Added to Favorites

Popular Searches

In set theory,
Cichoń's diagram or Cichon's diagram is a table of 10 infinite cardinal numbers related to the set theory of the reals displaying the provable relations between these cardinal invariants. All these cardinals are greater or equal than $aleph\_1$, the smallest uncountable cardinal, and they are bounded above by $2^\{aleph\_0\}$, the cardinality of the continuum. Four cardinals describe properties of the ideal of sets of measure zero, four more describe the corresponding properties of the ideal of meager sets (first category sets).
## Definitions

Let I be an ideal of subsets of a fixed infinite set X, containing all finite subsets of X. We define the following "cardinal coefficients" of I:

- $\{rm\; add\}(I)=min$.
- The "additivity" of I is the smallest number of sets from I whose union is not in I any more. As any ideal is closed under finite unions, this number is always at least $aleph\_0$; if I is a σ-ideal, then add(I)≥$aleph\_1$.

- $\{rm\; cov\}(I)=min$

.- The "covering number" of I is the smallest number of sets from I whose union is all of X. As X itself is not in I, we must have add(I) ≤ cov(I).

- $\{rm\; non\}(I)=min$

,- The "uniformity number" of I (sometimes also written $\{rm\; unif\}(I)$) is the size of the smallest set not in I. By our assumption on I, add(I) ≤ non(I).

- $\{rm\; cof\}(I)=min$

- The "cofinality" of I is the cofinality of the partial order (I, ⊆). It is easy to see that we must have non(I) ≤ cof(I) and cov(I) ≤ cof(I).

Furthermore, the "bounding number" or "unboundedness number" $\{mathfrak\; b\}$ and the "dominating number" $\{mathfrak\; d\}$ are defined as follows:

- $\{mathfrak\; b\}=minbig$

, - $\{mathfrak\; d\}=minbig$
, where "$exists^infty\; nin\{mathbb\; N\}$" means: "there are infinitely many natural numbers n such that...", and "$forall^infty\; nin\{mathbb\; N\}$" means "for all except finitely many natural numbers n we have...".

## Diagram

Let $\{mathcal\; K\}$ be the σ-ideal of those subsets of the real line which are meager (or "of the first category") in the euclidean topology, and let $\{mathcal\; L\}$ be the σ-ideal of those subsets of the real line which are of Lebesgue measure zero. Then the following inequalities hold (where an arrow from a to b is to be read as "a≤b".

> >$\{rm\; cov\}(\{mathcal\; L\})$ $longrightarrow$ $\{rm\; non\}(\{mathcal\; K\})$ $longrightarrow$ $\{rm\; cof\}(\{mathcal\; K\})$ $longrightarrow$ $\{rm\; cof\}(\{mathcal\; L\})$ $longrightarrow$ 2^{aleph_0} $Bigguparrow$ $uparrow$ $uparrow$ $Bigguparrow$ $\{mathfrak\; b\}$ $longrightarrow$ {mathfrak d} $uparrow$ $uparrow$ $aleph\_1$ $longrightarrow$ $\{rm\; add\}(\{mathcal\; L\})$ $longrightarrow$ $\{rm\; add\}(\{mathcal\; K\})$ $longrightarrow$ $\{rm\; cov\}(\{mathcal\; K\})$ $longrightarrow$ $\{rm\; non\}(\{mathcal\; L\})$ In addition, the following relations hold:

$\{rm\; add\}(\{mathcal\; K\})=min\{\{rm\; cov\}(\{mathcal\; K\}),\{mathfrak\; b\}\}$ and $\{rm\; cof\}(\{mathcal\; K\})=max\{\{rm\; non\}(\{mathcal\; K\}),\{mathfrak\; d\}\}$. It turns out that the relations described by the diagram, together with the inequalities mentioned above, are "all" the relations between these cardinals that are provable in ZFC, in the following sense: whenever we assign the cardinals $aleph\_1$ and $aleph\_2$ to the 10 cardinals in Cichoń's diagram in a way that is consistent with the diagram (that is, there is never an arrow from $aleph\_2$ to $aleph\_1$) and with the two additional relations, then this assignment is realized in some model of ZFC.

Some inequalities in the diagram (such as "add ≤ cov") follow immediately from the definitions. The inequalities $\{rm\; cov\}(\{mathcal\; K\})\; le\; \{rm\; non\}(\{mathcal\; L\})$ and $\{rm\; cov\}(\{mathcal\; L\})\; le\; \{rm\; non\}(\{mathcal\; K\})$ are classical theorems and follow from the fact that the real line can be partitioned into a meager set and a set of measure zero.

## Remarks

The British mathematician David Fremlin named the diagram after the Wrocław mathematician Jacek Cichoń.

The continuum hypothesis, of $2^\{aleph\_0\}$ being equal to $aleph\_1$, would make all of these arrows equalities.

Slightly weaker than the CH, Martin's axiom would imply that all cardinals in the diagram, except perhaps $aleph\_1$, are equal to $2^\{aleph\_0\}$.

## References

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia © 2001-2006 Wikipedia contributors (Disclaimer)

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.

Last updated on Thursday October 02, 2008 at 23:38:44 PDT (GMT -0700)

View this article at Wikipedia.org - Edit this article at Wikipedia.org - Donate to the Wikimedia Foundation

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.

Last updated on Thursday October 02, 2008 at 23:38:44 PDT (GMT -0700)

View this article at Wikipedia.org - Edit this article at Wikipedia.org - Donate to the Wikimedia Foundation

Copyright © 2015 Dictionary.com, LLC. All rights reserved.