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.

Universal pcf sequences have strong increase and exact bounds

Statement

Assume AC. Let A be a nonempty progressive set of infinite regular cardinals, λpcf(A) and I=J<λ[A]. Let μ be the least ordinal with AμI. There is a universally cofinal λ-sequence (fξ)ξ<λ with ()κ modulo I for every infinite regular κ<μ, and an exact upper bound h with 0<h(a)a a limit ordinal for every aA.

Either μ=λ+1, in which case λA, I=P(Aλ) and a principal-coordinate construction suffices, or μ is a singular limit cardinal less than λ. The latter case has A+<μ<λ, so the general exact-bound theorem applies. No finite-support case is inferred from that theorem.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: AC, A, λ, I as in the statement. The property ()κ means every unbounded subset of the sequence's indices contains a strongly increasing subsequence of order type κ.

[F1]

Product ultrafilter cofinalities are infinite regular cardinals at least the smallest coordinate; restriction to an ultrafilter support preserves them; finite PCF equals the coordinate set (Progressive products and true cofinality transfers).

[F2]

I is proper, and {a}I exactly when a<λ; its subset criterion tests all supported ultrafilters (Pcf cofinality ideals and cutoff conventions).

[F3]

The product modulo I is λ-directed and every cofinality-λ ultrafilter avoids I (Pcf ideal directedness and ultrafilter cofinality cutoffs).

[F4]

A universal λ-sequence exists (Progressive pcf has universally cofinal sequences).

[F5]

Directedness gives one dominating strict chain with ()κ for every uncountable regular κ with κ++<λ and {a:aκ++}I; its projection and exact-bound conclusions apply with their stated cardinal inequalities (Directed progressive products have club continuous chains).

[F6]

Exact bounds are least bounds and are unique modulo the ideal; the general projection theorem yields positive limit representatives (Bounding projections produce an exact upper bound with large coordinate cofinalities).

[F9]

A specified rule recurses on an ordinal (Transfinite recursion).

[A1]

AC supplies choices from nonempty sets (The Axiom of Choice).

Proof

1.1

Choose a cofinality-λ ultrafilter D, which exists by the definition of pcf(A). Put L=A(λ+1). If LD, its complement belongs to D: a maximal proper filter omitting L has a member disjoint from L, since otherwise adjoining L would generate a proper larger filter. On that complement every coordinate exceeds λ; F1 would give product cofinality greater than λ, a contradiction. Thus LD, and F3 implies LI. The least positive initial segment therefore exists with μλ+1. Also λminA>A by F1 and progressiveness. If μ=θ+1, minimality gives AθI, and positivity of its union with A{θ} forces θA and {θ}I. F2 gives θλ, while θ+1λ+1 gives θλ. Thus θ=λ.

F1F2F3given
2.1

In this successor case let N=Aλ. Then NI. No member of I contains a coordinate aλ, by its singleton subset and F2; hence I=P(N). Define fξ(a)=0 on N and fξ(a)=ξ off N. Since aλ>ξ off N, these are product functions. For ξ<η, fξ(a)<fη(a) everywhere off N, so the whole sequence is strongly increasing with constant exceptional set N. Every unbounded Uλ has an increasing sequence of indices of order type any infinite κλ: recursively take its least member above previous indices, using regularity from F1 and boundedness from F7 at stages below λ, and F9 for the recursion. Restriction proves each required ()κ. Every cofinality-λ ultrafilter contains {λ}: it avoids N by F3 and cannot concentrate on the coordinates greater than λ by F1; the finite intersection rule forces that singleton. At that coordinate the values ξ enumerate λ, so the sequence is universal.

step 1.1F1F2F3F7F9
2.2

Otherwise μ is a limit ordinal and Aμ is unbounded in μ. Indeed, a bound β<μ would give Aμ=A(β+1)I. An unbounded set of infinite cardinals has a cardinal supremum: for each γ<μ some cardinal a satisfies γ<a<μ, ruling out any bijection of μ with a smaller ordinal γ by restriction to a. Thus μ is a limit cardinal. Also cf(μ)AμA<minA<μ by F7 and progressiveness. It is singular; since λ is regular and μλ+1, it follows that μ<λ. The support A is infinite, and, as μ is a limit cardinal above A, A+<μ. For every infinite regular κ<μ its double successor and the ordinal κ+++1 are below μ. Minimality therefore gives {aA:aκ++}I.

step 1.1F1F2F7
3.1

In the successor case of step 2.1, set h(a)=a on N and h(a)=λ off N. These are positive limit ordinals and h(a)a. Every fξ<Ih. Given g<Ih, its failure set is a subset of N, so g(a)<λ for every aN. There are at most A<λ such values, so F7 bounds their successors by some ξ<λ; if their supremum is zero, take ξ=1. Then g(a)<ξ=fξ(a) off N, proving exactness. This proves the complete conclusion in the successor case. In particular it covers finite A: the finitely many initial segments change only at successors, so a least positive one cannot first occur at a limit.

step 1.1step 2.1F7
3.2

In the limit case of step 2.2, AC in A1 supplies the choice hypothesis of the following two existence results. Apply F4 to obtain a universal sequence g, and F5 using F3's directedness to obtain a strict chain f with gξ(a)<fξ+1(a) everywhere. For every uncountable regular κ<μ, step 2.2 checks both eligibility inequalities and the small-coordinate condition, so this one chain has ()κ. It also has ()ω: ω1<μ because μ is a limit cardinal greater than the infinite cardinal A, and ω1 is regular by F8; restrict each strong ω1 subsequence to its first ω terms. If D has cofinality λ, F3 transfers every I comparison to D. Given a product function u, universality of g supplies ξ with uDgξ<Dfξ+1, proving universality of f.

step 2.2F3F4F5F8A1
4.1

Put τ=A. By F8 τ+ is regular and uncountable; step 2.2 gives τ+<μ<λ and makes it eligible in F5. Thus F5's projection and exact-bound clauses supply an exact bound v with positive limit values. Let e(a)=a, a pointwise bound for every product function. Leastness in F6 gives vIe. Set h(a)=min{v(a),a}; it is positive and limit-valued, lies below a everywhere, and differs from v only on the small set {a:v(a)>a}. Consequently each upper-bound comparison and each comparison g<Ih is unchanged from v, so exactness is preserved. Together with the successor-case construction in step 3.1 and universality in step 3.2 this proves all the assertions. QED.

step 2.1step 3.1step 2.2step 3.2F5F6F8

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

49 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