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.

A boundedness lemma for iterations

2001 ◽  
Vol 66 (3) ◽  
pp. 1058-1072
Author(s):  
Greg Hjorth
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Model Theory ◽  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Descriptive Set Theory ◽  
Inner Model Theory ◽  
Inner Model ◽  
Direct Limits ◽  
The One ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Descriptive Set

The purpose of this paper is to present a kind of boundedness lemma for direct limits of coarse structural mice, and to indicate some applications to descriptive set theory. For instance, this allows us to show that under large cardinal or determinacy assumptions there is no prewellorder ≤ of length such that for some formula ψ and parameter zif and only ifIt is a peculiar experience to write up a result in this area. Following the work of Martin, Steel, Woodin, and other inner model theory experts, there is an enormous overhang of theorems and ideas, and it only takes one wandering pebble to restart the avalanche. For this reason I have chosen to center the exposition around the one pebble at 1.7 which I believe to be new. The applications discussed in section 2 involve routine modifications of known methods.A detailed introduction to many of the techniques related to using the Martin-Steel inner model theory and Woodin's free extender algebra is given in the course of [1]. Certainly a familiarity with the Martin-Steel papers, [5] and [6], is a prerequisite, as is some knowledge of the free extender algebra. Probably anyone interested in this paper will already know the necessary descriptive set theory, most of which can be found in [4]. Discussion of earlier results in this direction can be found in [3] or [2].

Some applications of coarse inner model theory

1997 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 337-365 ◽  
Author(s):  
Greg Hjorth
Keyword(s):  
Equivalence Class ◽  
Set Theory ◽  
Model Theory ◽  
Equivalence Relation ◽  
Equivalence Classes ◽  
Descriptive Set Theory ◽  
Inner Model Theory ◽  
Inner Model ◽  
Descriptive Set

AbstractThe Martin-Steel coarse inner model theory is employed in obtaining new results in descriptive set theory. determinacy implies that for every thin equivalence relation there is a real, N, over which every equivalence class is generic—and hence there is a good (N#) wellordering of the equivalence classes. Analogous results are obtained for and quasilinear orderings and determinacy is shown to imply that every prewellorder has rank less than .

LARGE CARDINALS BEYOND CHOICE

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (03) ◽  
pp. 283-318 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOAN BAGARIA ◽  
PETER KOELLNER ◽  
W. HUGH WOODIN
Keyword(s):  
Model Theory ◽  
Systematic Investigation ◽  
Large Cardinals ◽  
Inner Model Theory ◽  
The Third ◽  
Dichotomy Theorem ◽  
Regular Cardinals ◽  
Inner Model ◽  
Singular Cardinals ◽  
The Future

AbstractThe HOD Dichotomy Theorem states that if there is an extendible cardinal, δ, then either HOD is “close” to V (in the sense that it correctly computes successors of singular cardinals greater than δ) or HOD is “far” from V (in the sense that all regular cardinals greater than or equal to δ are measurable in HOD). The question is whether the future will lead to the first or the second side of the dichotomy. Is HOD “close” to V, or “far” from V? There is a program aimed at establishing the first alternative—the “close” side of the HOD Dichotomy. This is the program of inner model theory. In recent years the third author has provided evidence that there is an ultimate inner model—Ultimate-L—and he has isolated a natural conjecture associated with the model—the Ultimate-L Conjecture. This conjecture implies that (assuming the existence of an extendible cardinal) that the first alternative holds—HOD is “close” to V. This is the future in which pattern prevails. In this paper we introduce a very different program, one aimed at establishing the second alternative—the “far” side of the HOD Dichotomy. This is the program of large cardinals beyond choice. Kunen famously showed that if AC holds then there cannot be a Reinhardt cardinal. It has remained open whether Reinhardt cardinals are consistent in ZF alone. It turns out that there is an entire hierarchy of choiceless large cardinals of which Reinhardt cardinals are only the beginning, and, surprisingly, this hierarchy appears to be highly ordered and amenable to systematic investigation, as we shall show in this paper. The point is that if these choiceless large cardinals are consistent then the Ultimate-L Conjecture must fail. This is the future where chaos prevails.

scholarly journals Descriptive inner model theory

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grigor Sargsyan
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Model Theory ◽  
Recent Progress ◽  
Model Problem ◽  
Inner Model Theory ◽  
Inner Model ◽  
General Program ◽  
Descriptive Set

AbstractThe purpose of this paper is to outline some recent progress in descriptive inner model theory, a branch of set theory which studies descriptive set theoretic and inner model theoretic objects using tools from both areas. There are several interlaced problems that lie on the border of these two areas of set theory, but one that has been rather central for almost two decades is the conjecture known as the Mouse Set Conjecture (MSC). One particular motivation for resolving MSC is that it provides grounds for solving the inner model problem which dates back to 1960s. There have been some new partial results on MSC and the methods used to prove the new instances suggest a general program for solving the full conjecture. It is then our goal to communicate the ideas of this program to the community at large.

scholarly journals Classification from a Computable Viewpoint

2006 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wesley Calvert ◽  
Julia F. Knight
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Model Theory ◽  
Large Body ◽  
Computable Structure ◽  
Descriptive Set Theory ◽  
Computable Structures ◽  
Structure Theorems ◽  
Sample Structure ◽  
Descriptive Set ◽  
Scott Rank

Classification is an important goal in many branches of mathematics. The idea is to describe the members of some class of mathematical objects, up to isomorphism or other important equivalence, in terms of relatively simple invariants. Where this is impossible, it is useful to have concrete results saying so. In model theory and descriptive set theory, there is a large body of work showing that certain classes of mathematical structures admit classification while others do not. In the present paper, we describe some recent work on classification in computable structure theory.Section 1 gives some background from model theory and descriptive set theory. From model theory, we give sample structure and non-structure theorems for classes that include structures of arbitrary cardinality. We also describe the notion of Scott rank, which is useful in the more restricted setting of countable structures. From descriptive set theory, we describe the basic Polish space of structures for a fixed countable language with fixed countable universe. We give sample structure and non-structure theorems based on the complexity of the isomorphism relation, and on Borel embeddings.Section 2 gives some background on computable structures. We describe three approaches to classification for these structures. The approaches are all equivalent. However, one approach, which involves calculating the complexity of the isomorphism relation, has turned out to be more productive than the others. Section 3 describes results on the isomorphism relation for a number of mathematically interesting classes—various kinds of groups and fields. In Section 4, we consider a setting similar to that in descriptive set theory. We describe an effective analogue of Borel embedding which allows us to make distinctions even among classes of finite structures. Section 5 gives results on computable structures of high Scott rank. Some of these results make use of computable embeddings. Finally, in Section 6, we mention some open problems and possible directions for future work.

scholarly journals Diagonal Prikry extensions

2010 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. 1383-1402 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Cummings ◽  
Matthew Foreman
Keyword(s):  
Model Theory ◽  
Measurable Cardinal ◽  
Core Model ◽  
Singular Cardinal ◽  
Inner Model Theory ◽  
Regular Cardinals ◽  
Inner Model ◽  
Singular Cardinals ◽  
Free Abelian Groups ◽  
Woodin Cardinal

§1. Introduction. It is a well-known phenomenon in set theory that problems in infinite combinatorics involving singular cardinals and their successors tend to be harder than the parallel problems for regular cardinals. Examples include the behaviour of cardinal exponentiation, the extent of the tree property, the extent of stationary reflection, and the existence of non-free almost-free abelian groups. The explanation for this phenomenon lies in inner model theory, in particular core models and covering lemmas. If W is an inner model of V then1. W strongly covers V if every uncountable set of ordinals is covered by a set of the same V -cardinality lying in W.2. W weakly covers V if W computes the successor of every V-singular cardinal correctly.Strong covering implies weak covering.In inner model theory there are many theorems of the general form “if there is no inner model of large cardinal hypothesis X then there is an L-like inner model Kx which Y covers V”. Here the L-like properties of Kx always include GCH and Global Square. Examples include1. X is “0# exists”, Kx is L, Y is “strongly”.2. X is “there is a measurable cardinal”, Kx is the Dodd-Jensen core model, Y is “strongly”.3. X is “there is a Woodin cardinal”, Kx is the core model for a Woodin cardinal, Y is “weakly”.

Optimal Proofs of Determinacy

1995 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 327-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Itay Neeman
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Large Cardinals ◽  
The Other ◽  
Descriptive Set Theory ◽  
Transfer Theorem ◽  
Axiom Of Determinacy ◽  
Structural Connection ◽  
Projective Hierarchy ◽  
Descriptive Set

In this paper I shall present a method for proving determinacy from large cardinals which, in many cases, seems to yield optimal results. One of the main applications extends theorems of Martin, Steel and Woodin about determinacy within the projective hierarchy. The method can also be used to give a new proof of Woodin's theorem about determinacy in L(ℝ).The reason we look for optimal determinacy proofs is not only vanity. Such proofs serve to tighten the connection between large cardinals and descriptive set theory, letting us bring our knowledge of one subject to bear on the other, and thus increasing our understanding of both. A classic example of this is the Harrington-Martin proof that -determinacy implies -determinacy. This is an example of a transfer theorem, which assumes a certain determinacy hypothesis and proves a stronger one. While the statement of the theorem makes no mention of large cardinals, its proof goes through 0#, first proving that-determinacy ⇒ 0# exists,and then that0# exists ⇒ -determinacyMore recent examples of the connection between large cardinals and descriptive set theory include Steel's proof thatADL(ℝ) ⇒ HODL(ℝ) ⊨ GCH,see [9], and several results of Woodin about models of AD+, a strengthening of the axiom of determinacy AD which Woodin has introduced. These proofs not only use large cardinals, but also reveal a deep, structural connection between descriptive set theoretic notions and notions related to large cardinals.

Analytic sets having incomparable kleene degrees

1982 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 860-868 ◽  
Author(s):  
Galen Weitkamp
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Characteristic Functions ◽  
Primary Concern ◽  
Descriptive Set Theory ◽  
Upper Semilattice ◽  
Definable Sets ◽  
Analytic Sets ◽  
Countably Infinite ◽  
Descriptive Set

One concern of descriptive set theory is the classification of definable sets of reals. Taken loosely ‘definable’ can mean anything from projective to formally describable in the language of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZF). Recursiveness, in the case of Kleene recursion, can be a particularly informative notion of definability. Sets of integers, for example, are categorized by their positions in the upper semilattice of Turing degrees, and the algorithms for computing their characteristic functions may be taken as their defining presentations. In turn it is interesting to position the common fauna of descriptive set theory in the upper semilattice of Kleene degrees. In so doing not only do we gain a perspective on the complexity of those sets common to the study of descriptive set theory but also a refinement of the theory of analytic sets of reals. The primary concern of this paper is to calculate the relative complexity of several notable coanalytic sets of reals and display (under suitable set theoretic hypothesis) several natural solutions to Post's problem for Kleene recursion.For sets of reals A and B one says A is Kleene recursive in B (written A ≤KB) iff there is a real y so that the characteristic function XA of A is recursive (in the sense of Kleene [1959]) in y, XB and the existential integer quantifier ∃; i.e. there is an integer e so that XA(x) ≃ {e}(x, y, XB, ≃). Intuitively, membership of a real x ϵ ωω in A can be decided from an oracle for x, y and B using a computing machine with a countably infinite memory and an ability to search and manipulate that memory in finite time. A set is Kleene semirecursive in B if it is the domain of an integer valued partial function recursive in y, XB and ≃ for some real y.

A topological analog to the Rice-Shapiro index theorem

1982 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 824-832 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise Hay ◽  
Douglas Miller
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Model Theory ◽  
Index Theorem ◽  
Recursion Theory ◽  
Descriptive Set Theory ◽  
The Sixties ◽  
Turing Reducibility ◽  
Descriptive Set ◽  
Effective Descriptive Set Theory ◽  
Theory And Model

Ever since Craig-Beth and Addison-Kleene proved their versions of the Lusin-Suslin theorem, work in model theory and recursion theory has demonstrated the value of classical descriptive set theory as a source of ideas and inspirations. During the sixties in particular, J.W. Addison refined the technique of “conjecture by analogy” and used it to generate a substantial number of results in both model theory and recursion theory (see, e.g., Addison [1], [2], [3]).During the past 15 years, techniques and results from recursion theory and model theory have played an important role in the development of descriptive set theory. (Moschovakis's book [6] is an excellent reference, particularly for the use of recursion-theoretic tools.) The use of “conjecture by analogy” as a means of transferring ideas from model theory and recursion theory to descriptive set theory has developed more slowly. Some notable recent examples of this phenomenon are in Vaught [9], where some results in invariant descriptive set theory reflecting and extending model-theoretic results are obtained and others are left as conjectures (including a version of the well-known conjecture on the number of countable models) and in Hrbacek and Simpson [4], where a notion analogous to that of Turing reducibility is used to study Borel isomorphism types. Moschovakis [6] describes in detail an effective descriptive set theory based in large part on classical recursion theory.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document