Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-12
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

Pcf cofinality ideals and cutoff conventions

Statement

Assume AC. For a set A of infinite regular cardinals and a cardinal λ, put

J<λ[A]={E⊆A:pcf⁡(E)⊆λ},J≤λ[A]=J<λ+[A].

The first condition means that every member of pcf⁡(E) is strictly less than λ. These are possibly improper ideals, increasing with the cutoff, and for B⊆A one has J<λ[B]=J<λ[A]∩P(B). The singleton {a} belongs to J<λ[A] exactly when a<λ. If λ∈pcf⁡(A), then J<λ[A] is proper.

Membership of E in J<λ[A] is equivalent to every ultrafilter D on A containing E having cf⁡(∏A/D)<λ. With J∗={A∖E:E∈J}, one has

J<λ[A]∗=⋂{D:D is an ultrafilter on A, cf⁡(∏A/D)≥λ}.

The intersection of an empty family here is taken inside P(A), hence equals P(A); in that case the dual is an improper filter family. No assertion is made here that a fixed ultrafilter of cofinality below λ must meet J<λ[A]; that later cutoff theorem needs directedness.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: AC, a set A of infinite regular cardinals, a cardinal λ, and the displayed definitions.

[F1]

The PCF transfer lemma proves the empty and singleton values, monotonicity, and finite-union preservation (Progressive products and true cofinality transfers, Statement).

[F2]

An ultrafilter contains exactly one of each set and its complement (Characterisation of ultrafilters: every set or its complement).

[F3]

Restriction to a support in an ultrafilter and extension from that support preserve the ultraproduct order and cofinality (Progressive products and true cofinality transfers, Statement, support-restriction clause).

[A1]

AC is assumed, as in the PCF transfer lemma (The Axiom of Choice).

Proof

1.1F1A1given

Since pcf⁡(∅)=∅, the empty set belongs to J<λ[A]. If E belongs and H⊆E, monotonicity gives pcf⁡(H)⊆pcf⁡(E)⊆λ. If E,H both belong, finite-union preservation gives pcf⁡(E∪H)=pcf⁡(E)∪pcf⁡(H)⊆λ. Thus it is an ideal; the same argument with λ+ gives J≤λ. Larger cutoffs enlarge the ideals because the corresponding ordinal intervals are nested. For E⊆B⊆A, the statement pcf⁡(E)⊆λ does not depend on the ambient set, proving the restriction identity in both directions.

1.2F1givenalgebra

By the singleton calculation, pcf⁡({a})={a}, so its membership is exactly a<λ, including failure at the endpoint a=λ. If λ∈pcf⁡(A), then pcf⁡(A)⊈λ, so A∉J<λ[A]. If A is empty, its only ideal here is {∅}, improper on the empty support. For nonempty A and λ=0 or 1, the singleton calculation and monotonicity show that only the empty subset is null, since all coordinates are infinite. For a finite A, the same calculation gives exactly J<λ[A]=P({a∈A:a<λ}).

2.1F3step 1.1

Suppose first that E∈J<λ[A] and D is an ultrafilter on A containing E. Restrict D to E; by the support isomorphism its product cofinality is unchanged and belongs to pcf⁡(E), hence is below λ. Conversely, if every such D has cofinality below λ, any ultrafilter on E extends to one on A supported on E with the same cofinality. Thus every member of pcf⁡(E) is below λ, proving membership. For E=∅ both the universal ultrafilter assertions are vacuous and membership was proved in step 1.1.

3.1F2step 2.1

A set H⊆A belongs to every ultrafilter of cofinality at least λ exactly when none of those ultrafilters contains A∖H, by the complementary-pair law in F2. By step 2.1 this is exactly A∖H∈J<λ[A], or H∈J<λ[A]∗. This proves both inclusions in the dual identity. If there are no high-cofinality ultrafilters, step 2.1 with E=A puts A in the ideal, so the ideal and its dual are both P(A); the empty-intersection convention gives the same result. No witnesses are chosen in these computations beyond the AC-dependent facts already proved in F1. QED.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

43 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.

Sources