Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-68ccn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T09:28:18.534Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Simple forcing notions and forcing axioms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Andrzej Rosłanowski
Affiliation:
Institute of Mathematics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 91904 Jerusalem, Israel Mathematical Institute of Wroclaw University, 50384 Wroclaw, Poland E-mail: roslanow@math.huji.ac.il
Saharon Shelah
Affiliation:
Institute of Mathematics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 91904 Jerusalem, Israel Department of Mathematics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08854, USA E-mail: shelah@math.huji.ac.il

Extract

In the present paper we are interested in simple forcing notions and Forcing Axioms. A starting point for our investigations was the article [4] in which several problems were posed. We answer some of those problems here.

In the first section we deal with the problem of adding Cohen reals by simple forcing notions. Here we interpret simple as of small size. We try to establish as weak as possible versions of Martin Axiom sufficient to conclude that some forcing notions of size less than the continuum add a Cohen real. For example we show that MA(σ-centered) is enough to cause that every small σ-linked forcing notion adds a Cohen real (see Theorem 1.2) and MA(Cohen) implies that every small forcing notion adding an unbounded real adds a Cohen real (see Theorem 1.6). A new almost ωω-bounding σ-centered forcing notion ℚ appears naturally here. This forcing notion is responsible for adding unbounded reals in this sense, that MA(ℚ) implies that every small forcing notion adding a new real adds an unbounded real (see Theorem 1.13).

In the second section we are interested in Anti-Martin Axioms for simple forcing notions. Here we interpret simple as nicely definable. Our aim is to show the consistency of AMA for as large as possible class of ccc forcing notions with large continuum. It has been known that AMA(ccc) implies CH, but it has been (rightly) expected that restrictions to regular (simple) forcing notions might help.

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]Bartoszyński, Tomek and Judah, Haim, Set theory: On the structure of the real line, A. K. Peters, Wellesley, Massachusetts, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Cichoń, Jacek, Anti-Martin axiom, circulated notes, 1989.Google Scholar
[3]Jech, Thomas, Set theory, Academic Press, 1978.Google Scholar
[4]Judah, Haim and Rosłanowski, Andrzej, Martin axiom and the continuum, this Journal, vol. 60 (1995), pp. 374391.Google Scholar
[5]Miller, Arnold and Prikry, Karel, When the continuum has cofinality ω 1, Pacific Journal of Mathematics, vol. 115 (1984), pp. 399407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Shelah, Saharon, Proper and improper forcing, Perspectives in mathematical logic, Springer-Verlag, accepted.Google Scholar
[7]Shelah, Saharon, How special are Cohen and random forcings, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 88 (1994), pp. 153174.Google Scholar
[8]Todorcevic, Stevo, Remarks on Martin's axiom and the continuum hypothesis, Canadian Journal of Mathematics, vol. 43 (1991), pp. 832851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]van Douwen, Eric K. and Fleissner, William G., Definable forcing axiom: An alternative to Martin's axiom, Topology and its Applications, vol. 35 (1990), pp. 277289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar