Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-7x8lp Total loading time: 0.279 Render date: 2021-03-06T06:33:29.997Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Forcing indestructibility of set-theoretic axioms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Bernhard KÖnig
Affiliation:
UniversitÉ Paris 7, 2 Place Jussieu, 75251 Paris Cedex 05, France Department of Mathematics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 2E4, Canada. E-mail: bkoenig@math.toronto.edu
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Various theorems for the preservation of set-theoretic axioms under forcing are proved, regarding both forcing axioms and axioms true in the Lévy collapse. These show in particular that certain applications of forcing axioms require to add generic countable sequences high up in the set-theoretic hierarchy even before collapsing everything down to ℵ1. Later we give applications, among them the consistency of MM with ℵω not being Jónsson which answers a question raised in the set theory meeting at Oberwolfach in 2005.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

[1]Bagaria, Joan, Bounded forcing axioms as principles of generic absoluteness, Archive for Mathematical Logic, vol. 39 (2000), pp. 393–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Baumgartner, James, Applications of the Proper Forcing Axiom, Handbook of set-theoretic topology (Kunen, K. and Vaughan, J.E., editors), North-Holland, 1984, pp. 913–959.Google Scholar
[3]Cummings, James, Large cardinal properties of small cardinals, Set theory (Curacao, 1995; Barcelona, 1996), Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998, pp. 23–39.Google Scholar
[4]Cummings, James, Foreman, Matthew, and Magidor, Menachem, Squares, scales and stationary reflection, Journal of Mathematical Logic, vol. 1 (2001), pp. 35–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Foreman, Matthew, Games played on Boolean algebras, this Journal, vol. 48 (1983), pp. 714–723.Google Scholar
[6]Foreman, Matthew, Magidor, Menachem, and Shelah, Saharon, Martin's Maximum, saturated ideals, and nonregular ultrafilters I, Annals of Mathematics, vol. 127 (1988), pp. 1–47.Google Scholar
[7]Kanamori, Akihiro, The Higher Infinite, Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Springer-Verlag, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Bernhard, König, Generic compactness reformulated, Archive for Mathematical Logic, vol. 43 (2004), pp. 311–326.Google Scholar
[9]König, Bernhard and Yoshinobu, Yasuo, Fragments of Martin's Maximum in generic extensions, Mathematical Logic Quarterly, vol. 50 (2004), pp. 297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]König, Bernhard and Yoshinobu, Yasuo, Kurepa-trees and Namba forcing, preprint, 2005.Google Scholar
[11]Kunen, Kenneth, Saturated ideals, this Journal, vol. 43 (1978), pp. 65–76.Google Scholar
[12]Kunen, Kenneth, Set theory, an introduction to independence proofs, North-Holland, 1980.Google Scholar
[13]Larson, Paul, Separating stationary reflection principles, this Journal, vol. 65 (2000), pp. 247–258.Google Scholar
[14]Moore, Justin, Set mapping reflection, Journal of Mathematical Logic, vol. 5 (2005), pp. 87–97.Google Scholar
[15]Shelah, Saharon, On successors of singulars. Logic colloquium '78, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 97, North-Holland, 1979, pp. 357–380.Google Scholar
[16]Shelah, Saharon, Proper forcing, Lecture notes in Mathematics, vol. 940, Springer-Verlag, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17]Shelah, Saharon, Proper and Improper Forcing, Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Springer-Verlag, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18]Todorcevic, Stevo, Localized reflection and fragments of PFA, Dimacs series, vol. 58, 2002, pp. 135–148.Google Scholar
[19]Velickovic, Boban, Forcing axioms and stationary sets, Advances in Mathematics, vol. 94 (1992), pp. 256–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[20]Woodin, W. Hugh, The Axiom of Determinacy, Forcing Axioms, and the Nonstationary Ideal, Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[21]Yoshinobu, Yasuo, Approachability and games onposets, this Journal, vol. 68 (2003), pp. 589–606.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 13 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 6th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Forcing indestructibility of set-theoretic axioms
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Forcing indestructibility of set-theoretic axioms
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Forcing indestructibility of set-theoretic axioms
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *