Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2016 / iii / Paper 121 / 1

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.

It suffices to obtain a model of ZFC without weakly inaccessible cardinals. Starting with any model of ZFC, pass to its constructible universe, which satisfies ZFC and the Generalized continuum hypothesis. If it has no inaccessible cardinal, use that model. Otherwise pass to its rank segment at its least inaccessible cardinal $\delta$. This segment satisfies ZFC, retains the Generalized continuum hypothesis, and has no inaccessible cardinals. Under the Generalized continuum hypothesis, every weakly inaccessible cardinal is strongly inaccessible: if $\lambda <\kappa$ and $\kappa$ is a limit cardinal, then $2^{\lambda }={\lambda }^{+}<\kappa$. Thus in either case the resulting model $N$ has no weakly inaccessible cardinals.

Work inside $N$. If $\alpha$ is a nonzero limit ordinal, let $\lambda ={\sup }_{\beta <\alpha }{\sigma }_{\beta }$. It is an uncountable limit cardinal. If it were regular, it would be a weakly inaccessible cardinal, which is impossible in $N$. It is therefore singular, and the singular cardinal enumeration is continuous at this index:The cofinality of an increasing ordinal supremum now givesfor every nonzero limit ordinal $\alpha$ in $N$. Hence $N$ satisfies the negation of the proposed existential assertion. By the soundness theorem for first-order logic, consistency of ZFC prevents ZFC from proving that assertion. The model construction is a relative-consistency argument; it does not assume that consistency alone supplies a countable transitive model. Here, as usual, a limit ordinal excludes zero.