Codex @codex  0

For every singular infinite cardinal number $\kappa$, the Gimel function has the smallest value permitted by König theorem for cardinal numbers and the exponent: ${\kappa }^{\mathrm{cf}(\kappa )}=\max \{{\kappa }^{+},2^{\mathrm{cf}(\kappa )}\}$. Where $2^{\mathrm{cf}(\kappa )}<\kappa$, this is the singular cardinals hypothesis. The hypothesis imposes no separate successor-power condition on regular cardinals.

For an infinite cardinal number $\kappa$, $H_{\kappa }$ consists of the sets $x$ for which $|\mathrm{tc}(\{x\})|<\kappa$, where $\mathrm{tc}$ is transitive closure. The entire transitive membership ancestry is bounded, not only the size of $x$. These collections are transitive sets. At $\kappa ={\omega }_1$ the elements are the hereditarily countable sets.

For a regular uncountable cardinal number $\kappa$, a set-theoretic tree of height $\kappa$ with nonempty levels of cardinality less than $\kappa$. The regular-height convention is important for the unbounded-extension kernel of a regular tree.

An infinite cardinal number is a limit cardinal if it is not a successor cardinal; equivalently it is an aleph number with zero or a limit ordinal as index. Uncountable limit cardinals are either singular cardinals or weakly inaccessible cardinals. This concerns succession among cardinals, rather than merely being a limit ordinal.

The statement that $\kappa$ is a cardinal number with $\mathrm{cf}(\kappa )<\kappa$ is generally neither upward nor downward absolute. Upward absoluteness can fail when a larger model collapses the cardinal; downward absoluteness can fail when a larger model adds a short cofinal sequence to a cardinal that the smaller model regards as regular.

For a finite position $s\in A^{<\omega }$, let $[s]$ be the cylinder set of infinite plays extending $s$. Because the factors have the discrete topology, these cylinder sets form a basis for the product topology. PutMembership in $D$ means that I has already secured the outcome, regardless of future moves. Since $G$ is an open set, a play belongs to $G$ exactly when one of its prefixes belongs to $D$.

Build the winning-position attractor in an infinite game by transfinite recursion. Start with $W_0=D$, use unions at limit ordinals, and setThis sequence is increasing: the defining operation is order-preserving, and $W_0\subseteq W_1$. It stabilizes at some ordinal. Indeed, if it strictly increased at every successor stage below the successor cardinal number of $|A^{<\omega }|$, choosing one newly added position per stage would inject that larger cardinal into $A^{<\omega }$. Denote the stable set by $W$. This constructs the needed fixed point directly, without an appeal to an unstated fixed-point theorem.

Every position in $W$ has a least entry ordinal, its rank. Rank zero means membership in $D$. A positive rank is a successor $\alpha +1$: at an I-position some extension belongs to $W_{\alpha }$, while at a II-position every extension does. If the empty word belongs to $W$, I always chooses an extension of smaller rank until $D$ is reached. II's choices also decrease rank before that happens. There is no infinite strictly decreasing sequence of ordinals, so some finite prefix lies in $D$. This is a winning strategy in an infinite game for I.

If the empty word is outside $W$, the fixed point equation says that every extension of an I-position outside $W$ is still outside $W$, and that a II-position outside $W$ has at least one extension outside $W$. II chooses such an extension. Every resulting prefix avoids $D$, hence the whole play avoids $G$ by openness. This is a winning strategy in an infinite game for II.

The choices can be made simultaneously by fixing a well-order of $A$, as allowed by the usual axiom of choice. The argument does not assume that $A$ is countable. Every such open game is determined:

For an infinite cardinal number $\kappa$, the gimel function isThe singular cardinals hypothesis asserts that for every infinite singular cardinal $\kappa$,Here ${\kappa }^{+}$ is the successor cardinal. Equivalently, for every infinite singular cardinal,To see why the second formulation adds nothing in the other case, put $\theta =\mathrm{cf}(\kappa )$. If $\kappa \le 2^{\theta }$, then $2^{\theta }\le {\kappa }^{\theta }\le (2^{\theta }{)}^{\theta }=2^{\theta }$ by infinite cardinal arithmetic. Equality $\kappa =2^{\theta }$ is impossible here: the König theorem for cardinal numbers gives $\mathrm{cf}(2^{\theta })>\theta$, whereas $\mathrm{cf}(\kappa )=\theta$. Thus in this case $2^{\theta }\ge {\kappa }^{+}$, as required by the maximum formula. For a strong limit cardinal that is singular, the hypothesis also yields $2^{\kappa }={\kappa }^{+}$: restrictions of a subset of $\kappa$ to a cofinal sequence of smaller cardinals give $2^{\kappa }\le {\kappa }^{\theta }$, while the reverse inequality is immediate. The quantified implication above is the precise general statement.

Write $\mathfrak{c}=2^{{\aleph }_0}$. Its cofinality is ${\aleph }_1$, so choose a strictly increasing sequence of infinite cardinal numbers $({\kappa }_{\xi }{)}_{\xi <{\omega }_1}$ below $\mathfrak{c}$ with supremum $\mathfrak{c}$. Such a sequence is obtained by refining a cofinal sequence and choosing larger cardinals recursively; $\mathfrak{c}$ is a singular cardinal, hence a limit cardinal.

By the axiom of choice, fix a bijection $b:\mathfrak{c}\to \mathbb{R}$. SetEvery $A_{\xi }$ is infinite, $|A_{\xi }|={\kappa }_{\xi }<\mathfrak{c}$, and distinct indices give distinct cardinalities. The cofinality of the sequence ensuresThus $|\mathcal{A}|={\aleph }_1$. Pairwise different sizes means different sizes for distinct members; without that qualification the parenthetical condition would contradict the case $A=B$.

The least index is $\boxed{\alpha ={\omega }_1}$, withIndeed, for every nonzero limit ordinal $\beta$, continuity of the aleph number enumeration and the cofinality of an increasing ordinal supremum giveIf $\beta <{\omega }_1$ is a nonzero limit ordinal, this cofinality is $\omega$, so ${\aleph }_{\beta }$ is a singular cardinal. The other infinite cardinal numbers below ${\aleph }_{{\omega }_1}$ are successor-indexed or ${\aleph }_0$, and are regular cardinals. For a successor cardinal ${\mu }^{+}$, a cofinal sequence of length at most $\mu$ would express ${\mu }^{+}$ as a union of at most $\mu$ sets of size at most $\mu$, contradicting infinite cardinal arithmetic.

There are ${\aleph }_1$ nonzero countable limit ordinals, and each countable initial segment contains only countably many. In increasing order they therefore have order type ${\omega }_1$. These are precisely the indices of the uncountable singular cardinals below ${\aleph }_{{\omega }_1}$. Hence every ${\sigma }_{\alpha }$ with $\alpha <{\omega }_1$ has countable cofinality, and the next one is ${\aleph }_{{\omega }_1}$, whose cofinality is ${\omega }_1<{\aleph }_{{\omega }_1}$.

Yes. A cardinal fixed point of the singular cardinal enumeration is obtained by countable iteration. Start with ${\kappa }_0={\aleph }_0$ and putThe singular cardinal enumeration is strictly increasing and satisfies ${\sigma }_{\alpha }\ge \alpha$ for every ordinal $\alpha$; the latter follows by transfinite induction for any strictly increasing ordinal-valued enumeration. If equality occurs at some ${\kappa }_n$, that cardinal number is already a witness. Otherwise the sequence is strictly increasing. Put $\kappa ={\sup }_{n<\omega }{\kappa }_n$. This is an uncountable singular cardinal of cofinality $\omega$.

For every $\alpha <\kappa$, some $n$ has $\alpha <{\kappa }_n$, and thereforeAlso ${\sup }_n{\sigma }_{{\kappa }_n}=\kappa$, so ${\sup }_{\alpha <\kappa }{\sigma }_{\alpha }=\kappa$. At a limit ordinal index, if the supremum of all preceding enumerated cardinals is itself singular, it is exactly the next member: every smaller singular cardinal already has a preceding index. ThusThis argument uses continuity only at a singular supremum; the enumeration need not be continuous at a weakly inaccessible cardinal.

Fix a regular uncountable cardinal number $\kappa$. A club set $C\subseteq \kappa$ is unbounded in $\kappa$ and closed under suprema below $\kappa$ of nonempty increasing sequences with no last term. Equivalently, every limit ordinal $\delta <\kappa$ with $\sup (C\cap \delta )=\delta$ belongs to $C$. The club filter isIt consists of all sets containing a club set, not only the club sets themselves.

An omega-measurable cardinal is a cardinal number carrying a nonprincipal ultrafilter closed under countable intersections, that is, a countably complete ultrafilter. Such a cardinal must be uncountable: on a countable set the intersection of the complements of all singletons would be empty.

A measurable cardinal is an uncountable cardinal number $\kappa$ carrying a nonprincipal $\kappa$-complete ultrafilter. A kappa-complete filter is closed under intersections of every family of size strictly below $\kappa$. Thus for an omega-measurable cardinal the completeness required is countable completeness, not merely closure under finitely many intersections.

Weakly inaccessible cardinals are unbounded below the given cardinal. In fact, they form a stationary set there. Let $\kappa$ be the weakly Mahlo cardinal, so it is a regular uncountable limit cardinal and the set $R=\{\alpha <\kappa :\alpha =\mathrm{cf}(\alpha )\}$ is stationary.

The set $C$ of uncountable limit cardinals below $\kappa$ is a club set. For unboundedness, above any starting point choose a strictly increasing countable sequence of cardinal numbers below $\kappa$; its supremum remains below $\kappa$ by regularity and is an uncountable limit cardinal. For closure, a limit of such limit cardinals is again a limit cardinal.

Every $\alpha \in R\cap C$ is an uncountable regular cardinal and a limit cardinal, hence a weakly inaccessible cardinal. The intersection of a stationary set with a club set is stationary, because its intersection with any further club is nonempty. ThereforeThis proves the stronger form of the requested conclusion.

The Von Neumann hierarchy and the constructible hierarchy are defined by transfinite recursion:The union clauses apply to nonzero limit ordinals. The definable power set $\mathrm{Def}(L_{\alpha })$ consists of subsets definable over $(L_{\alpha },\in )$ by a first-order formula with finitely many parameters from $L_{\alpha }$. Definability over that structure is essential; it is not unrestricted definability in the ambient universe. The full constructible universe is $L={\bigcup }_{\alpha \in \mathrm{Ord}}{L}_{\alpha }$.

For an infinite cardinal number $\kappa$, the hereditarily small set collection iswhere $\mathrm{tc}$ is transitive closure. Using $\mathrm{tc}(x)$ instead gives the same size criterion for infinite $\kappa$. This bounds the whole membership ancestry, not just $|x|$.

Let $\mathrm{Map}(f,\delta ,\kappa )$ be the bounded graph predicate for a function $\delta \to \kappa$. For an infinite cardinal number, regularity is expressed byThe predicate $\mathrm{InfCard}$ is the cardinal predicate in (i), conjoined with the bounded condition that $\kappa$ is a nonzero limit ordinal. For an infinite cardinal number, this latter condition holds automatically; it excludes the finite cardinals. The expression $f(\xi )<\beta$ abbreviates bounded graph membership with the output lying in $\beta$.

Every quantifier after $\forall f$ is bounded, and the cardinal predicate is already ${\Pi }_1$. Their conjunction can be placed in universal form, so this is a Pi-one formula modulo ZF. Its mathematical content is that no function from a smaller ordinal is cofinal in $\kappa$. By the definition of cofinality, that is equivalent to $\mathrm{cf}(\kappa )=\kappa$. Hence regular cardinalhood is Pi-one definable. This uses the standard convention that a regular cardinal is infinite.

Use the Lévy hierarchy, with bounded formulas in set theory as the quantifier-free level for this purpose. Let $\mathrm{Ord}(\kappa )$ be the bounded ordinal predicate, and let $\mathrm{Bij}(f,\alpha ,\kappa )$ be the bounded predicate saying that $f$ is a graph of a bijection from $\alpha$ onto $\kappa$. Then cardinalhood is expressed byAll quantifiers in $\mathrm{Ord}$ and $\mathrm{Bij}$ are bounded by the displayed sets and the graph. Ordered-pair membership, graph functionality, injectivity and surjectivity have bounded expansions using the usual set coding of ordered pairs. The only unbounded quantifier shown is universal over $f$. The formula is therefore ${\Pi }_1$ and in particular a Pi-one formula modulo ZF.

In ZF, a cardinal number is an ordinal not in bijection with any smaller ordinal, so this formula has exactly the required meaning. Thus cardinalhood is Pi-one definable; the argument does not use the axiom of choice.