Some remarks and notation. Unless otherwise stated, all algebras, measures and ul-
trafilters are defined on the same set X, which will be regarded as a topological space
with the discrete topology. As usual, f3X will denote the Cech compactification of X. The
points of /3X are ultrafilters over X. Ultrafilters will therefore be denoted by lower case
letters. If M C fiX (in particular, if M C X), we let M denote the closure M in 0X. The
symbol \M\ will denote the cardinality of a set M.
The memoir consists essentially of two parts. The first part comprises Sections 4-9, the
second part Sections 10-12. The main theorems will be stated in Section 2 and numbered,
to set them apart from other theorems, by Roman numerals. Theorems I-IV and Theorem
II* will be proved in the first part, Theorems V-XII in the second. It should already be
clear from the formulations of these theorems in what sense the memoir splits into two
parts. On the other hand, these two parts of our memoir combine quite naturally to
form a unified whole - this will become particularly clear in the second part of Section
7. The basic idea of our method is outlined in Section 3. Section 13 may be regarded as
an appendix to the memoir. It concerns what we shall call semi-lattices of subsets, and
lattices of subsets, given, of course, on X. In Section 14 we list some unsolved problems
which arose during our work on this memoir.
Acknowledgment. It is a pleasure to acknowledge the friendly support extended to me
by M. Gitik throughout the lengthy research of which this memoir is the outcome, and
his many useful comments. I am deeply grateful to D. Fremlin and the referee for their
Theore m I. (1) Consider a finite sequence of algebras Ai,... ,An such that for every
k 7^ 2, 1 k n, there exist more than |(fc 1) pairwise disjoint sets not in Ak (if A2
is taken into consideration, A2 ^ V(X)). Then there exists Q £ Ak, 1 k n.7 (2) The
hound I(k 1) is best possible in the following sense: For every natural number n 1 one
In order to give the reader an idea of the character of the material, we have stated two claims in
the Introduction. The only difference between Claim 1.1 and the first part of Theorem I is that Claim
1.1 demands the existence of at least two pairwise disjoint sets not belonging to A2 (if Ai is taken into
consideration). If X £ A2, then the statements of Claim 1.1 and the first part of Theorem I are identical.
Previous Page Next Page