scholarly journals INDESTRUCTIBILITY OF THE TREE PROPERTY

2019 ◽  
Vol 85 (1) ◽  
pp. 467-485
Author(s):  
RADEK HONZIK ◽  
ŠÁRKA STEJSKALOVÁ

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).

2018 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. 349-371
Author(s):  
JAMES CUMMINGS ◽  
SY-DAVID FRIEDMAN ◽  
MENACHEM MAGIDOR ◽  
ASSAF RINOT ◽  
DIMA SINAPOVA

AbstractThree central combinatorial properties in set theory are the tree property, the approachability property and stationary reflection. We prove the mutual independence of these properties by showing that any of their eight Boolean combinations can be forced to hold at${\kappa ^{ + + }}$, assuming that$\kappa = {\kappa ^{ < \kappa }}$and there is a weakly compact cardinal aboveκ.If in additionκis supercompact then we can forceκto be${\aleph _\omega }$in the extension. The proofs combine the techniques of adding and then destroying a nonreflecting stationary set or a${\kappa ^{ + + }}$-Souslin tree, variants of Mitchell’s forcing to obtain the tree property, together with the Prikry-collapse poset for turning a large cardinal into${\aleph _\omega }$.


2012 ◽  
Vol 77 (3) ◽  
pp. 934-946 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dima Sinapova

AbstractWe show that given ω many supercompact cardinals, there is a generic extension in which the tree property holds at ℵω2+ 1 and the SCH fails at ℵω2.


1999 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 349-374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ravi P. Agarwal ◽  
Martin Bohner ◽  
Patricia J. Y. Wong

We consider the following boundary value problemwhere λ > 0 and 1 ≤ p ≤ n – 1 is fixed. The values of λ are characterized so that the boundary value problem has a positive solution. Further, for the case λ = 1 we offer criteria for the existence of two positive solutions of the boundary value problem. Upper and lower bounds for these positive solutions are also established for special cases. Several examples are included to dwell upon the importance of the results obtained.


2014 ◽  
Vol 79 (01) ◽  
pp. 193-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
LAURA FONTANELLA

Abstract An inaccessible cardinal is strongly compact if, and only if, it satisfies the strong tree property. We prove that if there is a model of ZFC with infinitely many supercompact cardinals, then there is a model of ZFC where ${\aleph _{\omega + 1}}$ has the strong tree property. Moreover, we prove that every successor of a singular limit of strongly compact cardinals has the strong tree property.


1980 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 421-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
Teck-Cheong Lim

Let X be a Banach space and B a bounded subset of X. For each x ∈ X, define R(x) = sup{‖x – y‖ : y ∈ B}. If C is a nonempty subset of X, we call the number R = inƒ{R(x) : x ∈ C} the Chebyshev radius of B in C and the set the Chebyshev center of B in C. It is well known that if C is weakly compact and convex, then and if, in addition, X is uniformly convex, then the Chebyshev center is unique; see e.g., [9].Let {Bα : α ∈ ∧} be a decreasing net of bounded subsets of X. For each x ∈ X and each α ∈ ∧, define


2019 ◽  
Vol 84 (1) ◽  
pp. 266-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
VLADIMIR KANOVEI ◽  
VASSILY LYUBETSKY

AbstractUsing a nonLaver modification of Uri Abraham’s minimal $\Delta _3^1$ collapse function, we define a generic extension $L[a]$ by a real a, in which, for a given $n \ge 3$, $\left\{ a \right\}$ is a lightface $\Pi _n^1 $ singleton, a effectively codes a cofinal map $\omega \to \omega _1^L $ minimal over L, while every $\Sigma _n^1 $ set $X \subseteq \omega $ is still constructible.


1976 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Bogin

In [7], Goebel, Kirk and Shimi proved the following:Theorem. Let X be a uniformly convex Banach space, K a nonempty bounded closed and convex subset of X, and F:K→K a continuous mapping satisfying for each x, y∈K:(1)where ai≥0 and Then F has a fixed point in K.In this paper we shall prove that this theorem remains true in any Banach space X, provided that K is a nonempty, weakly compact convex subset of X and has normal structure (see Definition 1 below).


2018 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 1013-1062 ◽  
Author(s):  
JÖRG BRENDLE ◽  
BARNABÁS FARKAS ◽  
JONATHAN VERNER

AbstractWe investigate which filters onωcan contain towers, that is, a modulo finite descending sequence without any pseudointersection (in${[\omega ]^\omega }$). We prove the following results:(1)Many classical examples of nice tall filters contain no towers (in ZFC).(2)It is consistent that tall analytic P-filters contain towers of arbitrary regular height (simultaneously for many regular cardinals as well).(3)It is consistent that all towers generate nonmeager filters (this answers a question of P. Borodulin-Nadzieja and D. Chodounský), in particular (consistently) Borel filters do not contain towers.(4)The statement “Every ultrafilter contains towers.” is independent of ZFC (this improves an older result of K. Kunen, J. van Mill, and C. F. Mills).Furthermore, we study many possible logical (non)implications between the existence of towers in filters, inequalities between cardinal invariants of filters (${\rm{ad}}{{\rm{d}}^{\rm{*}}}\left( {\cal F} \right)$,${\rm{co}}{{\rm{f}}^{\rm{*}}}\left( {\cal F} \right)$,${\rm{no}}{{\rm{n}}^{\rm{*}}}\left( {\cal F} \right)$, and${\rm{co}}{{\rm{v}}^{\rm{*}}}\left( {\cal F} \right)$), and the existence of Luzin type families (of size$\ge {\omega _2}$), that is, if${\cal F}$is a filter then${\cal X} \subseteq {[\omega ]^\omega }$is an${\cal F}$-Luzin family if$\left\{ {X \in {\cal X}:|X \setminus F| = \omega } \right\}$is countable for every$F \in {\cal F}$.


2011 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 477-490 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sy-David Friedman ◽  
Ajdin Halilović

AbstractAssuming the existence of a weakly compact hypermeasurable cardinal we prove that in some forcing extension ℵω is a strong limit cardinal and ℵω+2 has the tree property. This improves a result of Matthew Foreman (see [2]).


1972 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 673-676 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. M. Kleinberg ◽  
R. A. Shore

Although there are many characterizations of weakly compact cardinals (e.g. in terms of indescnbability and tree properties as well as compactness) the most interesting set-theoretic (combinatorial) one is in terms of partition relations. To be more precise we define for κ and α cardinals and n an integer the partition relation of Erdös, Hajnal and Rado [2] as follows:For every function F: [κ]n→ α (called a partition of [κ]n, the n-element subsets of κ, into α pieces), there exists a set C⊆ κ (called homogeneous for F) such that card C = κ and F″[C]n≠ α, i.e. some element of the range is omitted when F is restricted to the n-element subsets of C. It is the simplest (nontrivial) of these relations, i.e. , that is the well-known equivalent of weak compactness.1Two directions of inquiry immediately suggest themselves when weak compactness is described in terms of these partition relations: (a) Trying to strengthen the relation by increasing the superscript—e.g., —and (b) trying to weaken the relation by increasing the subscript—e.g., . As it turns out, the strengthening to is only illusory for using the equivalence of to the tree property one quickly sees that implies (and so is equivalent to) for every n. Thus is the strongest of these partition relations. The second question seems much more difficult.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document