“Weak” Ramsey conditions for cardinals












2












$begingroup$


Ok, so these questions just popped into my head and I can't seem to figure it out:



Ramsey's theorem tells us that for any $n,rinomega$ and any $f:[omega]^{n}rightarrow r$, exists an infinite set $Ssubseteqomega$ for which $f| [S]^{n}$ is constant.



A cardinal $kappa$ is said to be Ramsey if for every $f:[kappa]^{<omega}rightarrow {0,1}$ exists some set $Ssubseteqkappa$ of cardinality $kappa$ such that $f|[S]^{<omega}$ is constant.



ZFC can not prove the existence of a Ramsey cardinal (as it is quite large), but the amazing thing is that the difference in conditions seems to be minor, yet to the question: "How much must we enlarge our cardinal $omega$ to satisfy the improved condition", we must answer: "Unprovably much".



So, several questions arise on some conditions in-between. In order to ask them compactly, I will define the following:



Definition: A cardinal $lambda$ will be called K-Ramsey for some $Ksubseteqomega$ if for every $f:[lambda]^{K}rightarrow{0,1}$ (meaning the set of all subsets of $lambda$ with a cardinality in the set K), exists some $Ssubseteqlambda$ of cardinality $lambda$ which is homogeneous for f.



For the questions:



Which cardinal $kappa$ that have been proved to exist in ZFC:




  • Is K-Ramsey for $K={m,n}$, with $m>ngeq2$?


  • Is K-Ramsey for every set K of cardinality 2?


  • Is K-Ramsey for all finite sets $Ksubseteqomega$ that include every natural number up to their maximum (meaning every set of the form ${1,2,...,n}$)?


  • Is K-Ramsey for every finite set $Ksubseteqomega$?


  • For every $f:[kappa]^{<omega}rightarrow{0,1}$ exists some infinite set $Ksubseteqomega$ and some $Ssubseteqkappa$ of cardinality $kappa$, such that the set $[S]^{K}$ is monochromatic?


  • Does a cardinal being K-Ramsey for some infinite set $Ksubseteqomega$ imply it is Ramsey?



I am pretty sure a few of those finite questions can be answered using the pigeonhole principle countably many more times, but am not sure how to continue. If you have any leads or ideas or perhaps these results are well-known, please share them with me.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    2












    $begingroup$


    Ok, so these questions just popped into my head and I can't seem to figure it out:



    Ramsey's theorem tells us that for any $n,rinomega$ and any $f:[omega]^{n}rightarrow r$, exists an infinite set $Ssubseteqomega$ for which $f| [S]^{n}$ is constant.



    A cardinal $kappa$ is said to be Ramsey if for every $f:[kappa]^{<omega}rightarrow {0,1}$ exists some set $Ssubseteqkappa$ of cardinality $kappa$ such that $f|[S]^{<omega}$ is constant.



    ZFC can not prove the existence of a Ramsey cardinal (as it is quite large), but the amazing thing is that the difference in conditions seems to be minor, yet to the question: "How much must we enlarge our cardinal $omega$ to satisfy the improved condition", we must answer: "Unprovably much".



    So, several questions arise on some conditions in-between. In order to ask them compactly, I will define the following:



    Definition: A cardinal $lambda$ will be called K-Ramsey for some $Ksubseteqomega$ if for every $f:[lambda]^{K}rightarrow{0,1}$ (meaning the set of all subsets of $lambda$ with a cardinality in the set K), exists some $Ssubseteqlambda$ of cardinality $lambda$ which is homogeneous for f.



    For the questions:



    Which cardinal $kappa$ that have been proved to exist in ZFC:




    • Is K-Ramsey for $K={m,n}$, with $m>ngeq2$?


    • Is K-Ramsey for every set K of cardinality 2?


    • Is K-Ramsey for all finite sets $Ksubseteqomega$ that include every natural number up to their maximum (meaning every set of the form ${1,2,...,n}$)?


    • Is K-Ramsey for every finite set $Ksubseteqomega$?


    • For every $f:[kappa]^{<omega}rightarrow{0,1}$ exists some infinite set $Ksubseteqomega$ and some $Ssubseteqkappa$ of cardinality $kappa$, such that the set $[S]^{K}$ is monochromatic?


    • Does a cardinal being K-Ramsey for some infinite set $Ksubseteqomega$ imply it is Ramsey?



    I am pretty sure a few of those finite questions can be answered using the pigeonhole principle countably many more times, but am not sure how to continue. If you have any leads or ideas or perhaps these results are well-known, please share them with me.










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      2












      2








      2


      1



      $begingroup$


      Ok, so these questions just popped into my head and I can't seem to figure it out:



      Ramsey's theorem tells us that for any $n,rinomega$ and any $f:[omega]^{n}rightarrow r$, exists an infinite set $Ssubseteqomega$ for which $f| [S]^{n}$ is constant.



      A cardinal $kappa$ is said to be Ramsey if for every $f:[kappa]^{<omega}rightarrow {0,1}$ exists some set $Ssubseteqkappa$ of cardinality $kappa$ such that $f|[S]^{<omega}$ is constant.



      ZFC can not prove the existence of a Ramsey cardinal (as it is quite large), but the amazing thing is that the difference in conditions seems to be minor, yet to the question: "How much must we enlarge our cardinal $omega$ to satisfy the improved condition", we must answer: "Unprovably much".



      So, several questions arise on some conditions in-between. In order to ask them compactly, I will define the following:



      Definition: A cardinal $lambda$ will be called K-Ramsey for some $Ksubseteqomega$ if for every $f:[lambda]^{K}rightarrow{0,1}$ (meaning the set of all subsets of $lambda$ with a cardinality in the set K), exists some $Ssubseteqlambda$ of cardinality $lambda$ which is homogeneous for f.



      For the questions:



      Which cardinal $kappa$ that have been proved to exist in ZFC:




      • Is K-Ramsey for $K={m,n}$, with $m>ngeq2$?


      • Is K-Ramsey for every set K of cardinality 2?


      • Is K-Ramsey for all finite sets $Ksubseteqomega$ that include every natural number up to their maximum (meaning every set of the form ${1,2,...,n}$)?


      • Is K-Ramsey for every finite set $Ksubseteqomega$?


      • For every $f:[kappa]^{<omega}rightarrow{0,1}$ exists some infinite set $Ksubseteqomega$ and some $Ssubseteqkappa$ of cardinality $kappa$, such that the set $[S]^{K}$ is monochromatic?


      • Does a cardinal being K-Ramsey for some infinite set $Ksubseteqomega$ imply it is Ramsey?



      I am pretty sure a few of those finite questions can be answered using the pigeonhole principle countably many more times, but am not sure how to continue. If you have any leads or ideas or perhaps these results are well-known, please share them with me.










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      Ok, so these questions just popped into my head and I can't seem to figure it out:



      Ramsey's theorem tells us that for any $n,rinomega$ and any $f:[omega]^{n}rightarrow r$, exists an infinite set $Ssubseteqomega$ for which $f| [S]^{n}$ is constant.



      A cardinal $kappa$ is said to be Ramsey if for every $f:[kappa]^{<omega}rightarrow {0,1}$ exists some set $Ssubseteqkappa$ of cardinality $kappa$ such that $f|[S]^{<omega}$ is constant.



      ZFC can not prove the existence of a Ramsey cardinal (as it is quite large), but the amazing thing is that the difference in conditions seems to be minor, yet to the question: "How much must we enlarge our cardinal $omega$ to satisfy the improved condition", we must answer: "Unprovably much".



      So, several questions arise on some conditions in-between. In order to ask them compactly, I will define the following:



      Definition: A cardinal $lambda$ will be called K-Ramsey for some $Ksubseteqomega$ if for every $f:[lambda]^{K}rightarrow{0,1}$ (meaning the set of all subsets of $lambda$ with a cardinality in the set K), exists some $Ssubseteqlambda$ of cardinality $lambda$ which is homogeneous for f.



      For the questions:



      Which cardinal $kappa$ that have been proved to exist in ZFC:




      • Is K-Ramsey for $K={m,n}$, with $m>ngeq2$?


      • Is K-Ramsey for every set K of cardinality 2?


      • Is K-Ramsey for all finite sets $Ksubseteqomega$ that include every natural number up to their maximum (meaning every set of the form ${1,2,...,n}$)?


      • Is K-Ramsey for every finite set $Ksubseteqomega$?


      • For every $f:[kappa]^{<omega}rightarrow{0,1}$ exists some infinite set $Ksubseteqomega$ and some $Ssubseteqkappa$ of cardinality $kappa$, such that the set $[S]^{K}$ is monochromatic?


      • Does a cardinal being K-Ramsey for some infinite set $Ksubseteqomega$ imply it is Ramsey?



      I am pretty sure a few of those finite questions can be answered using the pigeonhole principle countably many more times, but am not sure how to continue. If you have any leads or ideas or perhaps these results are well-known, please share them with me.







      set-theory cardinals ramsey-theory large-cardinals






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 12 '18 at 18:45









      Jean Marie

      29.8k42051




      29.8k42051










      asked Dec 12 '18 at 18:34









      Uri George PeterzilUri George Peterzil

      949




      949






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3












          $begingroup$

          Even for the simplest nontrivial situation $K={2}$ - let alone $2$-element $K$s - we're forced to leave ZFC:




          The statement "There is a cardinal $kappa$ such that every two-coloring of pairs $c:[kappa]^2rightarrow 2$ has a homogeneous set of size $kappa$" is independent of ZFC.




          In fact, a cardinal satisfying Ramsey's theorem for pairs (= your "${2}$-Ramsey") is called weakly compact, and this is a significant large cardinal property. So the pigeonhole principle is actually extremely limited in the uncountable setting! (Or perhaps more accurately, "simple" combinatorial facts about $omega$ secretly depend on more than just the pigeonhole principle.)






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$





















            1












            $begingroup$

            A couple of results, using the "arrow notation": For any set $A$ and any (finite or infinite) cardinals $b,c,d,$ the notation $$Ato (b)^c_d$$ means that for every $f:[A]^cto d$ there exists $Sin [A]^b$ such that $|f(x):xin S|=1.$ (I.e. $S$ is homogeneous for $f$.)




            1. For infinite cardinal ordinal $a$ we have $neg (,2^ato (a^+)^2_2,).$


            2. For uncountable cardinal ordinal $a,$ if $ato (a)^2_2,$ we can show readily that $a$ is regular, and we can use 1. to show that $a$ is a strong limit cardinal, so $a$ is strongly-inaccessible. Such an $a$ is called weakly compact, and is "rather large", much larger than the least strongly-inaccessible.



            In particular, for 1., for $|a|=omega:$ Let $<_W$ be a well-order on $Bbb R$ and let $<$ be the arithmetic order. Define $f: [Bbb R]^2to {0,1}$ where $f({x,y})=1$ iff $<_W$ and $<$ agree on ${x,y}.$ And let $x<^*y$ iff $y<x. $ Now if $S$ is homogenous for $f,$ then $<$ or $<^*$ is a well-order on $S.$ But since $Ssubset Bbb R,$ this implies $S$ is countable.



            For 1. in general, let $<_L$ be the lexicographic order on $^{{0,1}}a:$ For functions $g,h$ from $a$ to ${0,1}$ with $gne h,$ let $x=min {yin a: g(y)ne h(y)}.$ Let $g<_L h$ iff $g(x)=0$ and $h(x)=1.$ And let $<_W$ be a well-order on $^{{0,1}}a.$.... Now define $f:[^{{0,1}}a]^2to {0,1}$ by letting $f({g,h})=1$ iff $<_L$ and $<_W$ agree on ${g,h}.$ A theorem of "Erdos & company" is that if $S$ is homogeneous for $f$ then $|S|leq a.$



            Paul Erdos is an author or co-author of over 1500 published papers, and the number of other co-authors on them is in the thousands.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$













              Your Answer





              StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
              return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
              StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
              StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
              });
              });
              }, "mathjax-editing");

              StackExchange.ready(function() {
              var channelOptions = {
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "69"
              };
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
              createEditor();
              });
              }
              else {
              createEditor();
              }
              });

              function createEditor() {
              StackExchange.prepareEditor({
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
              convertImagesToLinks: true,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: 10,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader: {
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              },
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              });


              }
              });














              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function () {
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3037059%2fweak-ramsey-conditions-for-cardinals%23new-answer', 'question_page');
              }
              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes








              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              3












              $begingroup$

              Even for the simplest nontrivial situation $K={2}$ - let alone $2$-element $K$s - we're forced to leave ZFC:




              The statement "There is a cardinal $kappa$ such that every two-coloring of pairs $c:[kappa]^2rightarrow 2$ has a homogeneous set of size $kappa$" is independent of ZFC.




              In fact, a cardinal satisfying Ramsey's theorem for pairs (= your "${2}$-Ramsey") is called weakly compact, and this is a significant large cardinal property. So the pigeonhole principle is actually extremely limited in the uncountable setting! (Or perhaps more accurately, "simple" combinatorial facts about $omega$ secretly depend on more than just the pigeonhole principle.)






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                3












                $begingroup$

                Even for the simplest nontrivial situation $K={2}$ - let alone $2$-element $K$s - we're forced to leave ZFC:




                The statement "There is a cardinal $kappa$ such that every two-coloring of pairs $c:[kappa]^2rightarrow 2$ has a homogeneous set of size $kappa$" is independent of ZFC.




                In fact, a cardinal satisfying Ramsey's theorem for pairs (= your "${2}$-Ramsey") is called weakly compact, and this is a significant large cardinal property. So the pigeonhole principle is actually extremely limited in the uncountable setting! (Or perhaps more accurately, "simple" combinatorial facts about $omega$ secretly depend on more than just the pigeonhole principle.)






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  3












                  3








                  3





                  $begingroup$

                  Even for the simplest nontrivial situation $K={2}$ - let alone $2$-element $K$s - we're forced to leave ZFC:




                  The statement "There is a cardinal $kappa$ such that every two-coloring of pairs $c:[kappa]^2rightarrow 2$ has a homogeneous set of size $kappa$" is independent of ZFC.




                  In fact, a cardinal satisfying Ramsey's theorem for pairs (= your "${2}$-Ramsey") is called weakly compact, and this is a significant large cardinal property. So the pigeonhole principle is actually extremely limited in the uncountable setting! (Or perhaps more accurately, "simple" combinatorial facts about $omega$ secretly depend on more than just the pigeonhole principle.)






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  Even for the simplest nontrivial situation $K={2}$ - let alone $2$-element $K$s - we're forced to leave ZFC:




                  The statement "There is a cardinal $kappa$ such that every two-coloring of pairs $c:[kappa]^2rightarrow 2$ has a homogeneous set of size $kappa$" is independent of ZFC.




                  In fact, a cardinal satisfying Ramsey's theorem for pairs (= your "${2}$-Ramsey") is called weakly compact, and this is a significant large cardinal property. So the pigeonhole principle is actually extremely limited in the uncountable setting! (Or perhaps more accurately, "simple" combinatorial facts about $omega$ secretly depend on more than just the pigeonhole principle.)







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Dec 12 '18 at 19:35









                  Noah SchweberNoah Schweber

                  124k10150287




                  124k10150287























                      1












                      $begingroup$

                      A couple of results, using the "arrow notation": For any set $A$ and any (finite or infinite) cardinals $b,c,d,$ the notation $$Ato (b)^c_d$$ means that for every $f:[A]^cto d$ there exists $Sin [A]^b$ such that $|f(x):xin S|=1.$ (I.e. $S$ is homogeneous for $f$.)




                      1. For infinite cardinal ordinal $a$ we have $neg (,2^ato (a^+)^2_2,).$


                      2. For uncountable cardinal ordinal $a,$ if $ato (a)^2_2,$ we can show readily that $a$ is regular, and we can use 1. to show that $a$ is a strong limit cardinal, so $a$ is strongly-inaccessible. Such an $a$ is called weakly compact, and is "rather large", much larger than the least strongly-inaccessible.



                      In particular, for 1., for $|a|=omega:$ Let $<_W$ be a well-order on $Bbb R$ and let $<$ be the arithmetic order. Define $f: [Bbb R]^2to {0,1}$ where $f({x,y})=1$ iff $<_W$ and $<$ agree on ${x,y}.$ And let $x<^*y$ iff $y<x. $ Now if $S$ is homogenous for $f,$ then $<$ or $<^*$ is a well-order on $S.$ But since $Ssubset Bbb R,$ this implies $S$ is countable.



                      For 1. in general, let $<_L$ be the lexicographic order on $^{{0,1}}a:$ For functions $g,h$ from $a$ to ${0,1}$ with $gne h,$ let $x=min {yin a: g(y)ne h(y)}.$ Let $g<_L h$ iff $g(x)=0$ and $h(x)=1.$ And let $<_W$ be a well-order on $^{{0,1}}a.$.... Now define $f:[^{{0,1}}a]^2to {0,1}$ by letting $f({g,h})=1$ iff $<_L$ and $<_W$ agree on ${g,h}.$ A theorem of "Erdos & company" is that if $S$ is homogeneous for $f$ then $|S|leq a.$



                      Paul Erdos is an author or co-author of over 1500 published papers, and the number of other co-authors on them is in the thousands.






                      share|cite|improve this answer











                      $endgroup$


















                        1












                        $begingroup$

                        A couple of results, using the "arrow notation": For any set $A$ and any (finite or infinite) cardinals $b,c,d,$ the notation $$Ato (b)^c_d$$ means that for every $f:[A]^cto d$ there exists $Sin [A]^b$ such that $|f(x):xin S|=1.$ (I.e. $S$ is homogeneous for $f$.)




                        1. For infinite cardinal ordinal $a$ we have $neg (,2^ato (a^+)^2_2,).$


                        2. For uncountable cardinal ordinal $a,$ if $ato (a)^2_2,$ we can show readily that $a$ is regular, and we can use 1. to show that $a$ is a strong limit cardinal, so $a$ is strongly-inaccessible. Such an $a$ is called weakly compact, and is "rather large", much larger than the least strongly-inaccessible.



                        In particular, for 1., for $|a|=omega:$ Let $<_W$ be a well-order on $Bbb R$ and let $<$ be the arithmetic order. Define $f: [Bbb R]^2to {0,1}$ where $f({x,y})=1$ iff $<_W$ and $<$ agree on ${x,y}.$ And let $x<^*y$ iff $y<x. $ Now if $S$ is homogenous for $f,$ then $<$ or $<^*$ is a well-order on $S.$ But since $Ssubset Bbb R,$ this implies $S$ is countable.



                        For 1. in general, let $<_L$ be the lexicographic order on $^{{0,1}}a:$ For functions $g,h$ from $a$ to ${0,1}$ with $gne h,$ let $x=min {yin a: g(y)ne h(y)}.$ Let $g<_L h$ iff $g(x)=0$ and $h(x)=1.$ And let $<_W$ be a well-order on $^{{0,1}}a.$.... Now define $f:[^{{0,1}}a]^2to {0,1}$ by letting $f({g,h})=1$ iff $<_L$ and $<_W$ agree on ${g,h}.$ A theorem of "Erdos & company" is that if $S$ is homogeneous for $f$ then $|S|leq a.$



                        Paul Erdos is an author or co-author of over 1500 published papers, and the number of other co-authors on them is in the thousands.






                        share|cite|improve this answer











                        $endgroup$
















                          1












                          1








                          1





                          $begingroup$

                          A couple of results, using the "arrow notation": For any set $A$ and any (finite or infinite) cardinals $b,c,d,$ the notation $$Ato (b)^c_d$$ means that for every $f:[A]^cto d$ there exists $Sin [A]^b$ such that $|f(x):xin S|=1.$ (I.e. $S$ is homogeneous for $f$.)




                          1. For infinite cardinal ordinal $a$ we have $neg (,2^ato (a^+)^2_2,).$


                          2. For uncountable cardinal ordinal $a,$ if $ato (a)^2_2,$ we can show readily that $a$ is regular, and we can use 1. to show that $a$ is a strong limit cardinal, so $a$ is strongly-inaccessible. Such an $a$ is called weakly compact, and is "rather large", much larger than the least strongly-inaccessible.



                          In particular, for 1., for $|a|=omega:$ Let $<_W$ be a well-order on $Bbb R$ and let $<$ be the arithmetic order. Define $f: [Bbb R]^2to {0,1}$ where $f({x,y})=1$ iff $<_W$ and $<$ agree on ${x,y}.$ And let $x<^*y$ iff $y<x. $ Now if $S$ is homogenous for $f,$ then $<$ or $<^*$ is a well-order on $S.$ But since $Ssubset Bbb R,$ this implies $S$ is countable.



                          For 1. in general, let $<_L$ be the lexicographic order on $^{{0,1}}a:$ For functions $g,h$ from $a$ to ${0,1}$ with $gne h,$ let $x=min {yin a: g(y)ne h(y)}.$ Let $g<_L h$ iff $g(x)=0$ and $h(x)=1.$ And let $<_W$ be a well-order on $^{{0,1}}a.$.... Now define $f:[^{{0,1}}a]^2to {0,1}$ by letting $f({g,h})=1$ iff $<_L$ and $<_W$ agree on ${g,h}.$ A theorem of "Erdos & company" is that if $S$ is homogeneous for $f$ then $|S|leq a.$



                          Paul Erdos is an author or co-author of over 1500 published papers, and the number of other co-authors on them is in the thousands.






                          share|cite|improve this answer











                          $endgroup$



                          A couple of results, using the "arrow notation": For any set $A$ and any (finite or infinite) cardinals $b,c,d,$ the notation $$Ato (b)^c_d$$ means that for every $f:[A]^cto d$ there exists $Sin [A]^b$ such that $|f(x):xin S|=1.$ (I.e. $S$ is homogeneous for $f$.)




                          1. For infinite cardinal ordinal $a$ we have $neg (,2^ato (a^+)^2_2,).$


                          2. For uncountable cardinal ordinal $a,$ if $ato (a)^2_2,$ we can show readily that $a$ is regular, and we can use 1. to show that $a$ is a strong limit cardinal, so $a$ is strongly-inaccessible. Such an $a$ is called weakly compact, and is "rather large", much larger than the least strongly-inaccessible.



                          In particular, for 1., for $|a|=omega:$ Let $<_W$ be a well-order on $Bbb R$ and let $<$ be the arithmetic order. Define $f: [Bbb R]^2to {0,1}$ where $f({x,y})=1$ iff $<_W$ and $<$ agree on ${x,y}.$ And let $x<^*y$ iff $y<x. $ Now if $S$ is homogenous for $f,$ then $<$ or $<^*$ is a well-order on $S.$ But since $Ssubset Bbb R,$ this implies $S$ is countable.



                          For 1. in general, let $<_L$ be the lexicographic order on $^{{0,1}}a:$ For functions $g,h$ from $a$ to ${0,1}$ with $gne h,$ let $x=min {yin a: g(y)ne h(y)}.$ Let $g<_L h$ iff $g(x)=0$ and $h(x)=1.$ And let $<_W$ be a well-order on $^{{0,1}}a.$.... Now define $f:[^{{0,1}}a]^2to {0,1}$ by letting $f({g,h})=1$ iff $<_L$ and $<_W$ agree on ${g,h}.$ A theorem of "Erdos & company" is that if $S$ is homogeneous for $f$ then $|S|leq a.$



                          Paul Erdos is an author or co-author of over 1500 published papers, and the number of other co-authors on them is in the thousands.







                          share|cite|improve this answer














                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer








                          edited Dec 17 '18 at 9:37

























                          answered Dec 17 '18 at 9:22









                          DanielWainfleetDanielWainfleet

                          35.1k31648




                          35.1k31648






























                              draft saved

                              draft discarded




















































                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid



                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                              Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function () {
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3037059%2fweak-ramsey-conditions-for-cardinals%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                              }
                              );

                              Post as a guest















                              Required, but never shown





















































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown

































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              Aardman Animations

                              Are they similar matrix

                              “minimization” problem in Euclidean space related to orthonormal basis