HAL Id: hal-00272111
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00272111v2
Submitted on 21 Dec 2009
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- entific research documents, whether they are pub- lished or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.
Large semilattices of breadth three
Friedrich Wehrung
To cite this version:
Friedrich Wehrung. Large semilattices of breadth three. Fundamenta Mathematicae, Instytut Matem-
atyczny, Polskiej Akademii Nauk„ 2010, 208 (1), pp.1–21. �10.4064/fm208-1-1�. �hal-00272111v2�
FRIEDRICH WEHRUNG
Abstract. A 1984 problem of S. Z. Ditor asks whether there exists a lattice of cardinality ℵ
2, with zero, in which every principal ideal is finite and every element has at most three lower covers. We prove that the existence of such a lattice follows from either one of two axioms that are known to be independent of ZFC , namely (1) Martin’s Axiom restricted to collections of ℵ
1dense subsets in posets of precaliber ℵ
1, (2) the existence of a gap-1 morass. In particular, the existence of such a lattice is consistent with ZFC , while the non-existence of such a lattice implies that ω
2is inaccessible in the constructible universe.
We also prove that for each regular uncountable cardinal κ and each positive integer n, there exists a (∨, 0)-semilattice L of cardinality κ
+nand breadth n+1 in which every principal ideal has less than κ elements.
1. Introduction
Various representation theorems, stating that every object of ‘size’ ℵ
1belongs to the range of a given functor, rely on the existence of lattices called 2-ladders. By definition, a 2-ladder is a lattice with zero, in which every principal ideal is finite, and in which every element has at most two lower covers. Every 2-ladder has cardinality at most ℵ
1, and the existence of 2-ladders of cardinality exactly ℵ
1was proved in Ditor [3] (cf. Propo- sition 4.3). These 2-ladders have been used in various contexts such as abstract measure theory (Dobbertin [4]), lattice theory (Gr¨atzer, Lakser, and Wehrung [7]), ring theory (Wehrung [18]), or general algebra (R˚ uˇziˇcka, T˚ uma, and Wehrung [14]). A sample result, established in [14], states that Every distributive algebraic lattice with at most ℵ
1compact elements is iso- morphic to the lattice of all normal subgroups of some locally finite group . (Here and in many related results, the ℵ
1bound turns out to be optimal.)
The basic idea of “ladder proofs” is always the same: we are given cat- egories A and B together with a functor Φ : A → B and a ‘large’ object S of B (of ‘size’ ℵ
1), that we wish to represent as Φ(X), for some object X in
Date: December 21, 2009.
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 06A07; Secondary 03C55; 03E05;
03E35.
Key words and phrases. Poset; lattice; breadth; lower cover; lower finite; ladder; Mar- tin’s Axiom; precaliber; gap-1 morass; Kurepa tree; normed lattice; preskeleton; skeleton.
1
the domain of Φ. We represent S as a direct limit S = lim −→
i∈IS
iof (say) ‘fi- nite’ objects S
i, where I is an upward directed poset of cardinality ℵ
1(often the lattice of all finite subsets of S in case we are dealing with a concrete category). Then, using the existence of a 2-ladder of cardinality ℵ
1, we can replace the original poset I by that 2-ladder. Under “amalgamation-type”
conditions, this makes it possible to represent each S
ias some Φ(X
i), with transition morphisms between the X
is being constructed in such a way that X = lim −→
i∈IX
ican be defined and Φ(X) ∼ = S.
We define 3-ladders the same way as 2-ladders, except that “two lower covers” is replaced by “three lower covers”. The problem of existence of 3-ladders of cardinality ℵ
2was posed in Ditor [3]. Such 3-ladders would presumably be used in trying to represent objects of size ℵ
2. Nevertheless I must reluctantly admit that no potential use of the existence of 3-ladders of cardinality ℵ
2had been found so far, due to the failure of a certain three-dimensional amalgamation property, of set-theoretical nature, stated in Section 10 in Wehrung [19], thus making Ditor’s problem quite ‘romantic’
(and thus, somewhat paradoxically therefore arguably, attractive).
However, this situation has been evolving recently. For classes A and B of algebras, the critical point crit( A ; B ) is defined in Gillibert [6] as the least possible cardinality of a semilattice in the compact congruence class of A but not of B if it exists (and, say, ∞ otherwise). In case both A and B are finitely generated lattice varieties, it is proved in Gillibert [6] that crit( A ; B ) is either finite, or ℵ
nfor some natural number n, or ∞. In the second case only examples with n ∈ {0, 1, 2} have been found so far (Ploˇsˇcica [12, 13], Gillibert [6]). Investigating the possibility of n = 3 (i.e., crit( A ; B ) = ℵ
3) would quite likely require 3-ladders of cardinality ℵ
2.
