scholarly journals Cohen forcing and inner models

2020 ◽  
Vol 66 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-72
Author(s):  
Jonas Reitz
Keyword(s):  
Inner Models ◽  
Cohen Forcing

Co-stationarity of the ground model

2006 ◽  
Vol 71 (3) ◽  
pp. 1029-1043 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natasha Dobrinen ◽  
Sy-David Friedman
Keyword(s):  
Large Cardinals ◽  
Partial Ordering ◽  
Proper Class ◽  
Ground Model ◽  
Covering Theorem ◽  
Uncountable Cardinal ◽  
Cohen Forcing ◽  
Measurable Cardinals

AbstractThis paper investigates when it is possible for a partial ordering ℙ to force Pk(Λ)\V to be stationary in Vℙ. It follows from a result of Gitik that whenever ℙ adds a new real, then Pk(Λ)\V is stationary in Vℙ for each regular uncountable cardinal κ in Vℙ and all cardinals λ ≥ κ in Vℙ [4], However, a covering theorem of Magidor implies that when no new ω-sequences are added, large cardinals become necessary [7]. The following is equiconsistent with a proper class of ω1-Erdős cardinals: If ℙ is ℵ1-Cohen forcing, then Pk(Λ)\V is stationary in Vℙ, for all regular κ ≥ ℵ2and all λ ≩ κ. The following is equiconsistent with an ω1-Erdős cardinal: If ℙ is ℵ1-Cohen forcing, then is stationary in Vℙ. The following is equiconsistent with κ measurable cardinals: If ℙ is κ-Cohen forcing, then is stationary in Vℙ.

INNER MODEL THEORETIC GEOLOGY

2016 ◽  
Vol 81 (3) ◽  
pp. 972-996 ◽  
Author(s):  
GUNTER FUCHS ◽  
RALF SCHINDLER
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Main Theme ◽  
Solid Core ◽  
Strong Cardinal ◽  
The Third ◽  
Inner Models ◽  
Inner Model ◽  
Basic Concepts ◽  
Woodin Cardinal ◽  
The Universe

AbstractOne of the basic concepts of set theoretic geology is the mantle of a model of set theory V: it is the intersection of all grounds of V, that is, of all inner models M of V such that V is a set-forcing extension of M. The main theme of the present paper is to identify situations in which the mantle turns out to be a fine structural extender model. The first main result is that this is the case when the universe is constructible from a set and there is an inner model with a Woodin cardinal. The second situation like that arises if L[E] is an extender model that is iterable in V but not internally iterable, as guided by P-constructions, L[E] has no strong cardinal, and the extender sequence E is ordinal definable in L[E] and its forcing extensions by collapsing a cutpoint to ω (in an appropriate sense). The third main result concerns the Solid Core of a model of set theory. This is the union of all sets that are constructible from a set of ordinals that cannot be added by set-forcing to an inner model. The main result here is that if there is an inner model with a Woodin cardinal, then the solid core is a fine-structural extender model.

scholarly journals Homogeneously Souslin sets in small inner models

2005 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Koepke ◽  
Ralf Schindler
Keyword(s):  
Inner Models

scholarly journals INDESTRUCTIBILITY OF THE TREE PROPERTY

2019 ◽  
Vol 85 (1) ◽  
pp. 467-485
Author(s):  
RADEK HONZIK ◽  
ŠÁRKA STEJSKALOVÁ
Keyword(s):  
Lower Bounds ◽  
Generic Extension ◽  
Tree Property ◽  
Weakly Compact ◽  
Cardinal Invariants ◽  
Cohen Forcing ◽  
Image Position

AbstractIn the first part of the article, we show that if $\omega \le \kappa < \lambda$ are cardinals, ${\kappa ^{ < \kappa }} = \kappa$, and λ is weakly compact, then in $V\left[M {\left( {\kappa ,\lambda } \right)} \right]$ the tree property at $$\lambda = \left( {\kappa ^{ + + } } \right)^{V\left[ {\left( {\kappa ,\lambda } \right)} \right]} $$ is indestructible under all ${\kappa ^ + }$-cc forcing notions which live in $V\left[ {{\rm{Add}}\left( {\kappa ,\lambda } \right)} \right]$, where ${\rm{Add}}\left( {\kappa ,\lambda } \right)$ is the Cohen forcing for adding λ-many subsets of κ and $\left( {\kappa ,\lambda } \right)$ is the standard Mitchell forcing for obtaining the tree property at $\lambda = \left( {\kappa ^{ + + } } \right)^{V\left[ {\left( {\kappa ,\lambda } \right)} \right]} $. This result has direct applications to Prikry-type forcing notions and generalized cardinal invariants. In the second part, we assume that λ is supercompact and generalize the construction and obtain a model ${V^{\rm{*}}}$, a generic extension of V, in which the tree property at ${\left( {{\kappa ^{ + + }}} \right)^{{V^{\rm{*}}}}}$ is indestructible under all ${\kappa ^ + }$-cc forcing notions living in $V\left[ {{\rm{Add}}\left( {\kappa ,\lambda } \right)} \right]$, and in addition under all forcing notions living in ${V^{\rm{*}}}$ which are ${\kappa ^ + }$-closed and “liftable” in a prescribed sense (such as ${\kappa ^{ + + }}$-directed closed forcings or well-met forcings which are ${\kappa ^{ + + }}$-closed with the greatest lower bounds).

