Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-d5ftd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-03T19:56:45.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

NAMBA FORCING, WEAK APPROXIMATION, AND GUESSING

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2018

SEAN COX  and
JOHN KRUEGER
SEAN COX
Affiliation:
DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY 1015 FLOYD AVENUE PO BOX 842014 RICHMOND, VIRGINIA23284, USAE-mail:scox9@vcu.edu
JOHN KRUEGER
Affiliation:
DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS 1155 UNION CIRCLE #311430 DENTON, TX76203, USAE-mail:jkrueger@unt.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We prove a variation of Easton’s lemma for strongly proper forcings, and use it to prove that, unlike the stronger principle IGMP, GMP together with 2ω ≤ ω2 is consistent with the existence of an ω1-distributive nowhere c.c.c. forcing poset of size ω1. We introduce the idea of a weakly guessing model, and prove that many of the strong consequences of the principle GMP follow from the existence of stationarily many weakly guessing models. Using Namba forcing, we construct a model in which there are stationarily many indestructibly weakly guessing models which have a bounded countable subset not covered by any countable set in the model.

Keywords

03E0503E3503E4003E65weak ω1-approximation propertyweak ω1-guessingwGMPforcing axiomsNamba forcing

Information

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 83 , Issue 4 , December 2018 , pp. 1539 - 1565
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Symbolic Logic 2018 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Cox, S. and Krueger, J., Quotients of strongly proper forcings and guessing models, this Journal, vol. 81 (2016), no. 1, pp. 264–283.Google Scholar
Cox, S. and Krueger, J., Indestructible guessing models and the continuum. Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 239 (2017), pp. 221–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummings, J., Iterated forcing and elementary embeddings, Handbook of Set Theory (Foreman, Matthew and Kanamori, Akihiro, editors), Springer, Dordrecht, 2010, pp. 775–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foreman, M., Ideals and generic elementary embeddings, Handbook of Set Theory (Foreman, Matthew and Kanamori, Akihiro, editors), Springer, Dordrecht, 2010, pp. 885–1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foreman, M., Magidor, M., and Shelah, S., Martin’s maximum, saturated ideals and non-regular ultrafilters I. Annals of Mathematics, vol. 127 (1988), no. 1, pp. 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamkins, J., Extensions with the approximation and cover properties have no new large cardinals. Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 180 (2003), no. 3, pp. 257–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krueger, J., Internally club and approachable. Advances in Mathematics, vol. 213 (2007), no. 2, pp. 734–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, P., Separating stationary reflection principles, this Journal, vol. 65 (2000), no. 1, pp. 247–258.Google Scholar
Mitchell, W., On the Hamkins approximation property. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 144 (2006), no. 1–3, pp. 126–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Namba, K., Independence proof of (ω, ωα)-distributivity law in complete Boolean algebras. Commentarii Mathematici Universitatis Sancti Pauli, vol. 19 (1970), pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Shelah, S., Proper and Improper Forcing, Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, second ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todorčević, S., Some combinatorial properties of trees. Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society, vol. 14 (1982), no. 3, pp. 213–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viale, M., Guessing models and generalized Laver diamond. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 163 (2012), no. 11, pp. 1660–1678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viale, M. and Weiss, C., On the consistency strength of the proper forcing axiom. Advances in Mathematics, vol. 228 (2011), no. 5, pp. 2672–2687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, C., The combinatorial essence of supercompactness. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 163 (2012), no. 11, pp. 1710–1717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodin, W. H., The Axiom of Determinacy, Forcing Axioms, and the Non-Stationary Ideal, De Gruyter Series in Logic and its Applications, Vol. 1, Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar