Wiki
Wiki

Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.

Updated


Claim. The paper's theorem, as its zbMATH review states it: if Jensen's principle ♢\diamondsuit holds, then α↛(ω1ω+2,infinite path)2\alpha\not\to(\omega_1^{\omega+2},\text{infinite path})^2 for every α<ω2\alpha<\omega_2: there is a graph on α\alpha with no infinite path and no independent set of order type ω1ω+2\omega_1^{\omega+2}. For a limit ordinal α\alpha with ω1ω+2≤α<ω2\omega_1^{\omega+2}\le\alpha<\omega_2 an independent set of type α\alpha would contain one of type ω1ω+2\omega_1^{\omega+2}, so under ♢\diamondsuit no such α\alpha has the property asked by Problem 601; in particular α=ω1ω+2\alpha=\omega_1^{\omega+2}, the case Erdős offered a prize for, fails. Erdős reports the result under Problem 10 of Erdős 1987 (printed p. 226) as recent work of Larson and Baumgartner, then to appear: it is consistent that every α<ω2\alpha<\omega_2 fails to have an independent set of type ω1ω+2\omega_1^{\omega+2} or an infinite path.

Hypothesis. Jensen's ♢\diamondsuit, which holds in LL and implies the continuum hypothesis, so the model has ω1ω+2<ω2=(2ℵ0)+\omega_1^{\omega+2}<\omega_2=(2^{\aleph_0})^+. The claim decides no instance in ZFC. Set against Larson's theorem under Martin's axiom in the same issue, which gives the property to every limit α<2ℵ0\alpha<2^{\aleph_0}, it makes the case α=ω1ω+2\alpha=\omega_1^{\omega+2} independent of ZFC; the problem page records the argument.

Source. James E. Baumgartner and Jean A. Larson, A diamond example of an ordinal graph with no infinite paths, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 47 (1990), no. 1, 1–10, doi:10.1016/0168-0072(90)90013-R; Zbl 0703.03028. The issue is dated April 1990 and carries no day, so this page is dated the first of that month. The paper is paywalled and not held; its statement is taken from the zbMATH review. Nothing on this page is independently reviewed by this project.

Acceptance. Refereed: a journal paper in the Annals of Pure and Applied Logic. The site's commentary does not mention the paper and labels the problem OPEN, so reviewed is not listed.