Semi-proper forcing, remarkable cardinals, and Bounded Martin's Maximum

2004 ◽  
Vol 50 (6) ◽  
pp. 527-532 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralf Schindler
Keyword(s):  
Proper Forcing ◽  
Remarkable Cardinals

Proper Forcing and Remarkable Cardinals

2000 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 176-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralf-Dieter Schindler
Keyword(s):  
Measurable Cardinal ◽  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Exact Formulation ◽  
Axiom Of Determinacy ◽  
Slow Pace ◽  
Woodin Cardinals ◽  
Inner Model ◽  
Proper Forcing ◽  
Remarkable Cardinals ◽  
The Universe

The present paper investigates the power of proper forcings to change the shape of the universe, in a certain well-defined respect. It turns out that the ranking among large cardinals can be used as a measure for that power. However, in order to establish the final result I had to isolate a new large cardinal concept, which I dubbed “remarkability.” Let us approach the exact formulation of the problem—and of its solution—at a slow pace.Breathtaking developments in the mid 1980s found one of its culminations in the theorem, due to Martin, Steel, and Woodin, that the existence of infinitely many Woodin cardinals with a measurable cardinal above them all implies that AD, the axiom of determinacy, holds in the least inner model containing all the reals, L(ℝ) (cf. [6[, p. 91). One of the nice things about AD is that the theory ZF + AD + V = L(ℝ) appears as a choiceless “completion” of ZF in that any interesting question (in particular, about sets of reals) seems to find an at least attractive answer in that theory (cf., for example, [5] Chap. 6). (Compare with ZF + V = L!) Beyond that, AD is very canonical as may be illustrated as follows.Let us say that L(ℝ) is absolute for set-sized forcings if for all posets P ∈ V, for all formulae ϕ, and for all ∈ ℝ do we have thatwhere is a name for the set of reals in the extension.

Proper forcing and remarkable cardinals II

2001 ◽  
Vol 66 (3) ◽  
pp. 1481-1492 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralf-Dieter Schindler
Keyword(s):  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Current Paper ◽  
Proper Forcing ◽  
Remarkable Cardinals

AbstractThe current paper proves the results announced in [5].We isolate a new large cardinal concept, “remarkability.” Consistencywise, remarkable cardinals are between ineffable and ω-Erdös cardinals. They are characterized by the existence of “0#-like” embeddings; however, they relativize down to L. It turns out that the existence of a remarkable cardinal is equiconsistent with L(ℝ) absoluteness for proper forcings. In particular, said absoluteness does not imply determinacy.

Generic Σ31 absoluteness

2004 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sy D. Friedman
Keyword(s):  
Regular Cardinal ◽  
Forcing Axioms ◽  
Proper Forcing ◽  
Class Forcing ◽  
The Universe ◽  
Generic Extensions

In this article we study the strength of absoluteness (with real parameters) in various types of generic extensions, correcting and improving some results from [3]. (In particular, see Theorem 3 below.) We shall also make some comments relating this work to the bounded forcing axioms BMM, BPFA and BSPFA.The statement “ absoluteness holds for ccc forcing” means that if a formula with real parameters has a solution in a ccc set-forcing extension of the universe V, then it already has a solution in V. The analogous definition applies when ccc is replaced by other set-forcing notions, or by class-forcing.Theorem 1. [1] absoluteness for ccc has no strength; i.e., if ZFC is consistent then so is ZFC + absoluteness for ccc.The following results concerning (arbitrary) set-forcing and class-forcing can be found in [3].Theorem 2 (Feng-Magidor-Woodin). (a) absoluteness for arbitrary set-forcing is equiconsistent with the existence of a reflecting cardinal, i.e., a regular cardinal κ such that H(κ) is ∑2-elementary in V.(b) absoluteness for class-forcing is inconsistent.We consider next the following set-forcing notions, which lie strictly between ccc and arbitrary set-forcing: proper, semiproper, stationary-preserving and ω1-preserving. We refer the reader to [8] for the definitions of these forcing notions.Using a variant of an argument due to Goldstern-Shelah (see [6]), we show the following. This result corrects Theorem 2 of [3] (whose proof only shows that if absoluteness holds in a certain proper forcing extension, then in L either ω1 is Mahlo or ω2 is inaccessible).

Totally proper forcing and the Moore–Mrówka problem

2003 ◽  
Vol 177 (2) ◽  
pp. 121-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Todd Eisworth
Keyword(s):  
Proper Forcing

scholarly journals Hypergraphs and proper forcing

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (02) ◽  
pp. 1950007
Author(s):  
Jindřich Zapletal
Keyword(s):  
Polish Space ◽  
Countable Collection ◽  
The Family ◽  
Proper Forcing

Given a Polish space [Formula: see text] and a countable collection of analytic hypergraphs on [Formula: see text], I consider the [Formula: see text]-ideal generated by Borel anticliques for the hypergraphs in the family. It turns out that many of the quotient posets are proper. I investigate the forcing properties of these posets, certain natural operations on them, and prove some related dichotomies.

scholarly journals Proper forcing remastered

2012 ◽  
pp. 331-362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Boban Veličcković ◽  
Giorgio Venturi
Keyword(s):  
Proper Forcing
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document