In his proof that the axiom of infinity holds in Quine’s New Foundations, Specker associated to each set a tree, now called the Specker tree of . (The name is due to Randall Holmes.)

In order to make sense of the definition without needing to appeal to the axiom of choice, let us define an equivalence relation on subsets of by saying that iff . The nodes of the tree are equivalence classes of subsets of under . Specifically, at the root we have the class of , and the immediate successors of a class are the classes such that .

Of course, under choice we can simply use cardinals as nodes, rather than the classes .

If is a set, let , the Hartogs function of , be the set of all ordinals that inject into , so is the first ordinal that cannot inject. Sierpiński proved that and therefore . This observation gives us immediately that the Specker tree of any set is well-founded.

Under choice, it follows that all trees have finite rank. This is because any branch through the tree is finite (its nodes being a strictly decreasing sequence of cardinals). Moreover, the smallest cardinal in a branch is larger than the smallest cardinal in any larger branch. But an infinite-rank tree must have arbitrarily large branches, so there is no smallest cardinal in the tree, which is absurd.

Remarkably, it is still open whether in the absence of choice it is consistent that there is a Specker tree of infinite rank.

Typeset using LaTeX2WP. Here is a printable version of this post.

43.614000-116.202000

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on Friday, February 11th, 2011 at 2:53 pm and is filed under 580: Topics in set theory. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

I thought about this question a while ago, while teaching a topics course. Since one can easily check that $${}|{\mathbb R}|=|{\mathcal P}({\mathbb N})|$$ by a direct construction that does not involve diagonalization, the question can be restated as: Is there a proof of Cantor's theorem that ${}|X|

First of all, note (as Monroe does in his question) that if $\mathbb P,\mathbb Q$ are ccc, then $\mathbb P\times\mathbb Q$ is $\mathfrak c^+$-cc, as an immediate consequence of the Erdős-Rado theorem $(2^{\aleph_0})^+\to(\aleph_1)^2_2$. (This is to say, if $\mathbb P$ and $\mathbb Q$ do not admit uncountable antichains, then any antichain in their product ha […]

The technique of almost disjoint forcing was introduced in MR0289291 (44 #6482). Jensen, R. B.; Solovay, R. M. Some applications of almost disjoint sets. In Mathematical Logic and Foundations of Set Theory (Proc. Internat. Colloq., Jerusalem, 1968), pp. 84–104, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1970. Fix an almost disjoint family $X=(x_\alpha:\alpha

At the moment most of those decisions come from me, at least for computer science papers (those with a 68 class as primary). The practice of having proceedings and final versions of papers is not exclusive to computer science, but this is where it is most common. I've found more often than not that the journal version is significantly different from the […]

The answer is no in general. For instance, by what is essentially an argument of Sierpiński, if $(X,\Sigma,\nu)$ is a $\sigma$-finite continuous measure space, then no non-null subset of $X$ admits a $\nu\times\nu$-measurable well-ordering. The proof is almost verbatim the one here. It is consistent (assuming large cardinals) that there is an extension of Le […]

R. Solovay proved that the provably $\mathbf\Delta^1_2$ sets are Lebesgue measurable (and have the property of Baire). A set $A$ is provably $\mathbf\Delta^1_2$ iff there is a real $a$, a $\Sigma^1_2$ formula $\phi(x,y)$ and a $\Pi^1_2$ formula $\psi(x,y)$ such that $$A=\{t\mid \phi(t,a)\}=\{t\mid\psi(t,a)\},$$ and $\mathsf{ZFC}$ proves that $\phi$ and $\psi […]

A notion now considered standard of primitive recursive set function is introduced in MR0281602 (43 #7317). Jensen, Ronald B.; Karp, Carol. Primitive recursive set functions. In 1971 Axiomatic Set Thoory (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Vol. XIII, Part I, Univ. California, Los Angeles, Calif., 1967) pp. 143–176 Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I. The concept is use […]

The power of a set is its cardinality. (As opposed to its power set, which is something else.) As you noticed in the comments, Kurepa trees are supposed to have countable levels, although just saying that a tree has size and height $\omega_1$ is not enough to conclude this, so the definition you quoted is incomplete as stated. Usually the convention is that […]

The key problem in the absence of the axiom of replacement is that there may be well-ordered sets $S$ that are too large in the sense that they are longer than any ordinal. In that case, the collection of ordinals isomorphic to an initial segment of $S$ would be the class of all ordinals, which is not a set. For example, with $\omega$ denoting as usual the f […]