Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T10:51:08.464Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A measurable cardinal with a nonwellfounded ultrapower

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Mitchell Spector*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley, California 94720

Extract

The usefulness of measurable cardinals in set theory arises in good part from the fact that an ultraproduct of wellfounded structures by a countably complete ultrafilter is wellfounded. In the standard proof of the wellfoundedness of such an ultraproduct, one first shows, without any use of the axiom of choice, that the ultraproduct contains no infinite descending chains. One then completes the proof by noting that, assuming the axiom of choice, any partial ordering with no infinite descending chain is wellfounded. In fact, the axiom of dependent choices (a weakened form of the axiom of choice) suffices. It is therefore of interest to ask whether some use of the axiom of choice is needed in order to prove the wellfoundedness of such ultraproducts or whether, on the other hand, their wellfoundedness can be proved in ZF alone. In Theorem 1, we show that the axiom of choice is needed for the proof (assuming the consistency of a strong partition relation). Theorem 1 also contains some related consistency results concerning infinite exponent partition relations. We then use Theorem 1 to show how to change the cofinality of a cardinal κ satisfying certain partition relations to any regular cardinal less than κ, while introducing no new bounded subsets of κ. This generalizes a theorem of Prikry [5].

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1980

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]Apter, A., Large cardinals and relative consistency results, Ph.D. Thesis, M.I.T., 1978.Google Scholar
[2]Henle, J. M., Aspects of choiceless combinatorial set theory, Ph.D. Thesis, M.I.T., 1976.Google Scholar
[3]Kleinberg, E. M., Infinitary combinatorics and the axiom of determinateness, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 612, Springer, Berlin, 1977.Google Scholar
[4]Magidor, M., Changing cofinality of cardinals, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 99 (1978), pp. 6171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Prikry, K., Changing measurable into accessible cardinals, Dissertationes Mathematicae (Rozprawy Matematyczny), vol. 68 (1970), pp. 552.Google Scholar
[6]Rowbottom, F., Some strong axioms of infinity incompatible with the axiom of constructibility, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 3 (1971), pp. 144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Solovay, R. M. and Tennenbaum, S., Iterated Cohen extensions and Souslin's problem, Annals of Mathematics, vol. 94 (1971), pp. 201245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar