How can we determine $2^kappa$ for singular $kappa$ assuming that $2^lambda=lambda^+$ whenever...












1












$begingroup$


I got an exercise in set theory and can't seem to solve it:
If we assume that $2^lambda = lambda^+ $ holds for every singular cardinal with $2^{operatorname{cof}(lambda)}<lambda$, then how can we determine the value of $2^kappa$ from the value of $2^{<kappa}$ for all singular cardinals $kappa$?
I tried using Silver's Theorem, but couldn't seem to get it right...






set-theory cardinals







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    1












    $begingroup$


    I got an exercise in set theory and can't seem to solve it:
    If we assume that $2^lambda = lambda^+ $ holds for every singular cardinal with $2^{operatorname{cof}(lambda)}<lambda$, then how can we determine the value of $2^kappa$ from the value of $2^{<kappa}$ for all singular cardinals $kappa$?
    I tried using Silver's Theorem, but couldn't seem to get it right...






    set-theory cardinals







    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      1












      1








      1





      $begingroup$


      I got an exercise in set theory and can't seem to solve it:
      If we assume that $2^lambda = lambda^+ $ holds for every singular cardinal with $2^{operatorname{cof}(lambda)}<lambda$, then how can we determine the value of $2^kappa$ from the value of $2^{<kappa}$ for all singular cardinals $kappa$?
      I tried using Silver's Theorem, but couldn't seem to get it right...






      set-theory cardinals







      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      I got an exercise in set theory and can't seem to solve it:
      If we assume that $2^lambda = lambda^+ $ holds for every singular cardinal with $2^{operatorname{cof}(lambda)}<lambda$, then how can we determine the value of $2^kappa$ from the value of $2^{<kappa}$ for all singular cardinals $kappa$?
      I tried using Silver's Theorem, but couldn't seem to get it right...






      set-theory cardinals




      set-theory cardinals






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 26 '18 at 22:43









      Andrés E. Caicedo

      65.4k8158249




      65.4k8158249










      asked Dec 26 '18 at 18:36









      Jan T.Jan T.

      82




      82






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2












          $begingroup$

          Let me consider separately two cases, and afterward indicate how to tell the cases apart.



          Case 1: $2^mu$ has the same value for all sufficiently large $mu<kappa$. In this case, we can invoke the Bukovsky-Hechler theorem (see for example Corollary 5.17 in http://fa.its.tudelft.nl/~hart/onderwijs/set_theory/Jech/05-AC_and_cardinal_arithmetic.pdf ) to conclude that $2^kappa=2^{<kappa}$.



          Case 2: As $mu$ ranges over infinite cardinals $<kappa$, the exponential $2^mu$ increases cofinally often. So the supremum $2^{<kappa}$ of these exponentials is a cardinal $lambda$ with cf$(lambda)=,$cf$(kappa)<kappa$. So $2^{text{cf}(lambda)}$ is one of the cardinals whose supremum defines $lambda$ and is, by the case hypothesis, $<lambda$. Now the hypothesis of your exercise gives us that $2^lambda=lambda^+$. So we have
          $$
          lambda=2^{<kappa}leq2^kappaleq2^lambda=lambda^+,
          $$
          which means $2^kappa$ has one of just two possible values, namely $lambda$ and $lambda^+$. But the first of these isn't really possible, by König's theorem, because it has cofinality $<kappa$. So $2^kappa=lambda^+=(2^{<kappa})^+$.



          To complete the answer, I still need to tell you how to distinguish the two cases, given only $2^{<kappa}$. Fortunately, I already pointed out that in Case 2, $2^{<kappa}$ (there called $lambda$) has cofinality $<kappa$. In Case 1, on the other hand, $2^{<kappa}$ is equal to $2^mu$ for arbitrarily large $mu<kappa$ and therefore, by König's theorem again, cannot have cofinality $<kappa$.



          So the final result is (under the hypothesis of the exercise) that $2^kappa$ equals $2^{<kappa}$ if this has cofinality $geqkappa$, and equals $(2^{<kappa})^+$ otherwise. (Less rigorous but easy to remember summary: $2^kappa$ has the smallest value it could possibly have, given $2^{<kappa}$ and given König's theorem.)






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3053197%2fhow-can-we-determine-2-kappa-for-singular-kappa-assuming-that-2-lambda%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            2












            $begingroup$

            Let me consider separately two cases, and afterward indicate how to tell the cases apart.



            Case 1: $2^mu$ has the same value for all sufficiently large $mu<kappa$. In this case, we can invoke the Bukovsky-Hechler theorem (see for example Corollary 5.17 in http://fa.its.tudelft.nl/~hart/onderwijs/set_theory/Jech/05-AC_and_cardinal_arithmetic.pdf ) to conclude that $2^kappa=2^{<kappa}$.



            Case 2: As $mu$ ranges over infinite cardinals $<kappa$, the exponential $2^mu$ increases cofinally often. So the supremum $2^{<kappa}$ of these exponentials is a cardinal $lambda$ with cf$(lambda)=,$cf$(kappa)<kappa$. So $2^{text{cf}(lambda)}$ is one of the cardinals whose supremum defines $lambda$ and is, by the case hypothesis, $<lambda$. Now the hypothesis of your exercise gives us that $2^lambda=lambda^+$. So we have
            $$
            lambda=2^{<kappa}leq2^kappaleq2^lambda=lambda^+,
            $$
            which means $2^kappa$ has one of just two possible values, namely $lambda$ and $lambda^+$. But the first of these isn't really possible, by König's theorem, because it has cofinality $<kappa$. So $2^kappa=lambda^+=(2^{<kappa})^+$.



            To complete the answer, I still need to tell you how to distinguish the two cases, given only $2^{<kappa}$. Fortunately, I already pointed out that in Case 2, $2^{<kappa}$ (there called $lambda$) has cofinality $<kappa$. In Case 1, on the other hand, $2^{<kappa}$ is equal to $2^mu$ for arbitrarily large $mu<kappa$ and therefore, by König's theorem again, cannot have cofinality $<kappa$.



            So the final result is (under the hypothesis of the exercise) that $2^kappa$ equals $2^{<kappa}$ if this has cofinality $geqkappa$, and equals $(2^{<kappa})^+$ otherwise. (Less rigorous but easy to remember summary: $2^kappa$ has the smallest value it could possibly have, given $2^{<kappa}$ and given König's theorem.)






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$


















              2












              $begingroup$

              Let me consider separately two cases, and afterward indicate how to tell the cases apart.



              Case 1: $2^mu$ has the same value for all sufficiently large $mu<kappa$. In this case, we can invoke the Bukovsky-Hechler theorem (see for example Corollary 5.17 in http://fa.its.tudelft.nl/~hart/onderwijs/set_theory/Jech/05-AC_and_cardinal_arithmetic.pdf ) to conclude that $2^kappa=2^{<kappa}$.



              Case 2: As $mu$ ranges over infinite cardinals $<kappa$, the exponential $2^mu$ increases cofinally often. So the supremum $2^{<kappa}$ of these exponentials is a cardinal $lambda$ with cf$(lambda)=,$cf$(kappa)<kappa$. So $2^{text{cf}(lambda)}$ is one of the cardinals whose supremum defines $lambda$ and is, by the case hypothesis, $<lambda$. Now the hypothesis of your exercise gives us that $2^lambda=lambda^+$. So we have
              $$
              lambda=2^{<kappa}leq2^kappaleq2^lambda=lambda^+,
              $$
              which means $2^kappa$ has one of just two possible values, namely $lambda$ and $lambda^+$. But the first of these isn't really possible, by König's theorem, because it has cofinality $<kappa$. So $2^kappa=lambda^+=(2^{<kappa})^+$.



              To complete the answer, I still need to tell you how to distinguish the two cases, given only $2^{<kappa}$. Fortunately, I already pointed out that in Case 2, $2^{<kappa}$ (there called $lambda$) has cofinality $<kappa$. In Case 1, on the other hand, $2^{<kappa}$ is equal to $2^mu$ for arbitrarily large $mu<kappa$ and therefore, by König's theorem again, cannot have cofinality $<kappa$.



              So the final result is (under the hypothesis of the exercise) that $2^kappa$ equals $2^{<kappa}$ if this has cofinality $geqkappa$, and equals $(2^{<kappa})^+$ otherwise. (Less rigorous but easy to remember summary: $2^kappa$ has the smallest value it could possibly have, given $2^{<kappa}$ and given König's theorem.)






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$
















                2












                2








                2





                $begingroup$

                Let me consider separately two cases, and afterward indicate how to tell the cases apart.



                Case 1: $2^mu$ has the same value for all sufficiently large $mu<kappa$. In this case, we can invoke the Bukovsky-Hechler theorem (see for example Corollary 5.17 in http://fa.its.tudelft.nl/~hart/onderwijs/set_theory/Jech/05-AC_and_cardinal_arithmetic.pdf ) to conclude that $2^kappa=2^{<kappa}$.



                Case 2: As $mu$ ranges over infinite cardinals $<kappa$, the exponential $2^mu$ increases cofinally often. So the supremum $2^{<kappa}$ of these exponentials is a cardinal $lambda$ with cf$(lambda)=,$cf$(kappa)<kappa$. So $2^{text{cf}(lambda)}$ is one of the cardinals whose supremum defines $lambda$ and is, by the case hypothesis, $<lambda$. Now the hypothesis of your exercise gives us that $2^lambda=lambda^+$. So we have
                $$
                lambda=2^{<kappa}leq2^kappaleq2^lambda=lambda^+,
                $$
                which means $2^kappa$ has one of just two possible values, namely $lambda$ and $lambda^+$. But the first of these isn't really possible, by König's theorem, because it has cofinality $<kappa$. So $2^kappa=lambda^+=(2^{<kappa})^+$.



                To complete the answer, I still need to tell you how to distinguish the two cases, given only $2^{<kappa}$. Fortunately, I already pointed out that in Case 2, $2^{<kappa}$ (there called $lambda$) has cofinality $<kappa$. In Case 1, on the other hand, $2^{<kappa}$ is equal to $2^mu$ for arbitrarily large $mu<kappa$ and therefore, by König's theorem again, cannot have cofinality $<kappa$.



                So the final result is (under the hypothesis of the exercise) that $2^kappa$ equals $2^{<kappa}$ if this has cofinality $geqkappa$, and equals $(2^{<kappa})^+$ otherwise. (Less rigorous but easy to remember summary: $2^kappa$ has the smallest value it could possibly have, given $2^{<kappa}$ and given König's theorem.)






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                Let me consider separately two cases, and afterward indicate how to tell the cases apart.



                Case 1: $2^mu$ has the same value for all sufficiently large $mu<kappa$. In this case, we can invoke the Bukovsky-Hechler theorem (see for example Corollary 5.17 in http://fa.its.tudelft.nl/~hart/onderwijs/set_theory/Jech/05-AC_and_cardinal_arithmetic.pdf ) to conclude that $2^kappa=2^{<kappa}$.



                Case 2: As $mu$ ranges over infinite cardinals $<kappa$, the exponential $2^mu$ increases cofinally often. So the supremum $2^{<kappa}$ of these exponentials is a cardinal $lambda$ with cf$(lambda)=,$cf$(kappa)<kappa$. So $2^{text{cf}(lambda)}$ is one of the cardinals whose supremum defines $lambda$ and is, by the case hypothesis, $<lambda$. Now the hypothesis of your exercise gives us that $2^lambda=lambda^+$. So we have
                $$
                lambda=2^{<kappa}leq2^kappaleq2^lambda=lambda^+,
                $$
                which means $2^kappa$ has one of just two possible values, namely $lambda$ and $lambda^+$. But the first of these isn't really possible, by König's theorem, because it has cofinality $<kappa$. So $2^kappa=lambda^+=(2^{<kappa})^+$.



                To complete the answer, I still need to tell you how to distinguish the two cases, given only $2^{<kappa}$. Fortunately, I already pointed out that in Case 2, $2^{<kappa}$ (there called $lambda$) has cofinality $<kappa$. In Case 1, on the other hand, $2^{<kappa}$ is equal to $2^mu$ for arbitrarily large $mu<kappa$ and therefore, by König's theorem again, cannot have cofinality $<kappa$.



                So the final result is (under the hypothesis of the exercise) that $2^kappa$ equals $2^{<kappa}$ if this has cofinality $geqkappa$, and equals $(2^{<kappa})^+$ otherwise. (Less rigorous but easy to remember summary: $2^kappa$ has the smallest value it could possibly have, given $2^{<kappa}$ and given König's theorem.)







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Dec 27 '18 at 2:31









                Andreas BlassAndreas Blass

                49.8k451108




                49.8k451108






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid …



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3053197%2fhow-can-we-determine-2-kappa-for-singular-kappa-assuming-that-2-lambda%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    -

                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Bressuire

                    Image
                    .mw-parser-output .infobox{border:1px solid #aaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;color:black;margin:.5em 0 .5em 1em;padding:.2em;float:right;clear:right;width:22em;text-align:left;font-size:88%;line-height:1.6em}.mw-parser-output .infobox td,.mw-parser-output .infobox th{vertical-align:top;padding:0 .2em}.mw-parser-output .infobox caption{font-size:larger}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered{border-collapse:collapse}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered th{border:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless th{border:0}.mw-parser-output .infobox-showbutton .mw-collapsible-text{color:inherit}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow th{border:0;border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-right:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow th{border:0;border-right:1px solid ...
                    Read more

                    Cabo Verde

                    Image
                      Nota: Cabo-verdiano redireciona para este artigo. Para a língua falada em Cabo Verde, veja crioulo cabo-verdiano. Para outros significados, veja Cabo Verde (desambiguação). Coordenadas: 14° 55' N 23° 31' O Cabo Verde República de Cabo Verde Bandeira Brasão de Armas Lema: Unidade, Trabalho, Progresso Hino nacional: Cântico da Liberdade Gentílico: cabo-verdiano [ 1 ] Capital Praia 14° 55' N 23° 31' O Cidade mais populosa Praia Língua oficial Português Governo República unitária semipresidencialista [ 2 ]  - Presidente Jorge Carlos Fonseca  - Primeiro-ministro Ulisses Correia e Silva História    - Descoberta 1460   - Independência 00 • de Portugal 5 de Julho de 1975   - Multipartidarismo 13 de Janeiro de 1990  Área    - Total 4 033 km² (146.º)  - Água (%) 0,08 População    - Estimativa para 2017 560 899 [ 3 ] hab. (173.º) ...
                    Read more

                    Gyllenstierna

                    Image
                    .mw-parser-output .infobox{border:1px solid #aaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;color:black;margin:.5em 0 .5em 1em;padding:.2em;float:right;clear:right;width:22em;text-align:left;font-size:88%;line-height:1.6em}.mw-parser-output .infobox td,.mw-parser-output .infobox th{vertical-align:top;padding:0 .2em}.mw-parser-output .infobox caption{font-size:larger}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered{border-collapse:collapse}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered th{border:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless th{border:0}.mw-parser-output .infobox-showbutton .mw-collapsible-text{color:inherit}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow th{border:0;border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-right:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow th{border:0;border-right:1px solid ...
                    Read more