The present paper is intended as an encouragement in that direction.
We partially solve one of Ditor’s problems by giving a (rather easy) proof that for each regular uncountable cardinal κ and each positive integer n, there exists a (∨, 0)-semilattice of cardinality κ
+nand breadth n + 1 in which every principal ideal has less than κ elements (cf. Theorem 5.3).
Furthermore, although we are still not able to settle whether the existence
of a 3-ladder of cardinality ℵ
2is provable in the usual axiom system ZFC of
set theory with the Axiom of Choice, we prove that it follows from either
one of two quite distinct, and in some sense ‘orthogonal’, set-theoretical
axioms, namely a weak form of Martin’s Axiom plus 2
ℵ0> ℵ
1denoted
by MA (ℵ
1; precaliber ℵ
1) (cf. Theorem 7.9) and the existence of a gap-1
morass (cf. Theorem 9.1). In particular, the existence of a 3-ladder of
cardinality ℵ
2is consistent with ZFC , while the non-existence of a 3-ladder of cardinality ℵ
2implies that ω
2is inaccessible in the constructible universe.
Our proofs are organized in such a way that no prerequisites in lattice theory and set theory other than the basic ones are necessary to read them.
Hence we hope to achieve intelligibility for both lattice-theoretical and set- theoretical communities.
2. Basic concepts
We shall use standard set-theoretical notation and terminology. Through- out the paper, ‘countable’ will mean ‘at most countable’. A cardinal is an initial ordinal, and we denote by κ
+the successor cardinal of a cardi- nal κ. More generally, we denote by κ
+nthe n
thsuccessor cardinal of κ, for each natural number n. We denote by dom f (resp., rng f ) the domain (resp., range) of a function f , and we put f [X] := {f (x) | x ∈ X} for each X ⊆ dom f . We denote by P(X) the powerset of a set X, and by ⊔ the partial operation of disjoint union. A function f is finite-to-one if the in- verse image of any singleton under f is finite. For a set Ω and a cardinal λ, we set
[Ω]
λ= {X ∈ P(Ω) | |X| = λ} , [Ω]
6λ= {X ∈ P(Ω) | |X| ≤ λ} , [Ω]
<λ= {X ∈ P(Ω) | |X| < λ} .
Two elements x and y in a poset P are comparable if either x ≤ y or y ≤ x.
We say that x is a lower cover of y, if x < y and there is no element z ∈ P such that x < z < y; in addition, if x is the least element of P (denoted by 0
Pif it exists), we say that y is an atom of P . We say that P is atomistic if every element of P is a join of atoms of P . For a subset X and an element p in P , we set
X ↓ p := {x ∈ X | x ≤ p} .
We say that X is a lower subset of P , if P ↓ x ⊆ X for each x ∈ X.
(In forcing terminology, this means that X is open .) An ideal of P is a
nonempty, upward directed, lower subset of P ; it is a principal ideal if it is
equal to P ↓ p for some p ∈ P . A filter of P is an ideal of the dual poset
of P . We say that P is lower finite if P ↓ p is finite for each p ∈ P . An
order-embedding from a poset P into a poset Q is a map f : P → Q such
that f(x) ≤ f (y) iff x ≤ y, for all x, y ∈ P . An order-embedding f is a
lower embedding if the range of f is a lower subset of Q. Observe that a
lower embedding preserves all meets of nonempty subsets in P , and all joins of nonempty finite subsets of P in case Q is a join-semilattice.
For an element x and a subset F in P , we denote by x
Fthe least element of F above x if it exists.
Sanin’s classical ∆ ˇ -Lemma (cf. Jech [8, Theorem 9.18]) is the following.
∆-Lemma. Let W be an uncountable collection of finite sets. Then there are an uncountable subset Z of W and a finite set R (the root of Z ) such that X ∩ Y = R for all distinct X, Y ∈ Z .
We recall some basic terminology in the theory of forcing, which we shall use systematically in Section 7. A subset X in a poset P is dense if it meets every principal ideal of P . We say that X is centred if every finite subset of X has a lower bound in P . We say that P has precaliber ℵ
1if every uncountable subset of P has an uncountable centred subset; in particular, this implies the countable chain condition. For a collection D of subsets of P , a subset G of P is D -generic if G ∩ D 6= ∅ for each dense D ∈ D . The following classical lemma (cf. Jech [8, Lemma 14.4]) is, formally, a poset analogue of Baire’s category Theorem.
