Idempotent ultrafilter on the natural numbers Created 2026-09-28 Updated 2026-10-06
An ultrafilter is idempotent when . The Ellis–Numakura lemma guarantees such an ultrafilter and supplies the main algebraic input to the Idempotent-ultrafilter proof of Hindman's theorem.
Idempotent-ultrafilter star-set lemma Created 2026-10-06 Updated 2026-10-07
For and an idempotent ultrafilter, put . Then , and for every . For the second assertion, apply idempotence to and intersect its resulting good-translation set with . This allows each new finite-sums generator to be chosen from finitely many translation constraints, proving the Idempotent-ultrafilter proof of Hindman's theorem.
An ultrafilter on is a family satisfying the proper filter axioms: , , closure under finite intersections, and upward closure under inclusion. In addition, for every , exactly one of and belongs to . Equivalently, an ultrafilter is a maximal proper filter. The principal ultrafilter at consists of all subsets containing ; an ultrafilter not of this form is a nonprincipal ultrafilter.
To prove existence, start with the cofinite filter and order the proper filters containing it by inclusion. The union of a chain is still a proper filter: finitely many of its members lie in one filter of the chain, and no constituent contains the empty set. Thus Zorn lemma supplies a maximal such filter . If , adjoining cannot generate a proper filter; otherwise maximality fails. Consequently some has , so by upward closure. This proves the ultrafilter alternative. No finite can belong to , because is cofinite and already belongs to . In particular contains no singleton and is a nonprincipal ultrafilter. The same argument, starting from any proper filter, proves the ultrafilter lemma used below.
Define to be the set of all ultrafilters on , with basic open sets
They form a topological basis because and . Moreover , so they are clopen sets. This is the compact Hausdorff topology on ultrafilters. If , some belongs to but not , and then and are disjoint open neighbourhoods of the two points. Thus is Hausdorff.
For compactness, take an open cover and refine it by basic open sets . If no finite subfamily covers, then for every finite collection of indices the intersection is nonempty. Indeed, if that intersection were empty, the corresponding would cover , and every ultrafilter would contain at least one of them by the finite ultrafilter alternative. The complements therefore have the finite intersection property and generate a proper filter. Extend it to an ultrafilter by the proved ultrafilter lemma. Then for every , so belongs to none of the covering , a contradiction. A finite basic subcover lies inside a finite subcover of the original cover. Hence
The map , where is the principal ultrafilter at , identifies the discrete natural numbers with a dense subset: any nonempty has and contains for .
Hindman theorem states that every finite colouring of the positive integers admits an increasing sequence whose finite-sums set
is monochromatic. We now give the Idempotent-ultrafilter proof of Hindman's theorem. For , write . The addition on is defined by
Take an idempotent ultrafilter on the natural numbers , whose existence is allowed, so . It is a nonprincipal ultrafilter: addition of principal points is , whereas no positive integer satisfies .
Exactly one colour class belongs to . Define
By idempotence, . The idempotent-ultrafilter star-set lemma needed for the recursion is that whenever . To prove it, put . Idempotence again gives
For , we have and , hence . Thus , proving the lemma by upward closure.
Choose . Suppose has been constructed. Every factor of
belongs to : the translate factors do by the just-proved lemma, and the last factor does because it is cofinite and is a nonprincipal ultrafilter. The finite intersection is therefore nonempty. Choose in it. Then and every with lie in , so . This constructs a strictly increasing sequence, indeed , and proves Hindman theorem.
Finally apply Hindman theorem to obtain a monochromatic finite-sums set . We construct a divisibility chain inside a finite-sums set using disjoint successive blocks of indices. Start with . If , take unused terms after all indices used so far, and split them into two groups of consecutive terms. In each group its partial sums, including , contain two in the same congruence class modulo by the pigeonhole principle. Their difference is a nonempty consecutive sum divisible by , and positivity makes it at least . Let be the sum of these two selected sums. Then and .
The index set defining lies strictly after all previous index sets. Discard the other terms in these two groups before continuing. Because the chosen index sets are disjoint, every finite sum of distinct is a finite sum of distinct , retaining the same colour. Therefore
A proper filter on a set on contains , excludes the empty set, is closed under finite intersections and is upward closed under inclusion. An ultrafilter is a maximal proper filter. Equivalently, for every it contains exactly one of . To see maximality implies this dichotomy, if is absent then adjoining it must make the generated filter improper; hence some filter member is disjoint from , forcing into the filter. Conversely, a filter with this dichotomy cannot be properly enlarged without acquiring disjoint members.
Extend the cofinite filter to a maximal proper filter using Zorn's lemma. Every chain of proper extensions has its union as a proper filter upper bound: any finite collection of its members lies in one member of the chain, and the empty set never enters. The resulting ultrafilter contains no finite set, because it already contains that set's cofinite complement. It is therefore a free ultrafilter, or nonprincipal ultrafilter. This proves the required existence with the usual choice principle explicit.
Define the Stone-Čech compactification of the natural numbers as the set of all ultrafilters, with basic open sets
They form a basis because is the whole space and . Also , so each basic set is clopen. Distinct ultrafilters disagree on some , putting them in the disjoint open sets and . Thus this space is Hausdorff.
To prove compactness, suppose an open cover has no finite subcover and refine it by basic sets . Their complements have the finite intersection property: otherwise finitely many would cover every ultrafilter. Here a nonempty finite intersection of the has a principal ultrafilter containing it, whereas an empty intersection cannot belong to any proper filter. The therefore generate a proper filter, which extends to an ultrafilter by the same Zorn argument. That ultrafilter lies outside every , contradicting the cover. Hence is compact and Hausdorff. Natural number is identified with its principal ultrafilter.
Hindman's theorem asserts that every finite colouring of the positive integers has an increasing sequence for which all nonempty finite sums of distinct terms have one colour. Let be the given idempotent ultrafilter. Since is positive, a principal ultrafilter cannot be idempotent: its sum with itself is principal at , not . Thus is nonprincipal and contains every cofinite tail. In a convention including zero, one instead uses an idempotent in the nonprincipal part, excluding the trivial principal idempotent at zero.
For define . Addition on the Stone-Čech compactification of the natural numbers is characterized by
One cell of the finite colour partition belongs to . Put
Idempotence makes . Moreover, if , then . Indeed, write so . We have , and idempotence applied to that set gives
Their intersection is . This is the idempotent-ultrafilter star-set lemma.
Choose . If the finite-sums set of the first choices lies in , select
Every factor belongs to , so this finite intersection is nonempty. Its choice preserves . Therefore
This proves the requested Idempotent-ultrafilter proof of Hindman's theorem, without assuming an idempotent-existence proof.
Finally, for the first logical assertion put and . A proper filter contains if and only if it contains both and : one direction is finite-intersection closure and the other is upward closure. Thus (i) is always true. This is the conjunction law for filter quantifiers.