arxiv:math/ v1 [math.lo] 9 Dec 2006

Transcription

1 arxiv:math/ v1 [math.lo] 9 Dec 2006 THE NONSTATIONARY IDEAL ON P κ (λ) FOR λ SINGULAR Pierre MATET and Saharon SHELAH Abstract Let κ be a regular uncountable cardinal and λ > κ a singular strong limit cardinal. We give a new characterization of the nonstationary subsets of P κ(λ) and use this to prove that the nonstationary ideal on P κ(λ) is nowhere precipitous. 0 Introduction Let κ be a regular uncountable cardinal and λ > κ a singular cardinal. Let I (respectively, NS )denotetheidealofnoncofinal(respectively, nonstationary) subsets of P κ (λ). Now suppose λ is a strong limit cardinal. If cf(λ) < κ, then by a result of Shelah [7], NS = I A for some A. If cf(λ) κ, then by results of [4], NS I A for every A. Nevertheless, Shelah s result can be generalized as follows. Given an infinite cardinal µ λ, let NS µ denote the smallest µ-normal ideal on P κ (λ), where an ideal J on P κ (λ) is said to be µ- normal if for every A J + and every f : A µ with the property that f(a) a for all a A, there exists B J + P(A) with f being constant on B. Note that NS λ = NS, and NS µ = I whenever µ < κ. We will show that NS = NS cf(λ) A for some A. Since, by a result of Matsubara and Shioyia [6], I is nowhere precipitous, it immediately follows that NS is nowhere precipitous in case cf(λ) < κ, a result that is alsodue to Matsubaraand Shioyia [6]. It is claimed in [5] that NS is also nowhere precipitous in case cf(λ) κ. Unfortunately, there is a mistae in the proof (see the last line of the proof of Lemma 2.9 : a C α [g α ] does not necessarily imply that a C[g]). We show that the proof can be repaired by using our characterization of NS. Publication 33. Research supported by the United States - Israel Binational Science Foundation (Grant no ). Publication Mathematics Subject Classification : 03E05, 03E55 0 Key words and phrases : P κ(λ), nonstationary ideal, precipitous ideal 1

2 For the results above to hold, it is not necessary to assume that λ is a strong limit cardinal. In fact we show that if cof(ns κ,τ ) λ for every cardinal τ with κ τ < λ, then NS = NS cf(λ) A for some A. (If GCH holds in V and P is the forcing notion to add λ + Cohen reals, then in V P,λ is no longer a strong limit cardinal but, by results of [3], for every cardinal τ with κ τ < λ, cof(ns κ,τ ) = τ + and hence cof(ns κ,τ λ). Let us observe that by results of [4], the converse holds in case cf(λ) < κ. Note that if NS = NS cf(λ) A, then for each cardinal χ with κ (cf(λ)) + χ < λ,ns χ A = NScf(λ) A. We show that for this (i.e. the existence of A NS such that NSχ A = NScf(λ) A) to hold, it is sufficient to assume that cof(nsκ,τ) χ λ for every cardinal τ with χ τ < λ. 1 Basic material Throughout the paper κ denotes a regular uncountable cardinal and λ a cardinal greater than or equal to κ. NS κ denotes the nonstationary ideal on κ. For a set A and a cardinal ρ, let P ρ (A) = {a A : a < ρ}. I denotes the set of all A P κ (λ) such that {a A : b a} = φ for some a P κ (λ). By an ideal on P κ (λ), we mean a collection J of subsets of P κ (λ) such that (i) I J ; (ii) P κ (λ) / J ; (iii) P(A) J for all A J ; and (iv) X J for every X P κ (J). Given an ideal J on P κ (λ), let J + = {A P κ (λ) : A / J} and J = {A P κ (λ) : P κ (λ)\a J}. For A J +, let J A = {B P κ (λ) : B A J}. M J denotes the collection of all Q J + such that (i) A B J for any distinct A,B J, and (ii) for every C J +, there is A Q with A C J +. For a cardinal ρ,j is ρ-saturated if Q < ρ for every Q M J. An ideal J on P κ (λ) is precipitous if whenever A J + and < Q n : n < ω > is a sequence of members of M J A such that Q n+1 P(B) for all n < ω, B Q n there exists f Q n such that f(0) f(1)... and f(n) φ. J is n ω n<ω nowhere precipitous if for each A J +,J A is not precipitous. G(J) denotes the following two-player game lasting ω moves, with player I maing the first move : I and II alternately pic members of J +, thus building a sequence < X n : n < ω >, subject to the condition that X 0 X 1... II wins G(J) just in case X n = φ. n<ω LEMMA 1.1 ([2]) An ideal J on P κ (λ) is nowhere precipitous if and only if II has a winning strategy in the game G(J). 2

3 Given an ideal J on P κ (λ), cof(j) denotes the least cardinality of any X J such that J = P(A). cof(j) denotes the least size of any Y J with A X the property that for every A J, there is y P κ (Y) with A y. Let u() = cof(i ). The following is well-nown (see e.g. [3]) : LEMMA 1.2 λ <κ = 2 <κ u(). LEMMA 1.3 ([3])Let A I + be such that {a A : b a} = A for every b P κ (λ). Then A can be decomposed into A pairwise disjoint members of I +. It follows that if NS = I A for some A, then (a) P κ (λ) can be split into c() disjoint stationary sets, where c() denotes the least size of any closed unbounded subset of P κ (λ), and (b) every stationary subset of P κ (λ) can be split into u() disjoint stationary sets. Let µ and θ be two cardinals such that 1 µ λ and 2 θ κ. An ideal J on P κ (λ) is [µ] <θ -normal if given A J + and f : A P θ (µ) with the property that f(a) P a θ (a µ) for all a A, there exists B J + P(A) such that f is constant on B. (Note that [λ] <κ -normality is the same as the well-nown notion of strong normality). We set θ = θ if θ < κ, or θ = κ and κ is a limit cardinal, and θ = ν if θ = κ = ν +. LEMMA 1.4 ([3]) i) Suppose that µ < κ, or θ < κ, or κ is not a limit cardinal. Then there exists a [µ] <θ -normal ideal on P κ (λ) if and only if P θ (ρ) < κ for every cardinal ρ < κ (µ+1). ii) Suppose that µ κ,θ = κ and κ is a limit cardinal. Then there exists a [µ] <θ -normal ideal on P κ (λ) if and only if κ is a Mahlo cardinal. Assuming there exists a [µ] <θ -normalideal on P κ (λ),ns [µ]<θ denotes the smallest such ideal. LEMMA 1.5 ([3]) i) Suppose µ < κ. Then NS [µ]<θ = I. ii) Suppose θ ω. Then NS [µ]<θ = NS µ. For g : P θ 3 (µ) P 3 (λ), let Cg be the set of all a P κ (λ) such that a (θ 3) φ and f(e) a for every e P a (θ 3) (a µ). LEMMA 1.6 ([4]) Suppose κ µ < λ < µ +κ. Then cof(ns µ ) = λ cof(ns κ,µ ). 3

4 LEMMA 1.7 ([3]) Suppose µ κ. Then a subset A of P κ (λ) lies in NS [µ]<θ if and only if B {a Cg : a κ κ} = φ for some g : P θ.3 (µ) P 3 (λ). The following is a straightforward generalization of a result of Foreman [1] : PROPOSITION 1.1 Every [µ] <θ -normal, (µ <θ ) + -saturated ideal on P κ (λ) is precipitous. 2 NS [χ]<θ A = NS cf(λ) A PROPOSITION 2.1 i) Suppose λ is a singular limit cardinal and θ a cardinal such that 2 θ κ,θ cf(λ) and cof(ns [τ]<θ κ,τ ) λ <θ for every cardinal τ with κ τ < λ. Then there is A (NS [λ]<θ ) such that NS [λ]<θ = NS cf(λ) A. ii) Suppose λ is a singular limit cardinal, θ is a cardinal such that 2 θ κ, and χ is a cardinal such that κ (cf(λ)) + χ < λ and cof(ns [χ]<θ κ,τ ) λ <θ for every cardinal τ with χ τ < λ. Then there is A (NS [λ]<θ ) such that NS [χ]<θ A = NS cf(λ) A. Proof. We prove both assertions simultaneously. Let us thus assume that λ is a singular limit cardinal, θ is a cardinal such that 2 θ κ, and χ is a cardinal such that κ (cf(λ)) + χ λ and cof(ns κ,τ [χ τ]<θ ) λ <θ for every cardinal τ with π τ < λ, where π equals κ if χ = λ, and χ otherwise. Let us also assume that θ cf(λ) in case χ = λ. We are looing for A (NS [λ]<θ ) such that (NS [χ]<θ A) = NS cf(λ) A. Set µ = cf(λ) and select an increasing sequence of cardinals < λ η : η < µ > so that (a) λ η = λ, (b) λ 0 κ µ, and (c) λ 0 χ in case χ < λ. η<µ For η < µ, pic a family G η of functions from P θ 3 (χ λ η ) to P 3 (λ η ) so that G η λ <θ and for every H (NS [χ λη]<θ ), there is y P κ (G η ) \{φ} such that {a g yc g η : a κ κ} H. Let G η = {g e : e P θ 3 (λ)}. Let A be the set of all a P κ (λ) such that θ a in case θ < κ ; ω a ; a κ κ ; (α) a for every α a, where : λ µ is defined by (α) = the least η < µ such that α λ η ; η<µ 4

