|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| In [[set theory]], the '''singular cardinals hypothesis (SCH)''' arose from the question of whether the least [[cardinal number]] for which the [[Continuum hypothesis#The generalized continuum hypothesis|generalized continuum hypothesis]] (GCH) might fail could be a [[singular cardinal]].
| | Andrew Simcox is the name his parents gave him and he completely loves this name. Since I was eighteen I've been working as a bookkeeper but quickly my spouse and I will begin our personal company. She is truly fond of caving but she doesn't have the time recently. Ohio is where her house is.<br><br>Also visit my blog :: online psychic readings ([http://checkmates.co.za/index.php?do=/profile-56347/info/ just click the next website]) |
| | |
| According to Mitchell (1992), the singular cardinals hypothesis is:
| |
| :If κ is any singular [[limit cardinal|strong limit cardinal]], then 2<sup>κ</sup> = κ<sup>+</sup>.
| |
| Here, κ<sup>+</sup> denotes the [[successor cardinal]] of κ.
| |
| | |
| Since SCH is a consequence of GCH which is known to be [[consistent]] with [[Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory|ZFC]], SCH is consistent with ZFC. The negation of SCH has also been shown to be consistent with ZFC, if one assumes the existence of a sufficiently large cardinal number. In fact, by results of [[Moti Gitik]], ZFC + the negation of SCH is equiconsistent with ZFC + the existence of a measurable cardinal κ of [[Mitchell order]] κ<sup>++</sup>. | |
| | |
| Another form of the SCH is the following statement:
| |
| :2<sup>cf(κ)</sup> < κ implies κ<sup>cf(κ)</sup> = κ<sup>+</sup>,
| |
| where cf denotes the [[cofinality]] function. Note that κ<sup>cf(κ)</sup>= 2<sup>κ</sup> for all singular strong limit cardinals κ. The second formulation of SCH is strictly stronger than the first version, since the first one only mentions strong limits; from a model in which the first version of SCH fails at ℵ<sub>ω</sub> and GCH holds above ℵ<sub>ω+2</sub>, we can construct a model in which the first version of SCH holds but the second version of SCH fails, by adding ℵ<sub>ω</sub> Cohen subsets to ℵ<sub>n</sub> for some n.
| |
| | |
| [[Jack Silver|Silver]] proved that if κ is singular with uncountable cofinality and 2<sup>λ</sup> = λ<sup>+</sup> for all infinite cardinals λ < κ, then 2<sup>κ</sup> = κ<sup>+</sup>. Silver's original proof used [[generic ultrapowers]]. The following important fact follows from Silver's theorem: if the singular cardinals hypothesis holds for all singular cardinals of countable cofinality, then it holds for all singular cardinals. In particular, then, if <math> \kappa </math> is the least counterexample to the singular cardinals hypothesis, then <math> cf(\kappa) = \omega </math>.
| |
| | |
| The negation of the singular cardinals hypothesis is intimately related to violating the GCH at a measurable cardinal. A well-known result of [[Dana Scott]] is that if the GCH holds below a measurable cardinal <math> \kappa </math> on a set of measure one—i.e., there is normal <math> \kappa </math> -complete ultrafilter D on <math> \mathcal{P}(\kappa) </math> such that <math> \{\alpha < \kappa: 2^{\alpha} = \alpha^+\}\in D </math>, then <math> 2^\kappa = \kappa^+ </math>. Starting with <math> \kappa </math> a [[supercompact cardinal]], Silver was able to produce a model of set theory in which <math> \kappa </math> is measurable and in which <math> 2^\kappa > \kappa^+ </math>. Then, by applying [[Prikry forcing]] to the measurable <math> \kappa </math>, one gets a model of set theory in which <math> \kappa </math> is a strong limit cardinal of countable cofinality and in which <math> 2^\kappa > \kappa^+ </math>—a violation of the SCH. [[Moti Gitik|Gitik]], building on work of [[W. Hugh Woodin|Woodin]], was able to replace the supercompact in Silver's proof with a measurable of Mitchell order <math> \kappa^{++} </math>. That established an upper bound for the consistency strength of the failure of the SCH. Gitik again, using results of [[Inner model theory]], was able to show that a measurable of Mitchell order <math> \kappa^{++} </math> is also the lower bound for the consistency strength of the failure of SCH.
| |
| | |
| A wide variety of propositions imply SCH. As was noted above, GCH implies SCH. On the other hand, the [[proper forcing axiom]] which implies <math> 2^{\aleph_0} = \aleph_2 </math> and hence is incompatible with GCH also implies SCH. [[Robert M. Solovay|Solovay]] showed that large cardinals almost imply SCH—in particular, if <math> \kappa </math> is [[strongly compact cardinal]], then the SCH holds above <math> \kappa </math>. On the other hand, the non-existence of (inner models for) various large cardinals (below a measurable of Mitchell order <math> \kappa^{++} </math>) also imply SCH.
| |
| | |
| ==References==
| |
| * [[Thomas Jech|T. Jech]]: [http://matwbn.icm.edu.pl/ksiazki/fm/fm81/fm8116.pdf Properties of the gimel function and a classification of singular cardinals], ''[[Fundamenta Mathematicae]]'', '''81'''(1974), 57-64.
| |
| * William J. Mitchell, "On the singular cardinal hypothesis," ''Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.'', volume 329, number 2, pages 507–530, 1992.
| |
| * Jason Aubrey, ''The Singular Cardinals Problem'' ([http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/vigre/Expositions/Aubrey.pdf PDF]), VIGRE expository report, Department of Mathematics, University of Michigan.
| |
| | |
| [[Category:Cardinal numbers]]
| |
Andrew Simcox is the name his parents gave him and he completely loves this name. Since I was eighteen I've been working as a bookkeeper but quickly my spouse and I will begin our personal company. She is truly fond of caving but she doesn't have the time recently. Ohio is where her house is.
Also visit my blog :: online psychic readings (just click the next website)