DOCSLIB.ORG

Arxiv:Math/9606207V1 [Math.LO] 18 Jun 1996 References Conclusions 8

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arxiv:Math/9606207V1 [Math.LO] 18 Jun 1996 References Conclusions 8 MOUSE SETS MITCH RUDOMINER Abstract. In this paper we explore a connection between descriptive set theory and inner model theory. From descriptive set theory, we will take a countable, definable set of reals, A. We will then show that A = R ∩ M, where M is a canonical model from inner model theory. In technical terms, M is a “mouse”. Consequently, we say that A is a mouse set. For a concrete example of the type of set A we are working with, ω1 let ODn be the set of reals which are Σn definable over the model Lω1 (R), from an ω1 ordinal parameter. In this paper we will show that for all n ≥ 1, ODn is a mouse set. Our work extends some similar results due to D.A. Martin, J.R. Steel, and H. Woodin. Several interesting questions in this area remain open. Contents 0. Introduction 2 1. Prerequisites 6 2. Some Lightface Pointclasses in L(R) 15 3. Big Premice 32 4. A Correctness Theorem 59 5. The Ranked Iteration Game 81 6. Petite Premice 91 arXiv:math/9606207v1 [math.LO] 18 Jun 1996 7. A Comparison Theorem 100 8. Conclusions 125 References 131 Key words and phrases. large cardinals, descriptive set theory, inner model theory. 1 0. Introduction In this paper we will extend some work by D. A. Martin, J. R. Steel, and H. Woodin. We begin by describing this work. 1 If ξ is a countable ordinal and x ∈ R and n ≥ 2, then we say that x ∈ ∆n(ξ) if for 1 every real w ∈ WO such that |w| = ξ, x ∈ ∆n(w). Set 1 An = x ∈ R (∃ξ<ω1) x ∈ ∆ (ξ) . n 1 In short, An is the set of reals which are ∆n in a countable ordinal. Under the hypothesis of Projective Determinacy (PD), the sets An are of much interest to descriptive set 1 theorists. If n ≥ 2 is even then An = Cn, the largest countable Σn set. If n ≥ 3 is odd 1 1 then An = Qn, the largest countable Πn set which is closed downward under ∆n degrees. The sets An have been studied extensively by descriptive set theorists. See for example [Ke1], and [KeMaSo]. The work of Martin, Steel, and Woodin shows that there is a connection between the sets An, and certain inner models of the form L[E~ ], where E~ is a sequence of extenders. In the paper “Projectively Wellordered Inner Models” [St5], Martin, Steel, and Woodin prove the following theorem: Theorem 0.1 (Martin, Steel, Woodin). Let n ≥ 1 and suppose that there are n Woodin cardinals with a measurable cardinal above them. Let Mn be the canonical L[E~ ] model with n Woodin cardinals. Then R ∩ Mn = An+2. The above theorem is also true with n = 0. The “canonical L[E~ ] model with 0 Woodin cardinals” is just the model L. If there is a measurable cardinal, then A2 = R ∩ L. Actually, this result is true under the weaker hypothesis that R ∩ L is countable. Now let A∗ be the collection of reals which are ordinal definable in L(R). To emphasize the parallel with the sets An above, note that assuming that every game in L(R) is R determined (ADL( )), we have: ∗ 2 L(R) A = x ∈ R (∃ξ<ω1) x ∈ (∆ ) (ξ) , 1 2 ∗ 2 L(R) and A is the largest countable (Σ1) set of reals. In the paper “Inner Models with Many Woodin Cardinals” [St2], Steel and Woodin prove the following theorem: Theorem 0.2 (Steel, Woodin). Suppose that there are ω Woodin cardinals with a mea- surable cardinal above them. Let Mω be the canonical L[E~ ] model with ω Woodin cardi- nals. Then ∗ R ∩ Mω = A . Theorems 0.1 and 0.2 are obviously similar to each other. The two theorems establish a very deep connection between descriptive set theory and inner model theory. Notice that between Theorem 0.1 and Theorem 0.2 there is some room. Our goal in writing this paper was to prove a theorem, similar to the these two theorems, for pointclasses ∆ 1 2 L(R) between the ∆n pointclasses and the pointclass (∆1) . More specifically, let us say that a set of reals A is a mouse set iff A = R ∩ M for some canonical L[E~ ] model M. (To be more precise, we will take M to be a countable, iterable mouse. A mouse is a model of the form Lα[E~ ], for some ordinal α. Theorems 0.1 and 0.2 above can be restated in terms of mice.) Given a pointclass ∆ let us set: A∆ = { x ∈ R | (∃ξ<ω1) x ∈ ∆(ξ) } . Our goal in writing this paper was to find some pointclasses ∆ such that An ⊂ A∆ for ∗ all n, and A∆ ⊂ A , and then to prove that A∆ is a mouse set. To accomplish this task, first we need to have some such pointclasses ∆. In Section 2 we define some lightface pointclasses in L(R) which are similar to the pointclasses of the 2 L(R) analytical hierarchy. For ordinals α such that 1 ≤ α ≤ (δ1) , we define a sequence of ∼ pointclasses: Σ(α,n), Π(α,n), ∆(α,n) n ∈ ω . 1 For α = 1, we will have that Σ(1,n) = Σn. So our setting includes the setting of the 2 L(R) 2 L(R) analytical hierarchy. For α =(δ1) , we will have that Σ(α,0) = (Σ1) . So our setting ∼ also includes the setting of Theorem 0.2 above. 3 Then we define: A(α,n) = x ∈ R (∃ξ<ω1) x ∈ ∆(α,n)(ξ) . We leave the full technical definition of A(α,n) for later. For the sake of this introduction, it is enough to understand that A(α,n) is the set of reals which are ordinal definable in L(R), R “at the (α, n)th level.” Assuming ADL( ), these sets are very much like the analytical sets An defined above. That is, for even n, A(α,n) = C(α,n), the largest countable Σ(α,n) set. For odd n, A(α,n) = Q(α,n), the largest countable Π(α,n) set closed downward under ∆(α,n) degrees. Because of this analogy, we conjecture that, assuming there are ω Woodin cardinals, A(α,n) is a mouse set, for all (α, n). To establish this, we need to have some canonical L[E~ ] models M. In Section 3, we study mice M which are “bigger” than the models Mn mentioned in Theorem 0.1, but “smaller” than the model Mω mentioned in Theorem 0.2. But how can M have “more than” n Woodin cardinals, for each n, but “less than” ω Woodin cardinals? The answer of course is that “more than” and “less than” here refer to consistency strength. Our mice M will have the property that for each n, M satisfies that there is a transitive set model of ZFC + ∃ n Woodin Cardinals. In this paper we are not able to fully prove our conjecture that A(α,n) is a mouse set, for all (α, n). We are able to show this for some (α, n) though. Our argument has several parts, and each part works for a different set of (α, n). In the end we manage to prove ω1 that A(α,n) is a mouse set for for all (α, n) such that α ≤ ω1 , and either cof(α) >ω, or ω1 cof(α) ