Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-7qhmt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T20:29:16.898Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Precipitous towers of normal filters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Douglas R. Burke*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154-4020, USA, E-mail: dburke@nevada.edu

Extract

In this paper we investigate towers of normal filters. These towers were first used by Woodin (see [15]). Woodin proved that if δ is a Woodin cardinal and P is the full stationary tower up to δ (P) or the countable version (Q), then the generic ultrapower is closed under < δ sequences (so the generic ultrapower is well-founded) ([14]). We show that if ℙ is a tower of height δ, δ supercompact, and the filters generating ℙ are the club filter restricted to a stationary set, then the generic ultrapower is well-founded (ℙ is precipitous). We also give some examples of non-precipitous towers. We also show that every normal filter can be extended to a V-ultrafilter with well-founded ultrapower in some generic extension of V (assuming large cardinals). Similarly for any tower of inaccessible height. This is accomplished by showing that there is a stationary set that projects to the filter or the tower and then forcing with P below this stationary set.

An important idea in our proof of precipitousness (Theorem 6.4) has the following form in Woodin's proof. If are maximal antichains (i Є ω and δ Woodin) then there is a κ < δ such that each AiVκ is semiproper, i.e.,

contains a club (relative to ∣ a∣ < κ).

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Burke, D., Splitting stationary subsets of , preprint.Google Scholar
[2]Foreman, M., Potent axioms, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 294 (1986), pp. 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Foreman, M., Magidor, M., and Shelah, S., Martins maximum, saturated ideals and non-regular ultrafilters. Part I, Annals of Mathematics, vol. 127 (1988), pp. 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Jech, T., Some combinatorial problems concerning uncountable cardinals, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 5 (1973), pp. 165198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Jech, T., Set theory, Academic Press, 1978.Google Scholar
[6]Jech, T., Some properties of δ-complete ideals defined in terms of infinite games, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 26 (1984), pp. 3145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Jech, T., Magidor, M., Mitchell, W., and Prikrv, K., Precipitous ideals, this Journal, vol. 45 (1980), pp. 18.Google Scholar
[8]Kanamori, A. and Magidor, M., The evolution of large cardinal axioms in set theory, Lecture notes in mathematics, vol. 669, 1978, pp. 99275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Kunen, Kenneth, Set theory, an introduction to independence proofs, North-Holland, 1980.Google Scholar
[10]Martin, D. A., Borel and projective games, forthcoming book.Google Scholar
[11]Martin, D. A. and Steel, J. R., A proof of projective determinacy, Journal of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 4 (1989), pp. 71125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Mitchell, W. J. and Steel, J. R., Fine structure and iteration trees, Lecture notes in logic, vol. 3, Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
[13]Woodin, H., absoluteness and supercompact cardinals, some notes, 05 15, 1985.Google Scholar
[14]Woodin, H., Lectures at UCLA-Caltech logic seminar, 19851986.Google Scholar
[15]Woodin, H., Supercompact cardinals, sets of reals and weakly homogeneous trees, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 85 (1988), pp. 65876591.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed