2

If $f$ is a function $f:\aleph_0 \to \aleph_2$, does it mean that the range of f is bounded in $\aleph_2$? Does this hold for all regular cardinals?

Lord_Farin
  • 17,743

3 Answers3

5

Yes. Recall that given a cardinal $\kappa$ the cofinality of $\kappa$, $\mathrm{cf} ( \kappa )$, is the least cardinal $\mu$ for which there is an unbounded (cofinal) function $\mu \to \kappa$. Regularity means that $\mathrm{cf} ( \kappa ) = \kappa$, and all successor cardinals are regular.


Added to indoctrinate others into Asaf's anti-Choice programme

Note, also, that there is a fair bit of Choice involved in the above. Without the Axiom of Choice it is possible that that $\aleph_2$ is singular; in particular it could have cofinality $\omega$, meaning that there is an unbounded function $\aleph_0 \to \aleph_2$. The answers to this old math.SE question and well as this slightly more recent MO question contain a wealth of information on the broader topic.

user642796
  • 52,188
3

If $\kappa$ is a regular cardinal, and $\alpha$ is any ordinal less than $\kappa$, then every function $f:\alpha\to\kappa$ is bounded. In particular, any function $f:\omega\to\omega_2$ is bounded.

More generally, all functions $f:\alpha\to\kappa$ will be bounded if $\alpha<\operatorname{cf}\kappa$, the cofinality of $\kappa$.

Brian M. Scott
  • 616,228
3

One of the definitions of a cardinal $\kappa$ being regular is that, whenever $\alpha < \kappa$, every function $f : \alpha \to \kappa$ is bounded.

In any case, you can prove this directly, using the fact that a countable union of sets of cardinality $\aleph_1$ has cardinality $\aleph_1$: consider $$\bigcup_{n < \omega} \{ \alpha < \omega_2 : \alpha \le f(n) \}$$