The Emergence of Descriptive Set Theory

1995 ◽  
pp. 241-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akihiro Kanamori
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Descriptive Set Theory ◽  
Descriptive Set

Two Applications of Inner Model Theory to the Study of Sets

1996 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 94-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Greg Hjorth
Keyword(s):  
Los Angeles ◽  
Set Theory ◽  
Model Theory ◽  
Large Cardinals ◽  
Descriptive Set Theory ◽  
Inner Model Theory ◽  
Regular Cardinals ◽  
Inner Model ◽  
Definable Sets ◽  
Descriptive Set

§0. Preface. There has been an expectation that the endgame of the more tenacious problems raised by the Los Angeles ‘cabal’ school of descriptive set theory in the 1970's should ultimately be played out with the use of inner model theory. Questions phrased in the language of descriptive set theory, where both the conclusions and the assumptions are couched in terms that only mention simply definable sets of reals, and which have proved resistant to purely descriptive set theoretic arguments, may at last find their solution through the connection between determinacy and large cardinals.Perhaps the most striking example was given by [24], where the core model theory was used to analyze the structure of HOD and then show that all regular cardinals below ΘL(ℝ) are measurable. John Steel's analysis also settled a number of structural questions regarding HODL(ℝ), such as GCH.Another illustration is provided by [21]. There an application of large cardinals and inner model theory is used to generalize the Harrington-Martin theorem that determinacy implies )determinacy.However, it is harder to find examples of theorems regarding the structure of the projective sets whose only known proof from determinacy assumptions uses the link between determinacy and large cardinals. We may equivalently ask whether there are second order statements of number theory that cannot be proved under PD–the axiom of projective determinacy–without appealing to the large cardinal consequences of the PD, such as the existence of certain kinds of inner models that contain given types of large cardinals.

scholarly journals Intuitionism and effective descriptive set theory

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 396-428 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joan R. Moschovakis ◽  
Yiannis N. Moschovakis
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Descriptive Set Theory ◽  
Descriptive Set ◽  
Effective Descriptive Set Theory

Remarks on invariant descriptive set theory

1975 ◽  
Vol 90 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Burgess ◽  
Douglas Miller
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Descriptive Set Theory ◽  
Descriptive Set

scholarly journals The Ramsey property implies no mad families

2019 ◽  
Vol 116 (38) ◽  
pp. 18883-18887 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Schrittesser ◽  
Asger Törnquist
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Large Set ◽  
Descriptive Set Theory ◽  
Ramsey Property ◽  
Mad Families ◽  
Almost Disjoint ◽  
Descriptive Set ◽  
Maximal Almost Disjoint ◽  
Borel Ideals ◽  
Standing Problem

We show that if all collections of infinite subsets of N have the Ramsey property, then there are no infinite maximal almost disjoint (mad) families. The implication is proved in Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with only weak choice principles. This gives a positive solution to a long-standing problem that goes back to Mathias [A. R. D. Mathias, Ann. Math. Logic 12, 59–111 (1977)]. The proof exploits an idea which has its natural roots in ergodic theory, topological dynamics, and invariant descriptive set theory: We use that a certain function associated to a purported mad family is invariant under the equivalence relation E0 and thus is constant on a “large” set. Furthermore, we announce a number of additional results about mad families relative to more complicated Borel ideals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document