I am a mathematics student in my last year of undergraduate studies and I am currently doing a project on set theory. I have so far explored Zermelo-Fraenkel Set theory with the Axiom of Choice and Elementry Theory of Category of Sets and would like to take my project further to investigate more topics. I was wondering whether there are any suggestions for specific topics or any particular topics that people have looked into and really enjoyed. I am quite new to set theory and this is the first time I've learned about it so I would really appreciate it if the answers are not too complicated.
-
I would suggest the Goodstein-sequences and the proof within ZFC that they all terminate (which cannot be done in PA!) – Peter Dec 06 '20 at 14:29
-
3The constructible universe and the consistency of GCH and AC with ZF. If you've done that already, forcing can be the next step; basics of large cardinals can be the next step; combinatorics in $L$ (diamonds, etc.) can be the next step. – Asaf Karagila Dec 06 '20 at 16:48
-
3 enormously important topics: 1. Godel's constructible class L. 2. Godel's Incompleteness theorems. Paul Cohen's Forcing. I recommend Set Theory: An Introduction To Independence Proofs, by Kenneth Kunen. Much of the material in the early chapters will be familiar to you. And I recommend Lectures In Set Theory (various authors, edited by Morley). – DanielWainfleet Dec 06 '20 at 21:34
-
Try also https://karagila.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ests-wh.pdf as a place to start. – Asaf Karagila Dec 06 '20 at 21:41
-
1There are no faculty you can ask for advice? – Gerry Myerson Dec 08 '20 at 10:22
-
@Gerry: Good question! I think we should move that every university with a sufficiently large pure maths program (read: more than five people) should hire a set theorist! – Asaf Karagila Dec 08 '20 at 11:32
-
@Asaf, yes, any department that large will need someone to wash the dishes, take out the trash, keep track of the pencils, .... – Gerry Myerson Dec 08 '20 at 21:38
-
@Gerry: I think someone who has a spatial understanding and can deal with finite stuff is better suited. Leave those tasks to a set theorist and the dishes will all shatter, since any finite number of dishes and pencils is practically the same, WLOG we can assume there are none. So the set theorist can continue their research. – Asaf Karagila Dec 08 '20 at 21:40
-
@Asaf, I know that topologists can't tell a coffee cup from a donut, but it's news to me that a set theorist can't tell a six-pack from the empty set. – Gerry Myerson Dec 08 '20 at 21:43
1 Answers
One topic I quite like, which can be approached with very little background, is the study of cardinal characteristics of the continuum.
Roughly speaking (see also here), a CCC is a cardinal which measures how big a set of reals must be to be "sufficient" with respect to some relation: taking a relation $R$ between reals, or objects "morally equivalent" to reals such as functions $\mathbb{N}\rightarrow\mathbb{N}$, we can define the cardinal $$\kappa_R=\min\{\vert A\vert: \forall x\exists y\in A(yRx)\}.$$ For example:
The actual continuum is $\kappa_{=}$.
If we look at functions $\mathbb{N}\rightarrow\mathbb{N}$ and consider the domination relation $$fDg\iff \exists n\forall m>n[f(m)>g(m)],$$ $\kappa_D$ measures how many functions are needed to "grow as fast as every other function."
The "dual" relation to $D$, the escaping relation $$fEg\iff \forall n\exists m>n(f(m)>g(m))\iff \neg gDf,$$ measures how many functions we need in order to be "hard to dominate." It's easy to check that $\kappa_D\ge\kappa_E$.
Note that this notation is nonstandard. In particular, $\kappa_D$ and $\kappa_E$ are properly called "$\mathfrak{d}$" and "$\mathfrak{b}$" respectively.
Trivially we always have $\kappa_R\le 2^{\aleph_0}$. Conversely, diagonal arguments can be used to show that (as long as $R$ isn't silly - and we don't call silly $\kappa_R$s CCCs) each $\kappa_R$ is uncountable. For example, given any sequence $G=(g_i)_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ of functions $\mathbb{N}\rightarrow\mathbb{N}$, the function $$i\mapsto g(i)+1$$ is not dominated by any member of $G$; this shows that $\kappa_D$ is uncountable. A similar trick will show that $\kappa_E$ is uncountable:
Take $$i\mapsto 1+\sum_{j\le i}g(j)$$ instead.
Not all CCCs are so combinatorial in flavor. We can also consider more "analytic" ones, such as the cardinality of the smallest non-measurable set. There is a generally-agreed-upon set of ten fundamental CCCs, whose relationships are described by Cichon's diagram; verifying each of the relevant $\mathsf{ZFC}$-provable inequalities can be a good short project (if memory serves, none are particularly hard). And there are more cardinal characteristics out there, so you could continue the study of provable inequalities for quite some time.
Unfortunately (or excitingly), showing that a given inequality is not $\mathsf{ZFC}$-provable - and more generally that Cichon's diagram is complete in the relevant sense - is quite involved: we need to introduce the technique of forcing. Honestly if you're up for a project in forcing you should do that instead, perhaps tacking on a CCC-based observation at the end as a cute coda (e.g. proving the consistency of $\kappa_D>\kappa_E$). And it's worth noting that it was only recently discovered how to separate three or more CCCs simultaneously (see here).

- 245,398