Lemma 2.1. Let D be a countable collection of subsets of a poset P . Then each element of P is contained in a D -generic filter on P .
For | D | = ℵ
1there may be no D -generic filters of P (cf. Jech [8, Ex- ercise 16.11]), nevertheless for restricted classes of partial orderings P we obtain set-theoretical axioms that are independent of ZFC . We shall need the following proper weakening of the ℵ
1instance of Martin’s Axiom MA usually denoted by either MA
ℵ1
or MA (ℵ
1) (cf. Jech [8, Section 16] and Weiss [20, Section 3]); the first parameter ℵ
1refers to the cardinality of D . MA (ℵ
1; precaliber ℵ
1) . For every poset P of precaliber ℵ
1and every col- lection D of subsets of P , if | D | ≤ ℵ
1, then there exists a D -generic filter on P .
3. Simplified morasses
For a positive integer n, trying to build certain structures of size ℵ
n+1as direct limits of countable structures may impose very demanding con-
straints on the direct systems used for the construction. The pattern of the
repetitions of the countable building blocks and their transition morphisms
in the direct system is then coded by a complex combinatorial object called
a gap-n morass. Gap-n morasses were introduced by Ronald Jensen in the
seventies, enabling him to solve positively the finite gap cardinal transfer conjecture in the constructible universe L. The existence of morasses is independent of the usual axiom system of set theory ZFC . For example, there are gap-1 morasses in L (cf. Devlin [2, Section VIII.2]), and even in the universe L [A] of sets constructible with oracle A, for any A ⊆ ω
1; hence if ω
2is not inaccessible in L, then there is a gap-1 morass in the ambient set-theoretical universe V (cf. Devlin [2, Exercise VIII.6]). Conversely, the existence of a gap-1 morass implies the existence of a Kurepa tree while, in the generic extension obtained by Levy collapsing an inaccessible cardinal on ω
2while preserving ω
1, there is no Kurepa tree (cf. Silver [15]). In par- ticular, the non-existence of a gap-1 morass is equiconsistent, relatively to ZFC , to the existence of an inaccessible cardinal.
However, even for n = 1 the combinatorial theorems involving morasses are hard to come by, due to the extreme complexity of the definition of gap- n morasses. Fortunately, the definition of a gap-1 morass has been greatly simplified by Dan Velleman [16], where it is proved that the existence of a gap-1 morass is equivalent to the existence of a ‘simplified (ω
1, 1)-morass’.
We denote the (noncommutative) ordinal addition by +. For ordinals α ≤ β, we denote by β − α the unique ordinal ξ such that α + ξ = β. Fur- thermore, we denote by τ
α,βthe order-embedding from ordinals to ordinals defined by
τ
α,β(ξ) =
ξ , if ξ < α ,
β + (ξ − α) , if ξ ≥ α . (3.1) We shall use the following definition, obtained by slightly amending the one in Devlin [2, Section VIII.4] by requiring θ
0= 2 instead of θ
0= 1, but all δ
αs nonzero (which could not hold for θ
0= 1). It is easily obtained from a simplified morass as defined in Devlin [2, Section VIII.4] by adding a new zero element to each θ
α(that is, by replacing θ
αby 1 + θ
α) and replacing any f ∈ F
α,βby the unique zero-preserving map sending 1 + ξ to 1 + f(ξ), for each ξ < θ
α.
Definition 3.1. Let κ be an infinite cardinal. A simplified (κ, 1) -morass is a structure
M = (θ
α| α ≤ κ) , ( F
α,β| α < β ≤ κ) satisfying the following conditions:
(P0) (a) θ
0= 2, 0 < θ
α< κ for each α < κ, and θ
κ= κ
+.
(b) F
α,βis a set of order-embeddings from θ
αinto θ
β, for all α < β ≤ κ.
(P1) | F
α,β| < κ, for all α < β < κ.
(P2) If α < β < γ ≤ κ, then F
α,γ= {f ◦ g | f ∈ F
β,γand g ∈ F
α,β}.
(P3) For each α < κ, there exists a nonzero ordinal δ
α< θ
αsuch that θ
α+1= θ
α+ (θ
α− δ
α) and F
α,α+1= {id
θα, f
α}, where f
αdenotes the restriction of τ
δα,θαfrom θ
αinto θ
α+1.
(P4) For every limit ordinal λ ≤ κ, all α
i< λ and f
i∈ F
αi,λ
, for i < 2, there exists α < λ with α
0, α
1< α together with f
i′∈ F
αi,α