Examples of transfinite towersIs there such a sufficient condition for “$X$ is a stationary subset of uncountable regular $kappa$” involving limit points?Can $n$ extendible cardinals have trivial algebraic structure?Towers of induced functionsObtaining linear orderings on the classical Laver tables from large cardinalsAre there non-finitely generated algebras of elementary embeddings when one includes compatible $n$-ary operations?What kinds of free algebras can rank-into-rank embeddings produce?The Tall Tale of Terminating Transfinite TowersOn the Number of Parallel Automorphism LinesA linear ordering on the quotient algebras of elementary embeddings?Adjoints to forcing

Examples of transfinite towers


Is there such a sufficient condition for “$X$ is a stationary subset of uncountable regular $kappa$” involving limit points?Can $n$ extendible cardinals have trivial algebraic structure?Towers of induced functionsObtaining linear orderings on the classical Laver tables from large cardinalsAre there non-finitely generated algebras of elementary embeddings when one includes compatible $n$-ary operations?What kinds of free algebras can rank-into-rank embeddings produce?The Tall Tale of Terminating Transfinite TowersOn the Number of Parallel Automorphism LinesA linear ordering on the quotient algebras of elementary embeddings?Adjoints to forcing













9












$begingroup$


I am looking for examples of constructions for transfinite towers $(X_alpha)_alpha$ generated by structures $X$ where the problem of determining whether the tower $(X_alpha)_alpha$ stops growing is a non-trivial problem or the problem of determining the ordinal in which $X_alpha$ stops growing is a non-trivial problem.



In particular, I want the tower $(X_alpha)_alpha$ to be generated by the following construction. Suppose that for each object $X$, there is a new object $C(X)$ and a morphism $e:Xrightarrow C(X)$. Then define the tower generated by $X$ by letting $X_0=X$, $X_alpha+1=C(X_alpha)$ and
$X_gamma=varinjlim_alpha<lambdaX_alpha$ for limit ordinals $gamma$ where the direct limit is taken in the category that $X$ belongs to.



I want all of the objects $X$ and each $X_alpha$ to be set sized.



Non-Example: The hierarchy of sets $(V_alpha[X])_alpha$ where
$V_0[X]=X,V_alpha+1[X]=P(V_alpha[X])$ and $V_gamma[X]=bigcup_alpha<gammaV_alpha[X]$ does not count as an example of what I am looking for since the tower $(V_alpha[X])_alpha$ never stops growing and therefore whether $(V_alpha[X])_alpha$ terminates is now a trivial mathematics problem.



Example 1: Suppose that $G$ is a group. Let $G_0=G$, and let
$G_alpha+1=mathrmAut(G_alpha)$ and let $G_gamma=varinjlim_alpha<gammaG_alpha$. The transition mapping from $G_alpha$ to $G_alpha+1$ is the mapping $e$ where $e(g)(h)=ghg^-1$. Then $(G_alpha)_alpha$ is the automorphism group tower generated by $G$. The automorphism group tower always terminates. In this case, the mapping $Gmapsto G_alpha$ is not functorial.



Example 2: Frames are the objects that people study in point-free topology. If $L$ is a frame, then let $mathfrakC(L)$ denote the lattice of congruences of the frame $L$. Then $mathfrakC(L)$ is always a frame. Define a mapping $e:LrightarrowmathfrakC(L)$ by letting $(x,y)in e(a)$ if and only if $xvee a=yvee a$. Then the function $e$ is a frame homomorphism.



There are frames $L$ where the congruence tower generated by $L$ never terminates. However, for ordinals $alpha$, it is a difficult open problem to determine whether there is a frame $L$ where $e:L_betarightarrowmathfrakC(L_beta)$ is a surjection if and only if $betageqalpha$ since in all known examples, the congruence tower either terminates before the fourth step or so or it never terminates.



If $L$ is a frame and $e:LrightarrowmathfrakC(L)$ is an isomorphism, then $L$ is a complete Boolean algebra.



Unlike Example 1, Example 2 is functorial.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Have you looked into Kelly's "...and so on"?
    $endgroup$
    – Fosco Loregian
    Mar 16 at 20:59










  • $begingroup$
    My questions on Laver tables are better than these questions.
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph Van Name
    Mar 17 at 3:41











  • $begingroup$
    Can you suggest any references for Example 2?
    $endgroup$
    – Dap
    Mar 17 at 15:10










  • $begingroup$
    Example 2 is elaborated int he standard textbook on Frames and Locales - Topology without points by Picado, Jorge and Pultr, Ales (Chapter 4).
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph Van Name
    Mar 17 at 15:13











  • $begingroup$
    I find it very strange and discouraging that these inferior questions about transfinite towers have many times more upvotes than questions about Laver tables.
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph Van Name
    Mar 23 at 2:48















9












$begingroup$


I am looking for examples of constructions for transfinite towers $(X_alpha)_alpha$ generated by structures $X$ where the problem of determining whether the tower $(X_alpha)_alpha$ stops growing is a non-trivial problem or the problem of determining the ordinal in which $X_alpha$ stops growing is a non-trivial problem.



In particular, I want the tower $(X_alpha)_alpha$ to be generated by the following construction. Suppose that for each object $X$, there is a new object $C(X)$ and a morphism $e:Xrightarrow C(X)$. Then define the tower generated by $X$ by letting $X_0=X$, $X_alpha+1=C(X_alpha)$ and
$X_gamma=varinjlim_alpha<lambdaX_alpha$ for limit ordinals $gamma$ where the direct limit is taken in the category that $X$ belongs to.



I want all of the objects $X$ and each $X_alpha$ to be set sized.



Non-Example: The hierarchy of sets $(V_alpha[X])_alpha$ where
$V_0[X]=X,V_alpha+1[X]=P(V_alpha[X])$ and $V_gamma[X]=bigcup_alpha<gammaV_alpha[X]$ does not count as an example of what I am looking for since the tower $(V_alpha[X])_alpha$ never stops growing and therefore whether $(V_alpha[X])_alpha$ terminates is now a trivial mathematics problem.



Example 1: Suppose that $G$ is a group. Let $G_0=G$, and let
$G_alpha+1=mathrmAut(G_alpha)$ and let $G_gamma=varinjlim_alpha<gammaG_alpha$. The transition mapping from $G_alpha$ to $G_alpha+1$ is the mapping $e$ where $e(g)(h)=ghg^-1$. Then $(G_alpha)_alpha$ is the automorphism group tower generated by $G$. The automorphism group tower always terminates. In this case, the mapping $Gmapsto G_alpha$ is not functorial.



Example 2: Frames are the objects that people study in point-free topology. If $L$ is a frame, then let $mathfrakC(L)$ denote the lattice of congruences of the frame $L$. Then $mathfrakC(L)$ is always a frame. Define a mapping $e:LrightarrowmathfrakC(L)$ by letting $(x,y)in e(a)$ if and only if $xvee a=yvee a$. Then the function $e$ is a frame homomorphism.



There are frames $L$ where the congruence tower generated by $L$ never terminates. However, for ordinals $alpha$, it is a difficult open problem to determine whether there is a frame $L$ where $e:L_betarightarrowmathfrakC(L_beta)$ is a surjection if and only if $betageqalpha$ since in all known examples, the congruence tower either terminates before the fourth step or so or it never terminates.



If $L$ is a frame and $e:LrightarrowmathfrakC(L)$ is an isomorphism, then $L$ is a complete Boolean algebra.



Unlike Example 1, Example 2 is functorial.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Have you looked into Kelly's "...and so on"?
    $endgroup$
    – Fosco Loregian
    Mar 16 at 20:59










  • $begingroup$
    My questions on Laver tables are better than these questions.
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph Van Name
    Mar 17 at 3:41











  • $begingroup$
    Can you suggest any references for Example 2?
    $endgroup$
    – Dap
    Mar 17 at 15:10










  • $begingroup$
    Example 2 is elaborated int he standard textbook on Frames and Locales - Topology without points by Picado, Jorge and Pultr, Ales (Chapter 4).
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph Van Name
    Mar 17 at 15:13











  • $begingroup$
    I find it very strange and discouraging that these inferior questions about transfinite towers have many times more upvotes than questions about Laver tables.
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph Van Name
    Mar 23 at 2:48













9












9








9


1



$begingroup$


I am looking for examples of constructions for transfinite towers $(X_alpha)_alpha$ generated by structures $X$ where the problem of determining whether the tower $(X_alpha)_alpha$ stops growing is a non-trivial problem or the problem of determining the ordinal in which $X_alpha$ stops growing is a non-trivial problem.



In particular, I want the tower $(X_alpha)_alpha$ to be generated by the following construction. Suppose that for each object $X$, there is a new object $C(X)$ and a morphism $e:Xrightarrow C(X)$. Then define the tower generated by $X$ by letting $X_0=X$, $X_alpha+1=C(X_alpha)$ and
$X_gamma=varinjlim_alpha<lambdaX_alpha$ for limit ordinals $gamma$ where the direct limit is taken in the category that $X$ belongs to.



I want all of the objects $X$ and each $X_alpha$ to be set sized.



Non-Example: The hierarchy of sets $(V_alpha[X])_alpha$ where
$V_0[X]=X,V_alpha+1[X]=P(V_alpha[X])$ and $V_gamma[X]=bigcup_alpha<gammaV_alpha[X]$ does not count as an example of what I am looking for since the tower $(V_alpha[X])_alpha$ never stops growing and therefore whether $(V_alpha[X])_alpha$ terminates is now a trivial mathematics problem.



Example 1: Suppose that $G$ is a group. Let $G_0=G$, and let
$G_alpha+1=mathrmAut(G_alpha)$ and let $G_gamma=varinjlim_alpha<gammaG_alpha$. The transition mapping from $G_alpha$ to $G_alpha+1$ is the mapping $e$ where $e(g)(h)=ghg^-1$. Then $(G_alpha)_alpha$ is the automorphism group tower generated by $G$. The automorphism group tower always terminates. In this case, the mapping $Gmapsto G_alpha$ is not functorial.



Example 2: Frames are the objects that people study in point-free topology. If $L$ is a frame, then let $mathfrakC(L)$ denote the lattice of congruences of the frame $L$. Then $mathfrakC(L)$ is always a frame. Define a mapping $e:LrightarrowmathfrakC(L)$ by letting $(x,y)in e(a)$ if and only if $xvee a=yvee a$. Then the function $e$ is a frame homomorphism.



There are frames $L$ where the congruence tower generated by $L$ never terminates. However, for ordinals $alpha$, it is a difficult open problem to determine whether there is a frame $L$ where $e:L_betarightarrowmathfrakC(L_beta)$ is a surjection if and only if $betageqalpha$ since in all known examples, the congruence tower either terminates before the fourth step or so or it never terminates.



If $L$ is a frame and $e:LrightarrowmathfrakC(L)$ is an isomorphism, then $L$ is a complete Boolean algebra.



Unlike Example 1, Example 2 is functorial.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




I am looking for examples of constructions for transfinite towers $(X_alpha)_alpha$ generated by structures $X$ where the problem of determining whether the tower $(X_alpha)_alpha$ stops growing is a non-trivial problem or the problem of determining the ordinal in which $X_alpha$ stops growing is a non-trivial problem.



In particular, I want the tower $(X_alpha)_alpha$ to be generated by the following construction. Suppose that for each object $X$, there is a new object $C(X)$ and a morphism $e:Xrightarrow C(X)$. Then define the tower generated by $X$ by letting $X_0=X$, $X_alpha+1=C(X_alpha)$ and
$X_gamma=varinjlim_alpha<lambdaX_alpha$ for limit ordinals $gamma$ where the direct limit is taken in the category that $X$ belongs to.



I want all of the objects $X$ and each $X_alpha$ to be set sized.



Non-Example: The hierarchy of sets $(V_alpha[X])_alpha$ where
$V_0[X]=X,V_alpha+1[X]=P(V_alpha[X])$ and $V_gamma[X]=bigcup_alpha<gammaV_alpha[X]$ does not count as an example of what I am looking for since the tower $(V_alpha[X])_alpha$ never stops growing and therefore whether $(V_alpha[X])_alpha$ terminates is now a trivial mathematics problem.



Example 1: Suppose that $G$ is a group. Let $G_0=G$, and let
$G_alpha+1=mathrmAut(G_alpha)$ and let $G_gamma=varinjlim_alpha<gammaG_alpha$. The transition mapping from $G_alpha$ to $G_alpha+1$ is the mapping $e$ where $e(g)(h)=ghg^-1$. Then $(G_alpha)_alpha$ is the automorphism group tower generated by $G$. The automorphism group tower always terminates. In this case, the mapping $Gmapsto G_alpha$ is not functorial.



Example 2: Frames are the objects that people study in point-free topology. If $L$ is a frame, then let $mathfrakC(L)$ denote the lattice of congruences of the frame $L$. Then $mathfrakC(L)$ is always a frame. Define a mapping $e:LrightarrowmathfrakC(L)$ by letting $(x,y)in e(a)$ if and only if $xvee a=yvee a$. Then the function $e$ is a frame homomorphism.



There are frames $L$ where the congruence tower generated by $L$ never terminates. However, for ordinals $alpha$, it is a difficult open problem to determine whether there is a frame $L$ where $e:L_betarightarrowmathfrakC(L_beta)$ is a surjection if and only if $betageqalpha$ since in all known examples, the congruence tower either terminates before the fourth step or so or it never terminates.



If $L$ is a frame and $e:LrightarrowmathfrakC(L)$ is an isomorphism, then $L$ is a complete Boolean algebra.



Unlike Example 1, Example 2 is functorial.







ct.category-theory set-theory






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Mar 16 at 20:19









Joseph Van NameJoseph Van Name

15k34975




15k34975







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Have you looked into Kelly's "...and so on"?
    $endgroup$
    – Fosco Loregian
    Mar 16 at 20:59










  • $begingroup$
    My questions on Laver tables are better than these questions.
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph Van Name
    Mar 17 at 3:41











  • $begingroup$
    Can you suggest any references for Example 2?
    $endgroup$
    – Dap
    Mar 17 at 15:10










  • $begingroup$
    Example 2 is elaborated int he standard textbook on Frames and Locales - Topology without points by Picado, Jorge and Pultr, Ales (Chapter 4).
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph Van Name
    Mar 17 at 15:13











  • $begingroup$
    I find it very strange and discouraging that these inferior questions about transfinite towers have many times more upvotes than questions about Laver tables.
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph Van Name
    Mar 23 at 2:48












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Have you looked into Kelly's "...and so on"?
    $endgroup$
    – Fosco Loregian
    Mar 16 at 20:59










  • $begingroup$
    My questions on Laver tables are better than these questions.
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph Van Name
    Mar 17 at 3:41











  • $begingroup$
    Can you suggest any references for Example 2?
    $endgroup$
    – Dap
    Mar 17 at 15:10










  • $begingroup$
    Example 2 is elaborated int he standard textbook on Frames and Locales - Topology without points by Picado, Jorge and Pultr, Ales (Chapter 4).
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph Van Name
    Mar 17 at 15:13











  • $begingroup$
    I find it very strange and discouraging that these inferior questions about transfinite towers have many times more upvotes than questions about Laver tables.
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph Van Name
    Mar 23 at 2:48







1




1




$begingroup$
Have you looked into Kelly's "...and so on"?
$endgroup$
– Fosco Loregian
Mar 16 at 20:59




$begingroup$
Have you looked into Kelly's "...and so on"?
$endgroup$
– Fosco Loregian
Mar 16 at 20:59












$begingroup$
My questions on Laver tables are better than these questions.
$endgroup$
– Joseph Van Name
Mar 17 at 3:41





$begingroup$
My questions on Laver tables are better than these questions.
$endgroup$
– Joseph Van Name
Mar 17 at 3:41













$begingroup$
Can you suggest any references for Example 2?
$endgroup$
– Dap
Mar 17 at 15:10




$begingroup$
Can you suggest any references for Example 2?
$endgroup$
– Dap
Mar 17 at 15:10












$begingroup$
Example 2 is elaborated int he standard textbook on Frames and Locales - Topology without points by Picado, Jorge and Pultr, Ales (Chapter 4).
$endgroup$
– Joseph Van Name
Mar 17 at 15:13





$begingroup$
Example 2 is elaborated int he standard textbook on Frames and Locales - Topology without points by Picado, Jorge and Pultr, Ales (Chapter 4).
$endgroup$
– Joseph Van Name
Mar 17 at 15:13













$begingroup$
I find it very strange and discouraging that these inferior questions about transfinite towers have many times more upvotes than questions about Laver tables.
$endgroup$
– Joseph Van Name
Mar 23 at 2:48




$begingroup$
I find it very strange and discouraging that these inferior questions about transfinite towers have many times more upvotes than questions about Laver tables.
$endgroup$
– Joseph Van Name
Mar 23 at 2:48










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















9












$begingroup$

Consider the following construction of sets of ordinals.



  • $X_0=0$,


  • $X_alpha+1=$ the closure of $X_alpha$ under $gammamapstogamma+1$ and under countable sums,


  • $X_alpha=bigcup_beta<alphaX_beta$ for $alpha$ limit.


We can consider in ZF the question of whether this tower stabilizes.



It is definitely consistent that the answer is yes, since in ZFC $omega_1$ is regular, so $X_beta=omega_1$ for all $betageqomega_1$.



The question of whether this tower can be non-stabilizing is much harder, and is equivalent to asking whether it is consistent that all ordinals have countable cofinality. This was shown to be consistent by Gitik in 1980, assuming consistency of a proper class of strongly compact cardinals. Let me note that large cardinals cannot be avoided, because even making $omega_1$ and $omega_2$ singular has consistency at least as high as $0^#$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$




















    4












    $begingroup$

    The following is an example where is it difficult to identify where stabilization occurs. It meets all of your technical criteria but I suppose the word "growing" is not exactly accurate.



    A quasitopological group $G$ is a group with a topology $mathcalT$ such that inverse $gmapsto g^-1$ is continuous and multiplication $mu:Gtimes Gto G$ is continuous in each variable. One can "efficiently" give the underlying group of $G$ an actual topological group structure by removing the smallest number of open sets from $mathcalT$ until one arrives at a topological group $tau(G)$. This can be understood precisely in at least two equivalent ways:



    1. Give $G$ the finest group topology coarser than $mathcalT$, which one can show exists abstractly (the difficulty is with the product topology on $Gtimes G$).

    2. The inclusion $mathbfTopGrpto mathbfqTopGrp$ of the full subcategory of topological groups into the category of quasitopological groups and continuous homomorphisms has a left adjoint (reflection) $tau:mathbfqTopGrpto mathbfTopGrp$, which exists by the adjoint functor theorem.

    The construction of $tau(G)$ from $G$ is purely abstract so to really get your hands on something you can work with (e.g. to prove $G$ and $tau(G)$ in fact have the same open subgroups) you approximate it inductively by a shrinking sequence of quotient topologies.



    Let $c(G)$ be the underlying group of $G$ with the quotient topology with respect to multiplication $m:Gtimes Gto c(G)$. While $c(G)$ is not necessarily a topological group, it is a quasitopological group and indeed, one can show that if $c$ is the identity on underlying homomorphisms, $c:mathbfqTopGrptomathbfqTopGrp$ becomes a functor.



    It is clear that the identity homomorphism $Gto c(G)$ is continuous and $G=c(G)$ if and only if $G$ is already topological group. Hence one inductively defines $c_0(G)=G$, $c_alpha+1(G)=c_alpha(G)$ and if $alpha$ is a limit ordinal, the topology of $c_alpha(G)$ is the intersection of the topologies of the groups $c_beta(G)$, $beta<alpha$.



    By basic set-theoretic arguments, $c_alpha(G)$ stabilizes to the topological group $tau(G)$ and since quotient topologies are used one has $c_gamma(G)=lim_alpha<gammac_alpha(G)$ in $mathbfqTopGrp$.



    However, for a given quasitopological group $G$ it is not clear at all when the inductive sequence $c_alpha(G)$ first stabilizes.



    Motivation for this example:



    1. Free topological groups are important in topological group theory and arise in algebraic topology as well. Given a space $X$, one might attempt to create the free topological group on $X$ viewing the free group $F(X)$ as the quotient space of the free topological semigroup $coprod_ngeq 1(Xcup X^-1)^n$ with respect to word reduction; however, without some compactness assumptions, the resulting object $F_q(X)$ is only a quasitopological group. To construct the free topological group one must apply the inductive construction above and this specific use of $c$ is sometimes called the Mal'tsev transfite process. A quote from pg. 5799 of The topology of free topological groups by O. Sipacheva:


    Certainly, such an approach to constructing the free group topology
    looks very natural. However, it is extremely difficult to trace the
    change of the topology at each step or at least understand at what
    point the topology stabilizes.




    Apparently, the only known results are those where stabilization occurs after the first step.



    1. The fundamental group $pi_1(X,x)$ with it's natural quotient topology is not a topological group (same for higher homotopy groups), but it is a quasitopological group. There are plenty of interesting things about quasitopological $pi_1$; however, one may turn $pi_1$ naturally into a topological group (reflecting many classical results to the topological group category) by applying $tau$. See this paper for more on topological $pi_1$ and a detailed treatment on the reflection functor $c$. The use of the transfinite sequence is needed in the classification of certain generalized covering maps. I would, personally, like to know when the sequence stabilizes even for simple Peano continua $X$.

    Similar constructions are used to build other universal objects in topological algebra.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      Neutrality is one thing; however, I am curious to know how this got a downvote.
      $endgroup$
      – Jeremy Brazas
      Mar 21 at 19:00










    • $begingroup$
      I downvoted this answer because I specifically asked for towers that are increasing in size.
      $endgroup$
      – Joseph Van Name
      Mar 23 at 3:22










    • $begingroup$
      @JosephVanName Had you included a formalization of "growth" here to which my example did not apply, I would not have subjected you to my answer. If you edit the "in particular" paragraph it so that this is the case, I'll happily delete my answer. However, the difference between growing and shrinking for bounded towers seems superficial... if $T_alpha$ is the topology of $c_alpha(G)$, then $X_alpha=P(G)backslash T_alpha$ is a "growing" tower of sets whose stability is difficult to determine.
      $endgroup$
      – Jeremy Brazas
      2 days ago










    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: "504"
    ;
    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%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f325582%2fexamples-of-transfinite-towers%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









    9












    $begingroup$

    Consider the following construction of sets of ordinals.



    • $X_0=0$,


    • $X_alpha+1=$ the closure of $X_alpha$ under $gammamapstogamma+1$ and under countable sums,


    • $X_alpha=bigcup_beta<alphaX_beta$ for $alpha$ limit.


    We can consider in ZF the question of whether this tower stabilizes.



    It is definitely consistent that the answer is yes, since in ZFC $omega_1$ is regular, so $X_beta=omega_1$ for all $betageqomega_1$.



    The question of whether this tower can be non-stabilizing is much harder, and is equivalent to asking whether it is consistent that all ordinals have countable cofinality. This was shown to be consistent by Gitik in 1980, assuming consistency of a proper class of strongly compact cardinals. Let me note that large cardinals cannot be avoided, because even making $omega_1$ and $omega_2$ singular has consistency at least as high as $0^#$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$

















      9












      $begingroup$

      Consider the following construction of sets of ordinals.



      • $X_0=0$,


      • $X_alpha+1=$ the closure of $X_alpha$ under $gammamapstogamma+1$ and under countable sums,


      • $X_alpha=bigcup_beta<alphaX_beta$ for $alpha$ limit.


      We can consider in ZF the question of whether this tower stabilizes.



      It is definitely consistent that the answer is yes, since in ZFC $omega_1$ is regular, so $X_beta=omega_1$ for all $betageqomega_1$.



      The question of whether this tower can be non-stabilizing is much harder, and is equivalent to asking whether it is consistent that all ordinals have countable cofinality. This was shown to be consistent by Gitik in 1980, assuming consistency of a proper class of strongly compact cardinals. Let me note that large cardinals cannot be avoided, because even making $omega_1$ and $omega_2$ singular has consistency at least as high as $0^#$.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$















        9












        9








        9





        $begingroup$

        Consider the following construction of sets of ordinals.



        • $X_0=0$,


        • $X_alpha+1=$ the closure of $X_alpha$ under $gammamapstogamma+1$ and under countable sums,


        • $X_alpha=bigcup_beta<alphaX_beta$ for $alpha$ limit.


        We can consider in ZF the question of whether this tower stabilizes.



        It is definitely consistent that the answer is yes, since in ZFC $omega_1$ is regular, so $X_beta=omega_1$ for all $betageqomega_1$.



        The question of whether this tower can be non-stabilizing is much harder, and is equivalent to asking whether it is consistent that all ordinals have countable cofinality. This was shown to be consistent by Gitik in 1980, assuming consistency of a proper class of strongly compact cardinals. Let me note that large cardinals cannot be avoided, because even making $omega_1$ and $omega_2$ singular has consistency at least as high as $0^#$.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        Consider the following construction of sets of ordinals.



        • $X_0=0$,


        • $X_alpha+1=$ the closure of $X_alpha$ under $gammamapstogamma+1$ and under countable sums,


        • $X_alpha=bigcup_beta<alphaX_beta$ for $alpha$ limit.


        We can consider in ZF the question of whether this tower stabilizes.



        It is definitely consistent that the answer is yes, since in ZFC $omega_1$ is regular, so $X_beta=omega_1$ for all $betageqomega_1$.



        The question of whether this tower can be non-stabilizing is much harder, and is equivalent to asking whether it is consistent that all ordinals have countable cofinality. This was shown to be consistent by Gitik in 1980, assuming consistency of a proper class of strongly compact cardinals. Let me note that large cardinals cannot be avoided, because even making $omega_1$ and $omega_2$ singular has consistency at least as high as $0^#$.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Mar 16 at 22:22

























        answered Mar 16 at 21:47









        WojowuWojowu

        7,12913055




        7,12913055





















            4












            $begingroup$

            The following is an example where is it difficult to identify where stabilization occurs. It meets all of your technical criteria but I suppose the word "growing" is not exactly accurate.



            A quasitopological group $G$ is a group with a topology $mathcalT$ such that inverse $gmapsto g^-1$ is continuous and multiplication $mu:Gtimes Gto G$ is continuous in each variable. One can "efficiently" give the underlying group of $G$ an actual topological group structure by removing the smallest number of open sets from $mathcalT$ until one arrives at a topological group $tau(G)$. This can be understood precisely in at least two equivalent ways:



            1. Give $G$ the finest group topology coarser than $mathcalT$, which one can show exists abstractly (the difficulty is with the product topology on $Gtimes G$).

            2. The inclusion $mathbfTopGrpto mathbfqTopGrp$ of the full subcategory of topological groups into the category of quasitopological groups and continuous homomorphisms has a left adjoint (reflection) $tau:mathbfqTopGrpto mathbfTopGrp$, which exists by the adjoint functor theorem.

            The construction of $tau(G)$ from $G$ is purely abstract so to really get your hands on something you can work with (e.g. to prove $G$ and $tau(G)$ in fact have the same open subgroups) you approximate it inductively by a shrinking sequence of quotient topologies.



            Let $c(G)$ be the underlying group of $G$ with the quotient topology with respect to multiplication $m:Gtimes Gto c(G)$. While $c(G)$ is not necessarily a topological group, it is a quasitopological group and indeed, one can show that if $c$ is the identity on underlying homomorphisms, $c:mathbfqTopGrptomathbfqTopGrp$ becomes a functor.



            It is clear that the identity homomorphism $Gto c(G)$ is continuous and $G=c(G)$ if and only if $G$ is already topological group. Hence one inductively defines $c_0(G)=G$, $c_alpha+1(G)=c_alpha(G)$ and if $alpha$ is a limit ordinal, the topology of $c_alpha(G)$ is the intersection of the topologies of the groups $c_beta(G)$, $beta<alpha$.



            By basic set-theoretic arguments, $c_alpha(G)$ stabilizes to the topological group $tau(G)$ and since quotient topologies are used one has $c_gamma(G)=lim_alpha<gammac_alpha(G)$ in $mathbfqTopGrp$.



            However, for a given quasitopological group $G$ it is not clear at all when the inductive sequence $c_alpha(G)$ first stabilizes.



            Motivation for this example:



            1. Free topological groups are important in topological group theory and arise in algebraic topology as well. Given a space $X$, one might attempt to create the free topological group on $X$ viewing the free group $F(X)$ as the quotient space of the free topological semigroup $coprod_ngeq 1(Xcup X^-1)^n$ with respect to word reduction; however, without some compactness assumptions, the resulting object $F_q(X)$ is only a quasitopological group. To construct the free topological group one must apply the inductive construction above and this specific use of $c$ is sometimes called the Mal'tsev transfite process. A quote from pg. 5799 of The topology of free topological groups by O. Sipacheva:


            Certainly, such an approach to constructing the free group topology
            looks very natural. However, it is extremely difficult to trace the
            change of the topology at each step or at least understand at what
            point the topology stabilizes.




            Apparently, the only known results are those where stabilization occurs after the first step.



            1. The fundamental group $pi_1(X,x)$ with it's natural quotient topology is not a topological group (same for higher homotopy groups), but it is a quasitopological group. There are plenty of interesting things about quasitopological $pi_1$; however, one may turn $pi_1$ naturally into a topological group (reflecting many classical results to the topological group category) by applying $tau$. See this paper for more on topological $pi_1$ and a detailed treatment on the reflection functor $c$. The use of the transfinite sequence is needed in the classification of certain generalized covering maps. I would, personally, like to know when the sequence stabilizes even for simple Peano continua $X$.

            Similar constructions are used to build other universal objects in topological algebra.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$












            • $begingroup$
              Neutrality is one thing; however, I am curious to know how this got a downvote.
              $endgroup$
              – Jeremy Brazas
              Mar 21 at 19:00










            • $begingroup$
              I downvoted this answer because I specifically asked for towers that are increasing in size.
              $endgroup$
              – Joseph Van Name
              Mar 23 at 3:22










            • $begingroup$
              @JosephVanName Had you included a formalization of "growth" here to which my example did not apply, I would not have subjected you to my answer. If you edit the "in particular" paragraph it so that this is the case, I'll happily delete my answer. However, the difference between growing and shrinking for bounded towers seems superficial... if $T_alpha$ is the topology of $c_alpha(G)$, then $X_alpha=P(G)backslash T_alpha$ is a "growing" tower of sets whose stability is difficult to determine.
              $endgroup$
              – Jeremy Brazas
              2 days ago















            4












            $begingroup$

            The following is an example where is it difficult to identify where stabilization occurs. It meets all of your technical criteria but I suppose the word "growing" is not exactly accurate.



            A quasitopological group $G$ is a group with a topology $mathcalT$ such that inverse $gmapsto g^-1$ is continuous and multiplication $mu:Gtimes Gto G$ is continuous in each variable. One can "efficiently" give the underlying group of $G$ an actual topological group structure by removing the smallest number of open sets from $mathcalT$ until one arrives at a topological group $tau(G)$. This can be understood precisely in at least two equivalent ways:



            1. Give $G$ the finest group topology coarser than $mathcalT$, which one can show exists abstractly (the difficulty is with the product topology on $Gtimes G$).

            2. The inclusion $mathbfTopGrpto mathbfqTopGrp$ of the full subcategory of topological groups into the category of quasitopological groups and continuous homomorphisms has a left adjoint (reflection) $tau:mathbfqTopGrpto mathbfTopGrp$, which exists by the adjoint functor theorem.

            The construction of $tau(G)$ from $G$ is purely abstract so to really get your hands on something you can work with (e.g. to prove $G$ and $tau(G)$ in fact have the same open subgroups) you approximate it inductively by a shrinking sequence of quotient topologies.



            Let $c(G)$ be the underlying group of $G$ with the quotient topology with respect to multiplication $m:Gtimes Gto c(G)$. While $c(G)$ is not necessarily a topological group, it is a quasitopological group and indeed, one can show that if $c$ is the identity on underlying homomorphisms, $c:mathbfqTopGrptomathbfqTopGrp$ becomes a functor.



            It is clear that the identity homomorphism $Gto c(G)$ is continuous and $G=c(G)$ if and only if $G$ is already topological group. Hence one inductively defines $c_0(G)=G$, $c_alpha+1(G)=c_alpha(G)$ and if $alpha$ is a limit ordinal, the topology of $c_alpha(G)$ is the intersection of the topologies of the groups $c_beta(G)$, $beta<alpha$.



            By basic set-theoretic arguments, $c_alpha(G)$ stabilizes to the topological group $tau(G)$ and since quotient topologies are used one has $c_gamma(G)=lim_alpha<gammac_alpha(G)$ in $mathbfqTopGrp$.



            However, for a given quasitopological group $G$ it is not clear at all when the inductive sequence $c_alpha(G)$ first stabilizes.



            Motivation for this example:



            1. Free topological groups are important in topological group theory and arise in algebraic topology as well. Given a space $X$, one might attempt to create the free topological group on $X$ viewing the free group $F(X)$ as the quotient space of the free topological semigroup $coprod_ngeq 1(Xcup X^-1)^n$ with respect to word reduction; however, without some compactness assumptions, the resulting object $F_q(X)$ is only a quasitopological group. To construct the free topological group one must apply the inductive construction above and this specific use of $c$ is sometimes called the Mal'tsev transfite process. A quote from pg. 5799 of The topology of free topological groups by O. Sipacheva:


            Certainly, such an approach to constructing the free group topology
            looks very natural. However, it is extremely difficult to trace the
            change of the topology at each step or at least understand at what
            point the topology stabilizes.




            Apparently, the only known results are those where stabilization occurs after the first step.



            1. The fundamental group $pi_1(X,x)$ with it's natural quotient topology is not a topological group (same for higher homotopy groups), but it is a quasitopological group. There are plenty of interesting things about quasitopological $pi_1$; however, one may turn $pi_1$ naturally into a topological group (reflecting many classical results to the topological group category) by applying $tau$. See this paper for more on topological $pi_1$ and a detailed treatment on the reflection functor $c$. The use of the transfinite sequence is needed in the classification of certain generalized covering maps. I would, personally, like to know when the sequence stabilizes even for simple Peano continua $X$.

            Similar constructions are used to build other universal objects in topological algebra.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$












            • $begingroup$
              Neutrality is one thing; however, I am curious to know how this got a downvote.
              $endgroup$
              – Jeremy Brazas
              Mar 21 at 19:00










            • $begingroup$
              I downvoted this answer because I specifically asked for towers that are increasing in size.
              $endgroup$
              – Joseph Van Name
              Mar 23 at 3:22










            • $begingroup$
              @JosephVanName Had you included a formalization of "growth" here to which my example did not apply, I would not have subjected you to my answer. If you edit the "in particular" paragraph it so that this is the case, I'll happily delete my answer. However, the difference between growing and shrinking for bounded towers seems superficial... if $T_alpha$ is the topology of $c_alpha(G)$, then $X_alpha=P(G)backslash T_alpha$ is a "growing" tower of sets whose stability is difficult to determine.
              $endgroup$
              – Jeremy Brazas
              2 days ago













            4












            4








            4





            $begingroup$

            The following is an example where is it difficult to identify where stabilization occurs. It meets all of your technical criteria but I suppose the word "growing" is not exactly accurate.



            A quasitopological group $G$ is a group with a topology $mathcalT$ such that inverse $gmapsto g^-1$ is continuous and multiplication $mu:Gtimes Gto G$ is continuous in each variable. One can "efficiently" give the underlying group of $G$ an actual topological group structure by removing the smallest number of open sets from $mathcalT$ until one arrives at a topological group $tau(G)$. This can be understood precisely in at least two equivalent ways:



            1. Give $G$ the finest group topology coarser than $mathcalT$, which one can show exists abstractly (the difficulty is with the product topology on $Gtimes G$).

            2. The inclusion $mathbfTopGrpto mathbfqTopGrp$ of the full subcategory of topological groups into the category of quasitopological groups and continuous homomorphisms has a left adjoint (reflection) $tau:mathbfqTopGrpto mathbfTopGrp$, which exists by the adjoint functor theorem.

            The construction of $tau(G)$ from $G$ is purely abstract so to really get your hands on something you can work with (e.g. to prove $G$ and $tau(G)$ in fact have the same open subgroups) you approximate it inductively by a shrinking sequence of quotient topologies.



            Let $c(G)$ be the underlying group of $G$ with the quotient topology with respect to multiplication $m:Gtimes Gto c(G)$. While $c(G)$ is not necessarily a topological group, it is a quasitopological group and indeed, one can show that if $c$ is the identity on underlying homomorphisms, $c:mathbfqTopGrptomathbfqTopGrp$ becomes a functor.



            It is clear that the identity homomorphism $Gto c(G)$ is continuous and $G=c(G)$ if and only if $G$ is already topological group. Hence one inductively defines $c_0(G)=G$, $c_alpha+1(G)=c_alpha(G)$ and if $alpha$ is a limit ordinal, the topology of $c_alpha(G)$ is the intersection of the topologies of the groups $c_beta(G)$, $beta<alpha$.



            By basic set-theoretic arguments, $c_alpha(G)$ stabilizes to the topological group $tau(G)$ and since quotient topologies are used one has $c_gamma(G)=lim_alpha<gammac_alpha(G)$ in $mathbfqTopGrp$.



            However, for a given quasitopological group $G$ it is not clear at all when the inductive sequence $c_alpha(G)$ first stabilizes.



            Motivation for this example:



            1. Free topological groups are important in topological group theory and arise in algebraic topology as well. Given a space $X$, one might attempt to create the free topological group on $X$ viewing the free group $F(X)$ as the quotient space of the free topological semigroup $coprod_ngeq 1(Xcup X^-1)^n$ with respect to word reduction; however, without some compactness assumptions, the resulting object $F_q(X)$ is only a quasitopological group. To construct the free topological group one must apply the inductive construction above and this specific use of $c$ is sometimes called the Mal'tsev transfite process. A quote from pg. 5799 of The topology of free topological groups by O. Sipacheva:


            Certainly, such an approach to constructing the free group topology
            looks very natural. However, it is extremely difficult to trace the
            change of the topology at each step or at least understand at what
            point the topology stabilizes.




            Apparently, the only known results are those where stabilization occurs after the first step.



            1. The fundamental group $pi_1(X,x)$ with it's natural quotient topology is not a topological group (same for higher homotopy groups), but it is a quasitopological group. There are plenty of interesting things about quasitopological $pi_1$; however, one may turn $pi_1$ naturally into a topological group (reflecting many classical results to the topological group category) by applying $tau$. See this paper for more on topological $pi_1$ and a detailed treatment on the reflection functor $c$. The use of the transfinite sequence is needed in the classification of certain generalized covering maps. I would, personally, like to know when the sequence stabilizes even for simple Peano continua $X$.

            Similar constructions are used to build other universal objects in topological algebra.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            The following is an example where is it difficult to identify where stabilization occurs. It meets all of your technical criteria but I suppose the word "growing" is not exactly accurate.



            A quasitopological group $G$ is a group with a topology $mathcalT$ such that inverse $gmapsto g^-1$ is continuous and multiplication $mu:Gtimes Gto G$ is continuous in each variable. One can "efficiently" give the underlying group of $G$ an actual topological group structure by removing the smallest number of open sets from $mathcalT$ until one arrives at a topological group $tau(G)$. This can be understood precisely in at least two equivalent ways:



            1. Give $G$ the finest group topology coarser than $mathcalT$, which one can show exists abstractly (the difficulty is with the product topology on $Gtimes G$).

            2. The inclusion $mathbfTopGrpto mathbfqTopGrp$ of the full subcategory of topological groups into the category of quasitopological groups and continuous homomorphisms has a left adjoint (reflection) $tau:mathbfqTopGrpto mathbfTopGrp$, which exists by the adjoint functor theorem.

            The construction of $tau(G)$ from $G$ is purely abstract so to really get your hands on something you can work with (e.g. to prove $G$ and $tau(G)$ in fact have the same open subgroups) you approximate it inductively by a shrinking sequence of quotient topologies.



            Let $c(G)$ be the underlying group of $G$ with the quotient topology with respect to multiplication $m:Gtimes Gto c(G)$. While $c(G)$ is not necessarily a topological group, it is a quasitopological group and indeed, one can show that if $c$ is the identity on underlying homomorphisms, $c:mathbfqTopGrptomathbfqTopGrp$ becomes a functor.



            It is clear that the identity homomorphism $Gto c(G)$ is continuous and $G=c(G)$ if and only if $G$ is already topological group. Hence one inductively defines $c_0(G)=G$, $c_alpha+1(G)=c_alpha(G)$ and if $alpha$ is a limit ordinal, the topology of $c_alpha(G)$ is the intersection of the topologies of the groups $c_beta(G)$, $beta<alpha$.



            By basic set-theoretic arguments, $c_alpha(G)$ stabilizes to the topological group $tau(G)$ and since quotient topologies are used one has $c_gamma(G)=lim_alpha<gammac_alpha(G)$ in $mathbfqTopGrp$.



            However, for a given quasitopological group $G$ it is not clear at all when the inductive sequence $c_alpha(G)$ first stabilizes.



            Motivation for this example:



            1. Free topological groups are important in topological group theory and arise in algebraic topology as well. Given a space $X$, one might attempt to create the free topological group on $X$ viewing the free group $F(X)$ as the quotient space of the free topological semigroup $coprod_ngeq 1(Xcup X^-1)^n$ with respect to word reduction; however, without some compactness assumptions, the resulting object $F_q(X)$ is only a quasitopological group. To construct the free topological group one must apply the inductive construction above and this specific use of $c$ is sometimes called the Mal'tsev transfite process. A quote from pg. 5799 of The topology of free topological groups by O. Sipacheva:


            Certainly, such an approach to constructing the free group topology
            looks very natural. However, it is extremely difficult to trace the
            change of the topology at each step or at least understand at what
            point the topology stabilizes.




            Apparently, the only known results are those where stabilization occurs after the first step.



            1. The fundamental group $pi_1(X,x)$ with it's natural quotient topology is not a topological group (same for higher homotopy groups), but it is a quasitopological group. There are plenty of interesting things about quasitopological $pi_1$; however, one may turn $pi_1$ naturally into a topological group (reflecting many classical results to the topological group category) by applying $tau$. See this paper for more on topological $pi_1$ and a detailed treatment on the reflection functor $c$. The use of the transfinite sequence is needed in the classification of certain generalized covering maps. I would, personally, like to know when the sequence stabilizes even for simple Peano continua $X$.

            Similar constructions are used to build other universal objects in topological algebra.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Mar 17 at 17:53









            Jeremy BrazasJeremy Brazas

            3,90611531




            3,90611531











            • $begingroup$
              Neutrality is one thing; however, I am curious to know how this got a downvote.
              $endgroup$
              – Jeremy Brazas
              Mar 21 at 19:00










            • $begingroup$
              I downvoted this answer because I specifically asked for towers that are increasing in size.
              $endgroup$
              – Joseph Van Name
              Mar 23 at 3:22










            • $begingroup$
              @JosephVanName Had you included a formalization of "growth" here to which my example did not apply, I would not have subjected you to my answer. If you edit the "in particular" paragraph it so that this is the case, I'll happily delete my answer. However, the difference between growing and shrinking for bounded towers seems superficial... if $T_alpha$ is the topology of $c_alpha(G)$, then $X_alpha=P(G)backslash T_alpha$ is a "growing" tower of sets whose stability is difficult to determine.
              $endgroup$
              – Jeremy Brazas
              2 days ago
















            • $begingroup$
              Neutrality is one thing; however, I am curious to know how this got a downvote.
              $endgroup$
              – Jeremy Brazas
              Mar 21 at 19:00










            • $begingroup$
              I downvoted this answer because I specifically asked for towers that are increasing in size.
              $endgroup$
              – Joseph Van Name
              Mar 23 at 3:22










            • $begingroup$
              @JosephVanName Had you included a formalization of "growth" here to which my example did not apply, I would not have subjected you to my answer. If you edit the "in particular" paragraph it so that this is the case, I'll happily delete my answer. However, the difference between growing and shrinking for bounded towers seems superficial... if $T_alpha$ is the topology of $c_alpha(G)$, then $X_alpha=P(G)backslash T_alpha$ is a "growing" tower of sets whose stability is difficult to determine.
              $endgroup$
              – Jeremy Brazas
              2 days ago















            $begingroup$
            Neutrality is one thing; however, I am curious to know how this got a downvote.
            $endgroup$
            – Jeremy Brazas
            Mar 21 at 19:00




            $begingroup$
            Neutrality is one thing; however, I am curious to know how this got a downvote.
            $endgroup$
            – Jeremy Brazas
            Mar 21 at 19:00












            $begingroup$
            I downvoted this answer because I specifically asked for towers that are increasing in size.
            $endgroup$
            – Joseph Van Name
            Mar 23 at 3:22




            $begingroup$
            I downvoted this answer because I specifically asked for towers that are increasing in size.
            $endgroup$
            – Joseph Van Name
            Mar 23 at 3:22












            $begingroup$
            @JosephVanName Had you included a formalization of "growth" here to which my example did not apply, I would not have subjected you to my answer. If you edit the "in particular" paragraph it so that this is the case, I'll happily delete my answer. However, the difference between growing and shrinking for bounded towers seems superficial... if $T_alpha$ is the topology of $c_alpha(G)$, then $X_alpha=P(G)backslash T_alpha$ is a "growing" tower of sets whose stability is difficult to determine.
            $endgroup$
            – Jeremy Brazas
            2 days ago




            $begingroup$
            @JosephVanName Had you included a formalization of "growth" here to which my example did not apply, I would not have subjected you to my answer. If you edit the "in particular" paragraph it so that this is the case, I'll happily delete my answer. However, the difference between growing and shrinking for bounded towers seems superficial... if $T_alpha$ is the topology of $c_alpha(G)$, then $X_alpha=P(G)backslash T_alpha$ is a "growing" tower of sets whose stability is difficult to determine.
            $endgroup$
            – Jeremy Brazas
            2 days ago

















            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


            • 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%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f325582%2fexamples-of-transfinite-towers%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

            Lowndes Grove History Architecture References Navigation menu32°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661132°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661178002500"National Register Information System"Historic houses of South Carolina"Lowndes Grove""+32° 48' 6.00", −79° 57' 58.00""Lowndes Grove, Charleston County (260 St. Margaret St., Charleston)""Lowndes Grove"The Charleston ExpositionIt Happened in South Carolina"Lowndes Grove (House), Saint Margaret Street & Sixth Avenue, Charleston, Charleston County, SC(Photographs)"Plantations of the Carolina Low Countrye

            random experiment with two different functions on unit interval Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Random variable and probability space notionsRandom Walk with EdgesFinding functions where the increase over a random interval is Poisson distributedNumber of days until dayCan an observed event in fact be of zero probability?Unit random processmodels of coins and uniform distributionHow to get the number of successes given $n$ trials , probability $P$ and a random variable $X$Absorbing Markov chain in a computer. Is “almost every” turned into always convergence in computer executions?Stopped random walk is not uniformly integrable

            How should I support this large drywall patch? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?How do I cover large gaps in drywall?How do I keep drywall around a patch from crumbling?Can I glue a second layer of drywall?How to patch long strip on drywall?Large drywall patch: how to avoid bulging seams?Drywall Mesh Patch vs. Bulge? To remove or not to remove?How to fix this drywall job?Prep drywall before backsplashWhat's the best way to fix this horrible drywall patch job?Drywall patching using 3M Patch Plus Primer