I have a couple of questions about known theorems for GCH+Kurepa families.

Definition first: Let $\kappa$ be a infinite cardinal. A $\kappa^+$ Kurepa family is a family $F$ of subsets of $\kappa^+$ such that $F$ has size $>\kappa^+$ and for every $a<\kappa^+$, the set $\lbrace X\cap \alpha|X\in F\rbrace$ has size $\le\kappa$.

(The definition can be given in terms of tress too).

$KH(\kappa^+)$ is the statement that a $\kappa^+$ Kurepa family exists.

Please correct me, if I am mistaken, but we know that $KH(\kappa^+)$ holds for all infinite $\kappa$ in $L$ (the constructible universe). Also, if $\lambda$ is an inaccessible cardinal and we collapse $\lambda$ to $\aleph_2$, then in the generic extension $KH(\aleph_1)$ fails. (Look also this On the independence of the Kurepa Hypothesis)

So, my questions are:

1) Do we know any models where GCH holds and $KH(\kappa^+)$ fails for all $\kappa$?

2) If this is not the case, can we at least have GCH+ the failure of $KH(\aleph_{\alpha+1})$, for all $\alpha$ countable ordinals?

3) If (2) is not known either, then fix some $\alpha$ countable ordinal $>0$. Can we have GCH+ the failure of $KH(\aleph_{\alpha+1})$?

4) If the ground model satisfies GCH, after we collapse an inaccessible cardinal to $\aleph_2$ do we still get GCH?

I am sure if I am asking too much. I just want to see what we already know.

PS. What is the right way to pronounce Kurepa? Is it KUrepa (stress on KU), or KuREpa (stress on RE), or KurePA?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The Wikipedia article shows a pitch accent marker on the u, which means (if the given pronunciation is correct) the first syllable must be stressed. $\endgroup$
    – Nathan
    Dec 22, 2011 at 23:54

1 Answer 1


Hi Ioannis! I guess you might know the answer by now; if we suppose for 1 that there is a class of inaccessible cardinals in the ground model and force with an Easton support product of Lévy collapses between the inaccessibles, we obtain a model of GCH where $KH(\kappa^+)$ fails for all $\kappa$; the argument is the same as for $\omega_1$. Also the failure of $KH(\kappa^+)$ implies that $\kappa^{++}$ is inaccessible in $L$, so we need the inaccessibles.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Philipp, thank you for the answer. Just to clarify: Is this something that has appeared in the literature, or is it something you devised easily yourself? $\endgroup$ Aug 2, 2012 at 18:21
  • $\begingroup$ Ioannis, I don't know if this specific problem can be found in the literature. I just corrected the last $\kappa^+$ to $\kappa^{++}$. The argument is Silver's proof that $KH(\aleph_1)$ fails after collapsing an inaccessible to $\aleph_2$ adapted to $\kappa^+$. It needs to be checked that the Easton product does not collapse cardinals (compare with Easton forcing in Jech). If $KH(\kappa^{++})$ fails and $\kappa^{++}$ were a successor in $L$, let $x\subseteq \kappa^+$ code its successor, so that $(\kappa^+)^{+L[x]}=\kappa^{++}$. There is a $\kappa^+$-Kurepa tree in $L[x]$ and hence in $V$. $\endgroup$ Aug 6, 2012 at 6:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The analogous problem for inaccessibles would involve slim Kurepa trees (where each level $\alpha$ has size $\leq|\alpha|$). I just found a relationship between slim Kurepa trees and ineffable cardinals at cantorsattic.info/Ineffable. $\endgroup$ Aug 6, 2012 at 6:30

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.