family (MAD family) (maximal with respect to $\subseteq$).

A diagonalization argument shows that all infinite MAD families have uncountable cardinality. By ${\frak a}$ we denote the minimum cardinality that a MAD family can have. It is consistent that ${\frak a} < {\frak c} = 2^{\aleph_0}$.

Question. Is it consistent that

  1. ${\frak a} < {\frak c}$,
  2. there is a MAD family $A\subseteq [\omega]^\omega$ with $|A| = {\frak c}$, and
  3. there is a cardinal ${\frak g}$ with ${\frak a} \in {\frak g} \in {\frak c}$ such that there is no MAD family with cardinality ${\frak g}$?

1 Answer 1


Yes, this is consistent.

Suppose we force to add $\kappa$ mutually generic Cohen reals to a model of $\mathsf{CH}$, where $\kappa$ is some cardinal with uncountable cofinality. In the extension, there are MAD families of cardinality $\aleph_1$ and cardinality $\kappa = \mathfrak{c}$, but there are no MAD families of any intermediate cardinality.

The proof of this is a basic instance of what's known as an "isomorphism of names" argument. I think this result appears as an exercise in Kunen's 1980 book, although I think it's originally due to Arnie Miller. The argument is greatly extended in

S. Shelah and O. Spinas, "MAD spectra," Journal of Symbolic Logic 80 (2015), pp. 243-262 (link).

They prove that the set of all cardinals $\kappa$ such that there is a MAD family of size $\kappa$ can be almost completely arbitrary. For example, given any $A \subseteq \omega \setminus \{0\}$, there is a forcing extension in which $A = \{ n < \omega :\, \text{there is a MAD family of size } \aleph_n\}$.


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.