On the inadequacy of inner models

1972 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 569-571
Author(s):  
Andreas Blass
Keyword(s):  
Standard Model ◽  
Continuum Hypothesis ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Precise Statement ◽  
Relative Consistency ◽  
Inner Models ◽  
Generalized Continuum ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice

The method of inner models, used by Gödel to prove the (relative) consistency of the axiom of choice and the generalized continuum hypothesis [2], cannot be used to prove the (relative) consistency of any statement which contradicts the axiom of constructibility (V = L). A more precise statement of this well-known fact is:(*)For any formula θ(x) of the language of ZF, there is an axiom α of the theory ZF + V ≠ L such that the relativization α(θ) is not a theorem of ZF.On p. 108 of [1], Cohen gives a proof of (*) in ZF assuming the existence of a standard model of ZF, and he indicates that this assumption can be avoided. However, (*) is not a theorem of ZF (unless ZF is inconsistent), because (*) trivially implies the consistency of ZF. What assumptions are needed to prove (*)? We know that the existence of a standard model implies (*) which, in turn, implies the consistency of ZF. Is either implication reversible?From our main result, it will follow that, if the converse of the first implication is provable in ZF, then ZF has no standard model, and if the converse of the second implication is provable in ZF, then so is the inconsistency of ZF. Thus, it is quite improbable that either converse is provable in ZF.

Natural internal forcing schemata extending ZFC: Truth in the universe?

1994 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
pp. 461-472
Author(s):  
Garvin Melles
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Mathematical Truth ◽  
Unified Theory ◽  
Rule Of Thumb ◽  
Guiding Principle ◽  
Survey Article ◽  
Inner Models ◽  
Independence Results ◽  
Universe Of Sets ◽  
The Universe

Mathematicians have one over on the physicists in that they already have a unified theory of mathematics, namely, set theory. Unfortunately, the plethora of independence results since the invention of forcing has taken away some of the luster of set theory in the eyes of many mathematicians. Will man's knowledge of mathematical truth be forever limited to those theorems derivable from the standard axioms of set theory, ZFC? This author does not think so, he feels that set theorists' intuition about the universe of sets is stronger than ZFC. Here in this paper, using part of this intuition, we introduce some axiom schemata which we feel are very natural candidates for being considered as part of the axioms of set theory. These schemata assert the existence of many generics over simple inner models. The main purpose of this article is to present arguments for why the assertion of the existence of such generics belongs to the axioms of set theory.Our central guiding principle in justifying the axioms is what Maddy called the rule of thumb maximize in her survey article on the axioms of set theory, [8] and [9]. More specifically, our intuition conforms with that expressed by Mathias in his article What is Maclane Missing? challenging Mac Lane's view of set theory.

Splitting number at uncountable cardinals

1997 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jindřich Zapletal
Keyword(s):  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Inner Models ◽  
Splitting Number ◽  
Uncountable Cardinal ◽  
Uncountable Cardinals

AbstractWe study a generalization of the splitting number s to uncountable cardinals. We prove that 𝔰(κ) > κ+ for a regular uncountable cardinal κ implies the existence of inner models with measurables of high Mitchell order. We prove that the assumption 𝔰(ℵω) > ℵω+1 has a considerable large cardinal strength as well.

0# and inner models

2002 ◽  
Vol 67 (3) ◽  
pp. 924-932 ◽  
Author(s):  
SY D. Friedman
Keyword(s):  
High Order ◽  
Covering Theorem ◽  
Inner Models ◽  
Inner Model ◽  
Mahlo Cardinals ◽  
Reverse Easton Iteration

In this paper we examine the cardinal structure of inner models that satisfy GCH but do not contain 0#. We show, assuming that 0# exists, that such models necessarily contain Mahlo cardinals of high order, but without further assumptions need not contain a cardinal κ which is κ-Mahlo. The principal tools are the Covering Theorem for L and the technique of reverse Easton iteration.Let I denote the class of Silver indiscernibles for L and 〈iα ∣ α ϵ ORD〉 its increasing enumeration. Also fix an inner model M of GCH not containing 0# and let ωα denote the ωα of the model M[0#], the least inner model containing M as a submodel and 0# as an element.

Forcing notions in inner models

2009 ◽  
Vol 48 (7) ◽  
pp. 643-651
Author(s):  
David Asperó
Keyword(s):  
Inner Models
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document