5 If χ = λ, then i(v) a for every v P a (θ 3) (a), where i : P θ 3 (λ) µ is defined by i(v) = the least η < µ such that v λ η ; g e (u) a whenever e P a (θ 3) (a) and u P a (θ 3) (a) dom(g e ). It is immediate that A (NS [λ]<θ ). Let us chec that A is as desired. Thus fix B (NS µ )+ P(A)andf : P θ 3 (χ) P 3 (λ).wemustshowthatb C f φ. Given η < µ, define p η : P θ 3 (χ λ η ) P 2 (λ η ) by p η (v) = the least σ such that η σ < µ and f(v) λ σ. Also define q η : P θ 3 (χ λ η ) P 3 (λ η ) by q η (v) = λ η f(v). Select x η,y η P κ (P θ 3 (λ))\{φ} so that {g e : e x η y η } G η,{a Cg η e e x η : a κ κ} C η p η and {a Cg η e e y η : a κ κ} Cq n η. Now pic a B so that for any η a µ,(α) e a for every e x η y η, and (β) if θ = κ, then e < a κ for every e x η y η. Fix v P a (θ 3) (a χ). There must be η a µ such that v λ η. Then a λ η Cp η η since x η P a (θ 3) (a). It follows that v f(v) λ σ for some σ a µ. Now a λ σ Cq σ σ, since y σ P a (θ 3) (a), so f(v) a. In Proposition 2.1 (i) we assumed that θ cf(λ). Some condition of this ind is necessary. In fact if u( <θ ) = λ <θ, then for each A (NS [λ]<θ ),NS [λ]<θ NS cf(λ) A since by results of [4], cof(ns [λ]<θ ) > λ<θ λ cof(ns cf(λ) A). The following is immediate from Proposition 2.1 and Lemma 1.6 : COROLLARY 2.1 Suppose χ > κ is a cardinal such that cof(ns κ,χ ) χ +κ. Then NS χ κ,χ +κ A = NS κ κ,χ +κ A for some A (NS κ,χ +κ). 3 Precipitousness PROPOSITION 3.1 Suppose λ is a singular limit cardinal such that cf(λ) κ and τ cf(λ) < λ for every cardinal τ < λ. Then there exists B NS such that NS cf(λ) B is nowhere precipitous. Proposition 3.1 will be obtained as a consequence of Lemmas 1.1 and 3.3. Let λ be a singular limit cardinal of cofinality greater than or equal to κ. Set µ = cf(λ). Select a continuous, increasing sequence < λ β : β < µ > of cardinals so that (a) λ β = λ, (b) λ 0 > µ, and (c) λ 0 > 2 µ in case λ > 2 µ. β<µ 5

6 Le E be the set of all limit ordinals α < µ with cf(α) < κ. For α E, put W α = {a P κ (λ) : a = λ α }. Note that W α I α. LetB be the set ofalla P κ (λ) such that(i) 0 a,(ii) γ+1 a foreveryγ a, (iii) a κ κ, (iv) a µ = {β µ : λ β a}, and (v) for every γ a, there is β a µ such that γ < λ β. Then clearly, B NS. Moreover,a W (a µ) for every a B. Note that for each α E,B W α {a P κ (λ α ) : (a µ) = α}, so B W α I α. LEMMA 3.1 Suppose u(µ +,τ) < λ foreverycardinal τ with µ < τ < λ. Then {α E : R W α u(µ +,λ α )} NS + µ for every R (NSµ )+ P(B). Proof. Let us first show that for every S (NS µ )+ P(B), there is α E such that S W α u(µ +,λ α ). Thus fix such an S. Assume to the contrary that S W α < u(µ +,λ α ) for every α E. For α E, select Z α I + µ +,λ α with Z α < λ. Pic a bijection i : Z α λ and let j denote the inverse of i. For α<µ α E, define α : P κ (λ α ) P µ +(λ α ) by α (a) = β a(λ α j(β)), and select y α P µ +(λ α ) so that y α \ α (a) φ for every a S W α. Set y = α E y α. Note that y P µ +(λ). For η µ, pic z η Z η so that y λ η z η. Now let D be the set of all a P κ (λ) such that i(z η ) a for every η a µ. Since D (NS µ ), we can find a S D. Set α = (a µ). Then a W α and y α y λ α = (y λ η ) z η = j(i(z η )) α (a). η a µ η a µ η a µ Contradiction. It is now easy to show that the conclusion of the lemma holds. Fix R (NS µ )+ P(B) and T NSµ. Set Q = {a P κ (λ) : (a µ) T}. Since Q (NS µ ), there must be some α E such that (R Q) W α u(µ +,λ α ). Then clearly, α T and R W α u(µ +,λ α ). LEMMA 3.2 Suppose τ µ < λ for every cardinal τ < λ. Then II has a winning strategy in the game G(NS µ B). Proof. For g : P 3 (µ) P 2 (λ) and α < µ, define g α : P 3 (µ) P 2 (λ α ) by g α (e) = λ α g(e). Claim 1. Let g : P 3 (µ) P 2 (λ). Then {α < µ : B W α Cg α α (NS µ E). C g } 6

7 Proof of Claim 1. Define h : P 3 (µ) µ by h(e) = the least β < µ such that g(e) λ β. Let Q be the set of all δ µ such that h(e) < δ for every e P 3 (δ). Then clearly Q NSµ. Now fix α E Q and a B W α Cg α. Let e P 3 (a µ). Then e P 3 (α), so g(e) λ α. It follows that g(e) a, since λ α g(e) a. Thus a C g. Claim 2. LetX (NS µ )+ P(B)andY B.SupposethatY W α C α φ whenever α E and : P 3 (µ) P 2 (λ α ) are such that X W α C α = λ α. Then Y (NS µ )+. Proof of Claim 2. Fix g : P 3 (µ) P 2 (λ). By Lemma 3.2 and Claim 1, there must be α E such that (X Cg ) W α = λ µ α and B W α Cg α α Cg. φ since X W α Cg X W α Cg α α. Hence g φ. Then Y W α Cg α α Y C For α E, consider the following two-person game G α consisting of ω moves, with player I maing the first move : I and II alternately pic subsets of B W α, thus building a sequence< X n : n < ω > subject to the followingtwo conditions : (1) X 0 X 1..., and (2) X 2n+1 C α φ for every : P 3 (µ) P 2 (λ α ) such that X 2n C α = λ µ α. II wins the game if and only if X n = φ. n<ω Claim 3. Let α E. Then II has a winning strategy τ α in the game G α. Proof of Claim 3. Let Y 0,Y 1,Y 2,... be the successive moves of player I. For n ω, let K n be the set of all : P 3 (µ) P 2 (λ α ) such that Y n C α = λ µ α. Case 1 : K n = λ µ α for every n < ω. Given n < ω, set K n = { n,ξ : ξ < λ µ α} and let τ α (Y 0,...,Y n ) = {y n,ξ : ξ < λ µ α}, where y n,ξ (Y n C α n,ξ )\{y q,ζ : q < n and ζ ξ}. Case 2 : There is n ω such that K n < λ µ α. Let m be the least such n. Define τ α (Y 0,...,Y m ) so that τ α (Y 0,...,Y m ) < λ µ α, and set τ α (Y 0,...,Y m,y m+1 ) = φ. Finally, consider the strategy τ for player II in G(NS µ B) defined by τ(x 0) = τ α (X 0 B W α ) and for n > 0, α E τ(x 0,...,X n ) = τ α (X 0 B W α,x 1 W α,...,x n W α ). α E Using Claims 2 and 3, it is easy to chec that the strategy II is a winning one. PROPOSITION 3.2 Let λ be a singular limit cardinal with cf(λ) κ, and θ be a cardinal with 2 θ κ. Suppose that for every cardinal τ with κ 7

8 τ < λ,τ cf(λ) < λ and cof(ns κ,τ [τ]<θ ) λ <θ. Then the ideal NS [λ]<θ precipitous. is nowhere Proof. By Propositions 2.1 and 3.1, one can find A,B (NS [λ]<θ ) such that NS [λ]<θ = NS cf(λ) T (NS [λ]<θ )+, NS [λ]<θ T = (NS[λ]<θ A and NScf(λ) B is nowhere precipitous. Now for every B) T = ((NScf(λ) A) B) T = (NScf(λ B) (A T), where A T (NS cf(λ) B)+. References [1] M. FOREMAN, Potent axioms; Transactions of The American Mathematical Society 294 (1986), [2] F. GALVIN, T. JECH and M. MAGIDOR, An ideal game; Journal of Symbolic Logic 43 (1978), [3] P. MATET, C. PEAN and S. SHELAH, Cofinality of normal ideals on P κ (λ)i; preprint [4] P. MATET, C. PEAN and S. SHELAH, Cofinality of normal ideals on P κ (λ)ii; Israel Journal of Mathematics, to appear [5] Y. MATSUBARA and S. SHELAH, Nowhere precipitousness of the nonstationary ideal over P κ λ; Journal of Mathematical Logic 2 (2002), [6] Y. MATSUBARA and M. SHIOYIA, Nowhere precipitousness of some ideals; Journal of Symbolic Logic 63 (1998), [7] S. SHELAH, On the existence of large subsets of [λ] <κ which contain no unbounded non-stationary subsets; Archive for Mathematical Logic 41 (2002), Université de Caen - CNRS Laboratoire de Mathématiques BP CAEN CEDEX France matet@math.unicaen.fr Institute of Mathematics The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Jerusalem Israel 8

9 and Department of Mathematics Rutgers University New Brunswic, NJ USA 9