Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-15T10:39:42.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

More on entangled orders

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Ofer Shafir
Hebrew University, Jerusalem 91904, Israel Institute of Mathematics, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
Saharon Shelah
Rutgers University, Department of Mathematics, New Brunswick, NJ, USA,


This paper grew as a continuation of [Sh462] but in the present form it can serve as a motivation for it as well. We deal with the same notions, all defined in 1.1, and use just one simple lemma from there whose statement and proof we repeat as 2.1. Originally entangledness was introduced, in [BoSh210] for example, in order to get narrow boolean algebras and examples of the nonmultiplicativity of c.c-ness. These applications became marginal when other methods were found and successfully applied (especially Todorčevic walks) but after the pcf constructions which made their début in [Sh-g] and were continued in [Sh462] it seems that this notion gained independence.

Generally we aim at characterizing the existence of strong and weak entangled orders in cardinal arithmetic terms. In [Sh462, §6] necessary conditions were shown for strong entangledness which in a previous version was erroneously proved to be equivalent to plain entangledness. In §1 we give a forcing counterexample to this equivalence and in §2 we get those results for entangledness (certainly the most interesting case). A new construction of an entangled order ends this section. In §3 we get weaker results for positively entangledness, especially when supplemented with the existence of a separating point (Definition 2.2). An antipodal case is defined in 3.10 and completely characterized in 3.11. Lastly we outline in 3.12 a forcing example showing that these two subcases of positive entangledness comprise no dichotomy. The work was done during the fall of 1994 and the winter of 1995. The second author proved Theorems 1.2, 2.14, the result that is mentioned in Remark 2.11 and what appears in this version as Theorem 2.10(a) with the further assumption den (I)θ < μ. The first author is responsible for waving off this assumption (actually by showing that it holds in the general case), for Theorems 2.12 and 2.13 in Section 2 and for the work which is presented in Section 3.

Research Article
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)



[BoSh210]Bonnet, R. and Shelah, S., Narrow Boolean algebras, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 28 (1985), pp. 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Sh410]Shelah, S., More on cardinal arithmetic, Archive for Mathematical Logic, vol. 32 (1993), pp. 399428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Sh460]Shelah, S., The generalized continuum hypothesis revisited, Israel Journal of Mathematics.Google Scholar
[Sh462]Shelah, S., σ-entangled linear orders and narrowness of products of Boolean algebras, Fundamenta Mathematicae.Google Scholar
[Sh-g]Shelah, S., Cardinal arithmetic, Oxford University Press, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar