Rowbottom Cardinals and Jonsson Cardinals are Almost the Same

Author(s): E. M. Kleinberg
Source: The Journal of Symbolic Logic, Vol. 38, No. 3 (Dec., 1973), pp. 423-427
Published by: Association for Symbolic Logic
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2273038 .
Accessed: 14/06/2014 10:26

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Association for Symbolic Logic is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Journal of Symbolic Logic.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:26:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THEJOURNAL OF SYMBOLIC LOGIC
Volume 38, Number 3, Sept. 1973

ROWBOTTOM CARDINALS AND JONSSON CARDINALS ARE

ALMOST THE SAME1

E. M. KLEINBERG

Each of the various "large cardinal" axioms currently studied in set theory owes
its inspiration to concrete phenomena in various fields. For example, the statement
of the well-known compactness theorem for first-order logic can be generalized in
various ways to infinitary languages to yield definitions of compact cardinals, and
the reflection principles provable in ZF, when modified in the appropriate way,
yields indescribable cardinals.2
In this paper we concern ourselves with two kinds of large cardinals which are
probably the two best known of those whose origins lie in model theory. They are
the Rowbottom cardinals and the Jonsson cardinals.
Let us be more specific. A cardinal K is said to be a Jonsson cardinal if every
structure of cardinality K has a proper elementary substructure of cardinality K.3
(It is routine to see that only uncountable cardinals can be Jonsson. Erdds and
Hajnal have shown [2] that for n < cono M,,is Jonsson. (In fact, they showed that
if K is not Jonsson then neither is the successor cardinal of K and that, assuming
GCH, no successor cardinal can be Jonsson.) Keisler and Rowbottom first showed
that the existence of a Jonsson cardinal contradicts V = L.) The definition of a
Rowbottom cardinal is only slightly more intricate. We assume for the moment
that our similarity type has a designated one-place relation. A structure now is
said to be of type <K, A>where K A are cardinals, if its domain has cardinality K
>

and its designated one-place relation has cardinality A. If K is a cardinal and 8 is

an uncountable cardinal less than K, then K is said to be a 3-Rowbottom cardinal
if, for any cardinal A < K, every structure of type <K, A> has an elementary sub-
structure of type <K, y> where y < 3. X1-Rowbottom cardinals are simply called
Rowbottom. Obviously any 3-Rowbottom cardinal is Jonsson-indeed to be
3-Rowbottom we require very special proper elementary substructures of the
same cardinality. (A neoclassical result of Rowbottom showed that the existence
of 3-Rowbottom cardinals contradicted V = L. His initial theorem was that if a
Rowbottom cardinal exists, then any ordinal definable in L (such as card (20TL)) is
countable. On the other hand, he showed that Rowbottom cardinals do exist.
In fact, he proved that any measurable cardinal is Rowbottom. It is simple to use
this to see that if K is measurable and It is any normal measure on K, then almost
every (with respect to It) cardinal less than K is Rowbottom.) A very good back-

Received July 10, 1972.

'This research was partially supported by NSF grant GP-29079.
2
The entire rationale behind formulating new axioms for set theory is extremely complex
and will not be discussed here.
3 Throughout, all similarity types are at most countable.

423
D 1973, Association for Symbolic Logic

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:26:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
424 E. M. KLEINBERG

ground source for Jonsson and Rowbottom cardinals is Devlin's thesis [1].
In this paper we show that Jonsson cardinals and Rowbottom cardinals are
almost the same. Here are our theorems.
THEOREM 1. Assume that K is the least Jonsson cardinal. Then there is a 8 less
than K such that K is 3-Rowbottom.
THEOREM2. Assume that K is any Jonsson cardinal. Then there is a 8 less than K
such that for infinitely many A between K and 8, every structure of a type <K, A>has
an elementary substructureof type <K, 8>.
Somewhat surprisingly, the proofs of these two theorems are entirely different
from one another.4
Our first step along the way to establishing these theorems is to characterize
Jonsson and Rowbottom cardinals in pure-set theoretic terms: Let K, A and 8 be
infinite cardinals. If x is any set, let [x] '@ denote the collection of finite subsets of x.
Then K -+ [K]< '0 (K -+ [K] <d') ((K -* [K]< denotes the assertion for each function
C)6d))

Ffrom [K] <"' into A there exists a subset C of K of cardinality K such that F"[C]<'?
is a proper subset of A(has cardinality < 8) ((has cardinality <3)). The characteriza-
tions, now, are simply as follows: K is a Jonsson cardinal iff K -* [K] <c--every model
of type <K, A>has an elementary submodel of type <K, y> for y < 8 iff K -* [K]L<'o
(and SOK iS 3-Rowbottom (for NO < 8 < K) if, for any cardinal A < K, K -* [K]A,? 6).5

The proofs of these equivalences are quite well known and so we will only sketch
them. Assume that K is a Jonsson cardinal and that F: [K] < ' K. Consider the

structure
21 = <K; ; F1, F2, ... Fw ... >n<co ,

where each function F, is given by F,(al,. , cza)= F({caj , czj). Then if

<C; ; Fl, F2 *.X Fan.. >n< co is any proper substructure of 21 of cardinality K,
C is our desired set, i.e., card (C) = K and F"[C]<w ' C i K. Now assume that
every structure of type <K, A> has an elementary substructure of type <K, 8>, and
suppose that F: [K] <' - A. Consider the structure
Q3= <K; A; F1, F2, ** ,Fw .. >n<co
where each function F2 is given by Fi(lg,... , a) = F({a1,l , aj). Then it is
routine to check that if C is the domain of any type <K, 8> elementary substructure
of 3, then card (C) = K and card (F'[C]<c0) < 8. To prove the converses of the
characterizations one simply looks at Skolem functions. If
X = <A; P, Q, - *;f, g, -.->
is a given structure, let $F be the result of taking the collection of Skolem functions
for C, closing it under composition, permutation of variables and identification of
variables, and adding dummy variables so that each function takes a different
number of arguments.Then if x c A and S"x denotes {f(x1*,. x)
Xn If e I, xi E x},
- =df <K X; P ri X, Q rn9 7x, ;f [K7x, g [ 9fx,. * >

I In [4] we use these results to prove that

the axioms "there exists a Jonsson cardinal" and
"there exists a Rowbottom cardinal" are equiconsistent over Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory
plus the axiom of choice.
5 These characterizations are due to Rowbottom.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:26:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ROWBOTTOM AND JONSSON CARDINALS 425

is an elementary submodel of C. Now suppose that and that 21is a given K -+ [K]K

structure of power By isomorphic translation we may assume the domain of 21

K.

to be Let F:
K. as follows:
[K]<" -+ K

F({a1,., a*}) = f(al,* *, a.) if fe Y, dmn (f) = Kn

and a1 < ...< an,
= 0 otherwise.
Then if C c is such that card (C) =
K and F"[C]<" i K, 2iC is a proper ele-
K

mentary submodel of 2I of power K. Suppose that K -+ [K]' dand that Q3is a given
structure of type <K, A>. We may, as before, assume that the domain of 23 is K
and that the extension of the designated relation is A. Now let F: [K] -*A as <C'

follows:

F({f1,, a*n}) = f(t.l , an) iff E A, dmn (f) = K,

Cal < ... < Canand f(a?ll * an) < A,
- 0 otherwise.
Then if C c K is such that card (C) = K and card (F"[C]< ) = y < 8, Q3cTis a
desired elementary submodel of Z of type <K, Y>. We have thus established our set-
theoretic characterizations of Jonsson and Rowbottom cardinals, and so may pro-
ceed with the matters at hand.
LEMMA 1. Assume that K -+ . Then,for some y < K, K
[K]K' K] -+K]Y

PROOF. Assume that, for each y < K, K + [K] "o, i.e., let G : [K]< -'c y be such
that for any size K subset C of K, G'[C]<' = y. Now let F: [K]<'o K be given by -C-

F({f1, , an}) = G.1({Ca2,. *, aCn) where a1 < *. < an. Then if C is a given size
K subset of K, F"[C] <' = K. For if a < K is given, let a1 be a member of C greater

than a and let a2 < . < an be members of C greater than a1 such that
Gai({2 , * *,aXn}) = a. Then {a,, . **, an} E [C]<w9 and F({a1, - - , aj) = a. We
now see that this function F contradicts K -* and so we have proved Lemma
[K]K c)

1.ut
LEMMA 2. Assume that K - [K]< and y + [y] <'?. Then K -* [K]y,
<?

PROOF. Assume that K+ [K],<"7~ and that y + [y] <'. We shall show that
K + [K]" C'. To begin with, let us assume that we have coded, with positive integers,
all ways to extract subsets from finite ordered sets. For example, the number 5
might tell us that one should extract from any two-element ordered set {a, b}, a < b,
the subsets {a} and {a, b}. Let us further assume that we have arranged things in
such a way that, for any positive integer n, the cardinality of the finite set n deals
with, g(n), is always at most n. This was the case with our example above where
g(5) = 2 < 5. Now let G mapping [y]<', into y attest to y + [y]y< (i.e., C c y
and card (C) = y imply G"[C]'@ = y) and let H mapping [K]<'o into y attest to
K + [K]<,?y (i.e., C c K and C = K imply card (H"[C]<"?) = y). We can define a
function Ffrom [K] <" into y by F({a1,... , an}) = G({H(A1), H(A2), H(m)})
where a, < ... < an and Al, A2, * - *, Amare the subsets of {.,, ,Iag(n)} the code n
tells us to extract. We now claim that F attests to K + [K]" For suppose that C is c.

a size K subset of K. We wish to show that F"[C]<'' = y. So suppose a < y is

given. Since card (H"[C]<'1) = y, G"[H"[C]<'1] < = y. So let {flj, **, fm} e
[H"[C]< ]i<' be such that G({f1, ***, fm}) = a and let, for each i, A, be a member

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:26:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
426 E. M. KLEINBERG

of [C] <t such that H(A4) = Pi. Finally let n be a number telling one to extract
A1, * * *, Am from U{Ai I 1 < i < m} and let {a.,,- , An} E [C]<co be such that the
least g(n) members of {a1,. , An} are U{A, I 1 < i < m}. Then F({a1,... , anj) = a.
Since a was arbitrary,F"[C] < = y and so as C was arbitraryK + [K]<Y ". Thus our
lemma is proved. D
PROOF OF THEOREM 1. Theorem 1 follows quite easily from Lemmas 1 and 2.
For suppose that K is a Jonsson cardinal. Then K -* [K]< C) and so, by Lemma 1,
K- [K]Y <' for some y less than K. Let 8 be the least such y. If, now, K is the least
Jonsson cardinal, then A+ [A]<co for every A < K. Thus, by Lemma 2, K -*[K]<
for every Asuch that 8 < A < K. This easily gives that K -+ [K]<" d5 for every A < K.
For if not, let A be the least counterexample, i.e., A < K, K + [K]L,5D, and A is the
least such. Let F attest to K + [K] <06. As K -+ [K]", A. let C be a size K subset
of K such that card (F"[C]'c) = y < A. Then F r [C]<o: [C]<w -t F"[C]<'0 and
since card (F'[C] <) = y < A, we can use K -> [K]1",56 to find a size K subset
D of C such that card (F'[D] < ) < 3. Since D is a size K subset of K and
card (F'[D] < c) < 8 we contradict our choice of F. The theorem thus follows. D
LEMMA3. Assume K -> [K]' '? Jor some y < K. Let 8 be the least such y. Then 8
is a regular uncountablecardinal and -* [K] CoD
PROOF. We use a sophisticated version of the proof of Lemma 1. It is easy to
see that we need only show K -+ [K]C), < cf(6 (where cf(3) denotes the cofinality
of 3). So suppose K e [K]C), <cf(" ) Let H: [K]<' -*cf(8) attest to this and, for
each a less than 8, let Ga: [K] < a'-a attest to K + [K]< co. Finally let f map cf(8)
in an order-preservingway onto an unbounded subset 8. We now define a function
F from [K] <"' into 8 as follows:
... =
F({(xl ( at2f3J}) df Gf(H({aj,.. .aJ}))({?Ci + 1 , Ot t + })

where a1 < < a2y3j.Then we claim that F attests to K + [K]" c'. For suppose C
is a size K subset of K and a is an ordinal less than 8. Since card (H"[C] < ) = cf(8)
let {a,, , aj} in [C] <w be such that f(H({aj,... , aj)) > a. Since

Gf (H({a , -a ))[C - (U{?i,, a* } + 1)]<'? = f(H({a1 . . ., aj))

let {a(i+, * , a(+,} E [C - (U{ai, ... , a2} + 1)]< be such that
... = aC
Gf(H({al,.- ,ai))({aCi+1, * *ai + })

