A LOWER BOUND FOR GENERALIZED DOMINATING NUMBERS arxiv:1401.7948v2 [math.lo] 13 Feb 2014 DAN HATHAWAY Abstract. We show that when κ and λ are infinite cardinals satisfying λ κ = λ, the cofinality of the set of all functions from λ to κ ordered by everywhere domination is 2 λ. This follows from a more general result which we prove: Whenever κ and λ are any infinite cardinals, the cofinality of the set of all functions from λ κ to κ ordered by everywhere domination is at least 2 λ. 1. Introduction Given a partially ordered set P = P, P, let cf(p) be the cofinality of P. That is, cf(p) = min{ A : A P and ( p P)( a A)p P a}. Let κ and λ be infinite cardinals. Regarding κ as a partially ordered set κ,, it is natural to wonder about the structure of the product of this ordering with itself λ many times. This is the same as the partially ordered set λ κ, of all functions from λ to κ, ordered by ( f,g λ κ) [ f g ( α < λ)f(α) g(α) ]. This is referred to as the everywhere domination ordering, and when f g, we say g dominates f. We will often write λ κ instead of λ κ, when no confusion should arise. Of course, we could be more general and consider the everywhere domination ordering of all functions from an arbitrary set X to κ, but that is isomorphic to X κ,. Nevertheless, it will sometimes be more convenient notationally to have the domains be arbitrary sets rather than cardinals, so we will do this freely. We may want to investigate the cofinality cf( λ κ) of the partially ordered set λ κ. Without loss of generality, we can take κ to be regular. When κ is regular and > λ, it is clear that cf( λ κ) = κ (because the set of constant functions is cofinal). Thus, we might as well assume κ λ. When this happens, of course cf( λ κ) λ κ = 2 λ. A portion of the results of this paper were proven during the September 2012 Fields Institute Workshop on Forcing while D.H. was supported by the Fields Institute. 1
2 DAN HATHAWAY There is also the partial ordering λ κ, of all functions from λ to κ by eventual domination, where f g iff {α < λ : f(α) > g(α)} < λ. In the literature, this is often investigated more than everywhere domination, so we will spend a few moments to explain how the two notions are connected. Of course, cf λ κ, cf λ κ,. A straightforward diagonalization shows Notice that for a regular λ, λ + cf λ κ,. cf λ λ, = cf λ λ,, because if we take a set F cofinal in λ λ, and replace each f F with the set of functions of the form α max{f(α),β} for some β < λ, we get a set cofinal in λ λ, of size F. However, the same trick cannot be used to argue cf λ κ, = cf λ κ, when λ is a cardinal and κ is some regular cardinal < λ. There are other relationships between everywhere domination and eventual domination, for example when λ is regular, cf λ κ, = cf λ κ, cf α κ,. Also, for any λ, cf λ κ, cf λ+ κ, (more generally: For any µ λ +, cf λ κ, cf µ κ, µ). Putting the above two relationships together, α<λ cf λ+ κ, = cf λ+ κ,. For results about alternative notions of eventual domination, see [7]. The case where κ = λ is investigated in [3] by Cummings and Shelah. They show, as part of a more general result, that for a regular λ satisfying λ <λ = λ, there is a λ-closed and λ + -c.c. forcing which forces cf( λ λ) < 2 λ. In [4], Jech and Prikry essentially show that whenever I is a κ + - complete ideal on λ and if there is a family F of pairwise I-disjoint functions from λ to κ, then F cf( λ κ). They then show various situations in which one might have such a family. They also begin to investigate the case when 2 ω is real-valued measurable.
A LOWER BOUND FOR GENERALIZED DOMINATING NUMBERS 3 In [9], Szymański determines whether cf( λ κ) = 2 λ in all cases where κ is regular, κ λ < 2 ω, and 2 ω is real-valued measurable. Specifically, he shows that under these assumptions, cf( ω ω) < 2 ω, cf( λ ω) = 2 λ when ω < λ, and cf( λ κ) < 2 λ when ω < κ λ. In the next section, we will present a lower bound for cf( λ κ) of a different nature than the work just stated. 2. The Theorem Let κ and λ be infinite cardinals. Main Lemma 2.1. For every A λ there is a function f : κ λ κ such that whenever M is a transitive model of ZF such that κ λ M and some g : κ λ κ in M dominates f, then A M. Proof. Fix A λ. Define f by { 0 if ( α < κ)x(α) A, f(x) := α+1 if x(α) A but ( β < α)x(β) A. Let M beatransitive model of ZF such that κ λ M and A M. Suppose, towardsacontradiction, thatthereissomeg M thatdominates f. Let B be the set B := {t <κ λ : g(x) t for all x extending t}. Notice that B M. For all a λ, a A implies a B. Thus, there must be some a 0 λ such that a 0 A but a 0 B. If there was not, then A could be defined in M by A = {a λ : a B}, which would contradict the fact that A M. Next, for all a λ, a A implies a 0,a B. Thus, by similar reasoning as before, there must be some a 1 λ such that a 1 A but a 0,a 1 B. Continuing like this, we can construct a sequence x κ λ such that ( α < κ)x α B. This means that ( α < κ)g(x) α. This contradicts g being well-defined at x. This lemma is the key to proving the following theorem. We state the result in great generality, although what we really care about is the corollary which follows it. Theorem 2.2. cf( (λκ) κ) 2 λ. Proof. Let µ = λ κ. The standard diagonalization bound gives us that cf( µ κ) µ +. Hence, if µ 2 λ, then certainly cf( µ κ) 2 λ. Because of this, we may assume that µ < 2 λ. Note that κ,λ µ.
4 DAN HATHAWAY Since there is a bijection between µ and κ λ, it suffices to show that the cofinality of the set of all functions from κ λ to κ is at least 2 λ. Consider an arbitrary family A of functions from κ λ to κ of size < 2 λ. We will show that it is not dominating. Let Z := A κ λ µ. Let E V 1 be such that Z E and E < 2 λ. Such an E exists because Z = max{ A,µ} < 2 λ. Let M := π(e) be the transitive collapse of E. Since κ λ E, we have π(g) = g for all g A. Since M < 2 λ, there is some A P(λ) M. We may now apply the main lemma to get that there is some f not dominated by any member of M. In particular, such an f is not dominated by any member of A. This completes the proof. Corollary 2.3. If λ κ = λ, then cf( λ κ) = 2 λ. Proof. This is immediate from the above theorem. The last corollary gives us a different proof of a well-known result (first discovered by Kunen in this thesis [6]): Corollary 2.4. CH implies cf( ω 1 ω) = 2 ω 1. Notice that the main lemma required κ λ M. That is, M contains the domains of the functions involved. Dropping the requirement not only weakens the conclusion in the obvious way, but it also forces us to consider the possibility that the set B has no κ-length branch in M, which breaks the proof. In the case that κ = ω, we can sidestep this problem by using the fact that well-foundedness of trees is absolute: Lemma 2.5. For every A λ there is a function f : ω λ ω such that whenever M is a transitive model of ZF such that some g : ω λ ω in M satisfies ( x ( ω λ) M )f(x) g(x), then A M. Proof. Fix A λ. Define f as is done in the main lemma. Let M be a model of ZF which contains some appropriate g. Assume, towards a contradiction, that A M. Define the set B <ω λ as is done in the proof of the main lemma. We may repeat that proof to get a sequence b n B : n ω V such that ( n ω)b n+1 is a proper end extension 1 Instead of using V, we could use H(θ) for some appropriate regular cardinal θ.
A LOWER BOUND FOR GENERALIZED DOMINATING NUMBERS 5 of b n. That is, if we let a b denote that b is a proper initial segment of a, then the partially ordered set B, is not well-founded. Since well-foundedness is absolute, there is such a sequence in M. Given that sequence b n : n ω M, defining x := b n ω λ we see that g(x) n for all n ω, which is a contradiction. If κ > ω, there does not seem to be an obvious way to extend the last lemma, even if κ has some large cardinal property. 3. A Consequence The following is an easy consequence of the theorem of the previous section: Proposition 3.1. Let P, P be a partial ordering and let κ be the smallest size of an unbounded subset of P (κ = b P, P ). Let λ be a cardinal and assume P 2 λ. Let P := λ P, λ P be the partial ordering of all functions from λ to P given by f λ P g iff ( α < λ)f(α) P g(α). Assume also that λ κ = λ. Then cf(p) = 2 λ. Proof. Since P 2 λ, we have P (2 λ ) λ = 2 λ, so cf(p) 2 λ. By Corollary 2.3, since λ κ = λ, we have cf( λ κ) = 2 λ. Thus, if we can show cf( λ κ) cf(p), we will be done. Using induction, we can construct an unbounded chain a α : α < κ in P, P. That is, ( α < β < κ)a α P a β and there is no a P such that ( α < κ)a α P a. Let F λ P be a set cofinal in P. Let φ + : λ P λ κ be the function φ + (f) := (x min{α < κ : a α P f(x)}). It is not hard to check that {φ + (f) : f F} is cofinal in λ κ,, which establishes that cf( λ κ) cf(p). In fact, the function φ : λ κ λ P defined by φ (g) := (x a g(x) ) is such that ( g λ κ)( f λ P)φ (g) f g λ P φ + (f). Thatis,inthelanguageof[1],(φ,φ + )isamorphismfrom λ P, λ P P, λ to λ κ, λ κ,. As an example of how to use this proposition, let P be the set of Lebesgue measure zero Borel subsets of R. Let A P B iff A B. A straightforward argument shows that the smallest size κ of an unbounded subset of P is add(l) (the additivity of Lebesgue measure, which appears in Cichoń s Diagram). Let λ = 2 ω. Since every element of P is Borel, P = λ, but we need only that P 2 λ. If λ κ = λ, then cf(p) = 2 λ. That is, if 2 add(l) = 2 ω, then cf(p) = 2 2ω.
6 DAN HATHAWAY 4. Interpretation of Main Lemma Within this section, whenever B 1,...,B n are sets, let M(B 1,...,B n ) refer to the smallest transitive model of ZF which contains B 1,...,B n as elements. This is well-defined, although it could be a proper class. To say that A M(B 1,...,B n ) is to say that A is constructible from B 1,...,B n in a certain sense. One way to interpret the main lemma from this paper is as follows: ( A λ)( f : κ λ κ)( g : κ λ κ)[f g A M(g, κ λ)]. In the language of [1], this is saying there is a morphism from the domination relation of functions from κ λ to κ to the relation R defined by ARg : A M(g, κ λ). This is in striking contrast to the situation with functions from ω to ω. There, we have only that for every hyperarithmetical A ω, there is a function f : ω ω such that if a function g : ω ω everywhere dominates f, then A is Turing reducible to g. Of course, changing everywhere dominates to eventually dominates makes no difference, because making finite modifications to a function does not change its Turing degree. See [2], [8], and [5] for more details. References [1] Blass, Andreas. Combinatorial cardinal characteristics of the continuum. M. Foreman and A. Kanamori, editors, Handbook of Set Theory Volume 1, 395 489 Springer, New York, NY, 2010. [2] Blass, Andreas. Needed reals and recursion in generic reals. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 109 (2001), no. 1-2, 77-88. [3] Cummings, James; Shelah, Saharon. Cardinal invariants above the continuum. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 75 (1995), no. 3, 251-268. [4] Jech, Thomas; Prikry, Karel. Cofinality of the partial ordering of functions from ω 1 into ω under eventual domination. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 95 (1984), no. 1, 25-32. [5] Jockusch, Carl G., Jr. Uniformly introreducible sets. J. Symbolic Logic 33 (1968), 521 536. [6] Kunen, Kenneth. Inaccessibility properties of cardinals. Ph.D. Thesis Stanford University. 1968. 124 pp. [7] Monk, J. Donald. On general boundedness and dominating cardinals. Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 45 (2004), no. 3, 129-146. [8] Solovay, Robert M. Hyperarithmetically encodable sets. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 239 (1978) 99 122. [9] Szymański, Andrzej. Some remarks on real-valued measurable cardinals. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 104 (1988), no. 2, 596-602. Mathematics Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 1043, U.S.A. E-mail address: danhath@umich.edu