scholarly journals A saturated stationary subset of ${{\mathcal P}_\ka\ka^+}$

2003 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 493-500 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masahiro Shioya
Keyword(s):  
2001 ◽  
Vol 66 (4) ◽  
pp. 1865-1883 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chaz Schlindwein

One of the main goals in the theory of forcing iteration is to formulate preservation theorems for not collapsing ω1 which are as general as possible. This line leads from c.c.c. forcings using finite support iterations to Axiom A forcings and proper forcings using countable support iterations to semi-proper forcings using revised countable support iterations, and more recently, in work of Shelah, to yet more general classes of posets. In this paper we concentrate on a special case of the very general iteration theorem of Shelah from [5, chapter XV]. The class of posets handled by this theorem includes all semi-proper posets and also includes, among others, Namba forcing.In [5, chapter XV] Shelah shows that, roughly, revised countable support forcing iterations in which the constituent posets are either semi-proper or Namba forcing or P[W] (the forcing for collapsing a stationary co-stationary subset ofwith countable conditions) do not collapse ℵ1. The iteration must contain sufficiently many cardinal collapses, for example, Levy collapses. The most easily quotable combinatorial application is the consistency (relative to a Mahlo cardinal) of ZFC + CH fails + whenever A ∪ B = ω2 then one of A or B contains an uncountable sequentially closed subset. The iteration Shelah uses to construct this model is built using P[W] to “attack” potential counterexamples, Levy collapses to ensure that the cardinals collapsed by the various P[W]'s are sufficiently well separated, and Cohen forcings to ensure the failure of CH in the final model.In this paper we give details of the iteration theorem, but we do not address the combinatorial applications such as the one quoted above.These theorems from [5, chapter XV] are closely related to earlier work of Shelah [5, chapter XI], which dealt with iterated Namba and P[W] without allowing arbitrary semi-proper forcings to be included in the iteration. By allowing the inclusion of semi-proper forcings, [5, chapter XV] generalizes the conjunction of [5, Theorem XI.3.6] with [5, Conclusion XI.6.7].


1990 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 822-830 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Jech ◽  
Saharon Shelah

AbstractIt is consistent that, for every n ≥ 2, every stationary subset of ωn consisting of ordinals of cofinality ωκ, where κ = 0 or κ ≤ n − 3, reflects fully in the set of ordinals of cofinality ωn−1. We also show that this result is best possible.


1985 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 881-894 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moti Gitik

AbstractAssuming the existence of a supercompact cardinal, we construct a model of ZFC + (There exists a nonsplitting stationary subset of ). Answering a question of Uri Abraham [A], [A-S], we prove that adding a real to the world always makes stationary


2002 ◽  
Vol 02 (01) ◽  
pp. 81-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
YO MATSUBARA ◽  
SAHARON SHELAH

We prove that if λ is a strong limit singular cardinal and κ a regular uncountable cardinal < λ, then NSκλ, the non-stationary ideal over [Formula: see text], is nowhere precipitous. We also show that under the same hypothesis every stationary subset of [Formula: see text] can be partitioned into λκ disjoint stationary sets.


2003 ◽  
Vol 68 (4) ◽  
pp. 1163-1170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sy D. Friedman

AbstractA classic result of Baumgartner-Harrington-Kleinberg [1] implies that assuming CH a stationary subset of ω1 has a CUB subset in a cardinal-perserving generic extension of V, via a forcing of cardinality ω1. Therefore, assuming that ω2L is countable: {X ∈ L ∣ X ⊆ ω1L and X has a CUB subset in a cardinal-preserving extension of L} is constructive, as it equals the set of constructible subsets of ω1L which in L are stationary. Is there a similar such result for subsets of ω2L? Building on work of M. Stanley [9], we show that there is not. We shall also consider a number of related problems, examining the extent to which they are “solvable” in the above sense, as well as denning a notion of reduction between them.


2003 ◽  
Vol 68 (2) ◽  
pp. 637-643 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Cummings ◽  
Matthew Foreman ◽  
Menachem Magidor

This note proves two theorems. The first is that it is consistent to have for every n, but not have . This is done by carefully collapsing a supercompact cardinal and adding square sequences to each ωn. The crux of the proof is that in the resulting model every stationary subset of ℵω+1 ⋂ cof(ω) reflects to an ordinal of cofinality ω1, that is to say it has stationary intersection with such an ordinal.This result contrasts with compactness properties of square shown in [3]. In that paper it is shown that if one has square at every ωn, then there is a square type sequence on the points of cofinality ωk, k > 1 in ℵω+1. In particular at points of cofinality greater than ω1 there is a strongly non-reflecting stationary set of points of countable cofinality.The second result answers a question of Džamonja, by showing that there can be no squarelike sequence above a supercompact cardinal, where “squarelike” means that one replaces the requirement that the cofinal sets be closed and unbounded by the requirement that they be stationary at all points of uncountable cofinality.


1999 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 367-375
Author(s):  
Sheldon W. Davis ◽  
Elise M. Grabner ◽  
Gray C. Grabner

A spaceXis calleds-point finite refinable (ds-point finite refinable) provided every open cover𝒰ofXhas an open refinement𝒱such that, for some (closed discrete)C⫅X,(i) for all nonemptyV∈𝒱,V∩C≠∅and(ii) for alla∈Cthe set(𝒱)a={V∈𝒱:a∈V}is finite.In this paper we distinguish these spaces, study their basic properties and raise several interesting questions. Ifλis an ordinal withcf(λ)=λ>ωandSis a stationary subset ofλthenSis nots-point finite refinable. Countably compactds-point finite refinable spaces are compact. A spaceXis irreducible of orderωif and only if it isds-point finite refinable. IfXis a strongly collectionwise Hausdorffds-point finite refinable space without isolated points thenXis irreducible.


1979 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith J. Devlin

AbstractVarious equivalents and weakenings of the combinatorial principle ◊ are considered. The paper contains both absolute results and consistency results. Also included is a new characterisation of the notion of a stationary subset of ω1.


2019 ◽  
Vol 84 (02) ◽  
pp. 684-703
Author(s):  
THOMAS GILTON ◽  
JOHN KRUEGER

AbstractWe prove from the existence of a Mahlo cardinal the consistency of the statement that 2ω = ω3 holds and every stationary subset of ${\omega _2}\mathop \cap \nolimits {\rm{cof}}\left( \omega \right)$ reflects to an ordinal less than ω2 with cofinality ω1.


2003 ◽  
Vol 68 (3) ◽  
pp. 837-845 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Krueger

AbstractWe strengthen a theorem of Gitik and Shelah [6] by showing that if κ is either weakly inaccessible or the successor of a singular cardinal and S is a stationary subset of κ such that NSκ↾S is saturated then κ ∖ S is fat. Using this theorem we derive some results about the existence of fat stationary sets. We then strengthen some results due to Baumgartner and Taylor [2], showing in particular that if I is a λ+++-saturated normal ideal on Pκλ then the conditions of being λ+-preserving, weakly presaturated, and presaturated are equivalent for I.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document