Then if ai+j+l <*.. < a2i3j are ordinals in C larger than any a,, for n < i + j,
{aC1 ,... ,
a2*3j}e [C]<O and F({a1,.. , a2t3j}) = a. We have thus shown that
K + [K]< co, a contradiction. Lemma 3 thus follows. D
LEMMA4. Assume that A < K are cardinals. Then for every function F from
0
[K] < C' into A+ ,6 there exists a function GF from [K]< into A such that for any subset
<
Cof K card (F"[C] w) < card (GF[C] <')+.
PROOF. To begin, let us assume that we have a coding as in the proof of Lemma 2
but here our coding tells us how to extract precisely two subsets from each finite
(nonempty) ordered set. In fact, let our notation and conventions concerning the
coding be exactly as in the proof of that lemma. Also, for each ordinal a less than
A+, let ga be a function mapping a + 1 1-1 into A. Now suppose that F: [K]<'o A+

6
For any y, V+ denotes the least cardinal greater than y.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:26:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ROWBOTTOMAND JONSSON CARDINALS 427

is given. Define GF: [K] <C -?A by GF({f1,.. , = gF(A1)(F(A2)) where

a1 < ... < an, A1 and A2 are the subsets of {a1, , a,(n)} n tells one to extract,
and F(A1) > F(A2). If now C is any subset of K it is easy to see how to map any
initial segment of F"[C]<w 1-1 into GF[C]<O.For if A1 and A2 are any two mem-
bers of [C]<w, F(A1) > F(A2), let tAl12 be a member of [C]'< such that GF(t,12) =
gF(Aj)(F(A2)). Then F(A2) ~- GF(tA1A2) is a 1-1 mapping of the initial segment of
F"[C]< determined by F(A1) into GF[C]<'O. This now easily implies that
card (F"[C]< ') < card (GF[C]<w)+. DG
PROOF OF THEOREM 2. Assume that K is a Jonsson cardinal. Let 8 be the least y
such that K-* [K] <'?. By Lemma 1, 8 < K. By Lemma 3, K-* [K]< 6C. We define
cardinals Yn for n < w inductively by yo = 3 = y. It is now easy to check
that K -- [K]]<6 for each n < w. We do this by induction, the case n = 0 being
Lemma 3. So suppose that F: [K]<'' Yn+ 1 = y +. Let GF be as in Lemma 4 and,
by the induction hypothesis, let C be a size K subset of K such that
card (G'[C]<') < 3. Then by Lemma 4, card (F"[C]<w) < 3. We can now use
< <
K [K] ?6 find a size K subset D of C (and hence of K) such that card (F"[D] 0) < S.
Theorem 2 is thus proved. C:
- REMARK. One can actually prove more for an arbitrary Jonsson cardinal than
indicated in Theorem 2. For example, Lemma 2 still applies and so if K is Jonsson
and 8 is the least y < K such that K -- [K]< 'I, K -- [K] <C) A for every non-Jonsson A
which is at least 3. Indeed, contained in the proof of Theorem 1 is the following:
THEOREM. If K-- [K]< 'D and A > 8 ? y are cardinals such that no Jonsson
cardinal appears between7 A and 8, then K -- [K]A,

7iq is between a and 9 if a > X > P.

REFERENCES
[1] K. DEVLIN, Some weak versions of large cardinal axioms, Doctoral Dissertation, Univer-
sity of Bristol, 1971.
[2] P. ERDOS and A. HAJNAL, On a problem of B. Jonsson, Bulletin de l'Acadimie Polonaise
des Sciences. Sirie des Sciences Mathe'matiques, Astronomiques et Physiques, vol. 14 (1966),
pp. 19-23.
[3] E. M. KLEINBERG, Rowbottom cardinals and Jonsson cardinals are almost the same,
Notices of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 18 (1971), p. 827. Abstract 71T-E85.
[4] , The equiconsistency of two large cardinal axioms (to appear).
[5] , The abstract compactness idea, M.I.T. Logic Seminar, 1971-72 (to appear).
[6] F. ROWBOTTOM, Some strong axioms of infinity incompatible with the axiom of con-
structibility, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 3 (1971), pp. 1-44.
[7] J. SILVER, Some applications of model theory in set theory, Annals of Mathematical Logic,
vol. 3 (1971), pp. 45-110.

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:26:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions