Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T22:23:23.761Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

An ideal game

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

F. Galvin
Affiliation:
University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045
T. Jech
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802
M. Magidor
Affiliation:
Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel

Extract

Let us consider the following infinite game between two players, Empty and Nonempty. We are given a large set S. Empty opens the game by choosing a large subset S0 of S; then Nonempty chooses a large set S1S0; then Empty chooses large S2S, etc. The game is over after ω moves. If ⋂n=0xSn is empty then Empty wins, and if ⋂n=0Sn is nonempty then Nonempty wins.

If “large” means “infinite”, then Empty can beat Nonempty rather easily: he chooses So countable, S0 = {a0, a1,…, an,…}, and then he chooses S2 such that a0S2, S4 such that a1, ∉ S4 and so on.

Next we assume that S is a set of uncountable cardinality, and that “large” means “of cardinality ∣S∣”. Then still Empty can win, but his winning strategy is somewhat more sophisticated: Let us identify S with a cardinal number κ. Thus each subset of S of size κ is a set of ordinals below κ. For each X ⊆ κ of size κ, let fx be the unique order-preserving mapping of X onto κ, and let F(X) = {x ϵ X: f(x) is a successor ordinal}. Empty's strategy is to play S0 = F(K), and when Nonempty plays S2k − 1, let S2k = F(S2k − 1).

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Jech, T., Magidor, M., Mitchell, W. and Prikry, K., Precipitous ideals, forthcoming.Google Scholar
[2]Jech, T. and Prikry, K., On ideals of sets and the power set operation, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 82 (1976), pp. 593595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Mycielski, J., On the axiom of determinateness. II, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 59 (1966), pp. 203212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Schreier, J., Eine Eigenschaft abstrakter Mengen, Studia Mathematica, vol. 7 (1938), pp. 155156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar