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).

Strongly unfoldable cardinals made indestructible

2008 ◽  
Vol 73 (4) ◽  
pp. 1215-1248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas A. Johnstone
Keyword(s):  
Large Cardinals ◽  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Weakly Compact ◽  
Proper Forcing ◽  
Class Forcing

AbstractI provide indestructibility results for large cardinals consistent with V = L, such as weakly compact, indescribable and strongly unfoldable cardinals. The Main Theorem shows that any strongly unfoldable cardinal κ can be made indestructible by <κ-closed, κ-proper forcing. This class of posets includes for instance all <κ-closed posets that are either κ−-c.c. or <κ-strategically closed as well as finite iterations of such posets. Since strongly unfoldable cardinals strengthen both indescribable and weakly compact cardinals, the Main Theorem therefore makes these two large cardinal notions similarly indestructible. Finally. I apply the Main Theorem to obtain a class forcing extension preserving all strongly unfoldable cardinals in which every strongly unfoldable cardinal κ is indestructible by <κ-closed, κ-proper forcing.

Forcing Axioms, Supercompact Cardinals, Singular Cardinal Combinatorics

2008 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-113
Author(s):  
Matteo Viale
Keyword(s):  
Large Cardinals ◽  
Singular Cardinal ◽  
Strongly Compact Cardinal ◽  
Compact Cardinal ◽  
Forcing Axioms ◽  
Supercompact Cardinals ◽  
Saturation Properties ◽  
Proper Forcing Axiom ◽  
Singular Cardinals ◽  
Proper Forcing

The purpose of this communication is to present some recent advances on the consequences that forcing axioms and large cardinals have on the combinatorics of singular cardinals. I will introduce a few examples of problems in singular cardinal combinatorics which can be fruitfully attacked using ideas and techniques coming from the theory of forcing axioms and then translate the results so obtained in suitable large cardinals properties.The first example I will treat is the proof that the proper forcing axiom PFA implies the singular cardinal hypothesis SCH, this will easily lead to a new proof of Solovay's theorem that SCH holds above a strongly compact cardinal. I will also outline how some of the ideas involved in these proofs can be used as means to evaluate the “saturation” properties of models of strong forcing axioms like MM or PFA.The second example aims to show that the transfer principle (ℵω+1, ℵω) ↠ (ℵ2, ℵ1) fails assuming Martin's Maximum MM. Also in this case the result can be translated in a large cardinal property, however this requires a familiarity with a rather large fragment of Shelah's pcf-theory.Only sketchy arguments will be given, the reader is referred to the forthcoming [25] and [38] for a thorough analysis of these problems and for detailed proofs.

Hierarchies of forcing axioms II

2008 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 522-542 ◽  
Author(s):  
Itay Neeman
Keyword(s):  
Structural Model ◽  
Free Variable ◽  
Forcing Axioms ◽  
First Order ◽  
Proper Forcing Axiom ◽  
Proper Forcing ◽  
Forcing Axiom

AbstractA truth for λ is a pair 〈Q, ψ〉 so that Q ⊆ Hλ, ψ is a first order formula with one free variable, and there exists B ⊆ Hλ+ such that (Hλ+; ∈, B) ⊨ ψ[Q]. A cardinal λ is , indescribable just in case that for every truth 〈Q, ψ〈 for λ, there exists < λ so that is a cardinal and 〈Q ∩ , ψ) is a truth for . More generally, an interval of cardinals [κ, λ] with κ ≤ λ is indescribable if for every truth 〈Q, ψ〈 for λ, there exists , and π: → Hλ so that is a cardinal, is a truth for , and π is elementary from () into (H; ∈, κ, Q) with id.We prove that the restriction of the proper forcing axiom to ϲ-linked posets requires a indescribable cardinal in L, and that the restriction of the proper forcing axiom to ϲ+-linked posets, in a proper forcing extension of a fine structural model, requires a indescribable 1-gap [κ, κ+]. These results show that the respective forward directions obtained in Hierarchies of Forcing Axioms I by Neeman and Schimmerling are optimal.

scholarly journals COMPUTABLE STRUCTURES IN GENERIC EXTENSIONS

2016 ◽  
Vol 81 (3) ◽  
pp. 814-832 ◽  
Author(s):  
JULIA KNIGHT ◽  
ANTONIO MONTALBÁN ◽  
NOAH SCHWEBER
Keyword(s):  
Positive Result ◽  
Generic Extension ◽  
Ground Model ◽  
Rigid Structure ◽  
Basic Properties ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Scott Rank ◽  
The Universe ◽  
Generic Extensions ◽  
Countable Structure

AbstractIn this paper, we investigate connections between structures present in every generic extension of the universe V and computability theory. We introduce the notion of generic Muchnik reducibility that can be used to compare the complexity of uncountable structures; we establish basic properties of this reducibility, and study it in the context of generic presentability, the existence of a copy of the structure in every extension by a given forcing. We show that every forcing notion making ω2 countable generically presents some countable structure with no copy in the ground model; and that every structure generically presentable by a forcing notion that does not make ω2 countable has a copy in the ground model. We also show that any countable structure ${\cal A}$ that is generically presentable by a forcing notion not collapsing ω1 has a countable copy in V, as does any structure ${\cal B}$ generically Muchnik reducible to a structure ${\cal A}$ of cardinality ℵ1. The former positive result yields a new proof of Harrington’s result that counterexamples to Vaught’s conjecture have models of power ℵ1 with Scott rank arbitrarily high below ω2. Finally, we show that a rigid structure with copies in all generic extensions by a given forcing has a copy already in the ground model.

scholarly journals Outer models and genericity

2003 ◽  
Vol 68 (2) ◽  
pp. 389-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. C. Stanley
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Generic Extension ◽  
Transitive Model ◽  
Class Forcing ◽  
The Universe ◽  
Models Of Set Theory

Why is forcing the only known method for constructing outer models of set theory?If V is a standard transitive model of ZFC, then a standard transitive model W of ZFC is an outer model of V if V ⊆ W and V ∩ OR = W ∩ OR.Is every outer model of a given model a generic extension? At one point Solovay conjectured that if 0# exists, then every real that does not construct 0# lies in L[G], for some G that is generic for some forcing ℙ ∈ L. Famously, this was refuted by Jensen's coding theorem. He produced a real that is generic for an L-definable class forcing property, but does not lie in any set forcing extension of L.Beller, Jensen, and Welch in Coding the universe [BJW] revived Solovay's conjecture by asking the following question: Let a ⊆ ω be such that L[a] ⊨ “0# does not exist”. Is there ab∈ L[a] such that a ∉ L[b] and a is set generic over L[b].

Woodin's axiom (*), bounded forcing axioms, and precipitous ideals on ω1

2012 ◽  
Vol 77 (2) ◽  
pp. 475-498 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Claverie ◽  
Ralf Schindler
Keyword(s):  
Model Operator ◽  
Forcing Axioms ◽  
Woodin Cardinals ◽  
Proper Forcing Axiom ◽  
Proper Forcing ◽  
Reflection Principles ◽  
Precipitous Ideals ◽  
Forcing Axiom ◽  
The Way

AbstractIf the Bounded Proper Forcing Axiom BPFA holds, then Mouse Reflection holds at ℵ2 with respect to all mouse operators up to the level of Woodin cardinals in the next ZFC-model. This yields that if Woodin's ℙmax axiom (*) holds, then BPFA implies that V is closed under the “Woodin-in-the-next-ZFC-model” operator. We also discuss stronger Mouse Reflection principles which we show to follow from strengthenings of BPFA, and we discuss the theory BPFA plus “NSω1 is precipitous” and strengthenings thereof. Along the way, we answer a question of Baumgartner and Taylor, [2, Question 6.11].

scholarly journals Forcing axioms and coronas of C∗-algebras

2020 ◽  
pp. 2150006
Author(s):  
Paul McKenney ◽  
Alessandro Vignati
Keyword(s):  
Approximation Property ◽  
Approximate Identity ◽  
Large Classes ◽  
Forcing Axioms ◽  
Rigidity Results ◽  
C Algebras ◽  
Proper Forcing Axiom ◽  
Proper Forcing ◽  
Metric Approximation ◽  
Forcing Axiom

We prove rigidity results for large classes of corona algebras, assuming the Proper Forcing Axiom. In particular, we prove that a conjecture of Coskey and Farah holds for all separable [Formula: see text]-algebras with the metric approximation property and an increasing approximate identity of projections.

Changing cofinalities and infinite exponents

1981 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthur W. Apter
Keyword(s):  
Early Result ◽  
Regular Cardinal ◽  
Generic Extension ◽  
Ground Model ◽  
Generic Extensions

Ever since Cohen invented forcing in 1963, people have studied the properties that cardinals can have in generic extensions of the ground model. A very early result of Lévy shows that if κ is a regular cardinal and λ > κ is strongly inaccessible, then there is a notion of forcing which collapses every cardinal strictly between κ and λ yet preserves every other cardinal. This, of course, answers one question of the genre “What properties can a cardinal have in a generic extension?”Another question of the same genre that can be asked is the following: Is it possible to have a generic extension of the ground model in which all cardinals are preserved and yet the cofinalities of some cardinals are different? This question was first answered in the affirmative by Prikry, who proved the following theorem.Theorem 1.1 (Prikry [5]). Assume that V ⊨ “ZFC + κ is measurable”. Then there is a notion of forcing, P, such that for G V-generic over P:(1) V and V[G] have the same cardinals.(2) V and V[G] have the same bounded subsets of κ.(3) V[G], i.e, V[G] ⊨ “κ is Rowbottom”.(4) V[G] ⊨ “cof(κ) = ω”.Prikry's result naturally raises the following question: Is it possible to get a generic extension in which cardinals are preserved and yet the cofinalities of certain cardinals are different from the ground model's but are uncountable? This question was first answered in the affirmative by Magidor, who proved the following theorem.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document