Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-p566r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T15:12:51.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Consistency results about filters and the number of inequivalent growth types

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Andreas Blass
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
Claude Laflamme
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1, Canada

Extract

We use models of set theory described in [2] and [3] to prove the consistency of several combinatorial principles, for example:

If is any filter on N containing all the cofinite sets, then there is a finite-to-one function f: N → N such that f() is either the filter of cofinite sets or an ultrafilter.

As a consequence of our combinatorial principles, we also obtain the consistency of:

The partial ordering P of slenderness classes of abelian groups, denned and studied in [4], is a four-element chain.

In the remainder of this Introduction, we shall define our terminology and state the combinatorial principles to be considered. In §2, we shall establish some implications between these principles. In §3, we shall prove our consistency results by showing that the strongest of our principles holds in models of set theory constructed in [2] and [3].

A filter on N will always mean a proper filter containing all cofinite sets; in particular, an ultrafilter will necessarily be nonprincipal. We write N ↗ N for the set of nondecreasing functions from the set N of positive integers into itself. A subset of N ↗ N is called an ideal if it is closed downward (if f(n) ≤ g(n) for all n and if g ∈ ℐ, then f ∈ ℐ) and closed under binary maximum (if f(n) = max(g(n), h(n)) for all n and if g, h ∈ ℐ then f ∈ ℐ).

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Blass, A., Near coherence of filters. II: Applications to operator ideals, the Stone-Čech remainder of the half-line, order ideals of sequences, and slenderness of groups, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 300(1987), pp. 557581.Google Scholar
[2]Blass, A. and Shelah, S., Near coherence of filters. III: A simplified consistency proof (to appear).Google Scholar
[3]Blass, A. and Shelah, S., There may be simple and , points, and the Rudin-Keisler ordering may be downward directed, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 33 (1987), pp. 213243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Göbel, R. and Wald, B., Wachstumstypen und schlanke Gruppen, Symposia Mathematica (INDAM), vol. 23, Academic Press, London, 1979, pp. 201239.Google Scholar
[5]Göbel, R. and Wald, B., Martin's axiom implies the existence of certain slender groups, Mathematische Zeitschrift, vol. 172(1980), pp. 107121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Shelah, S., On cardinal invariants of the continuum, Axiomatic set theory, Contemporary Mathematics, vol. 31, American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 1984, pp. 183207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Specker, E., Additive Gruppen von Folgen ganzer Zahlen, Portugaliae Mathematica, vol. 9 (1950), pp. 131140.Google Scholar
[8]van Douwen, E. K., The integers and topology, Handbook of set-theoretic topology (Kunen, K. and Vaughan, J. E., editors), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1984, pp. 111167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar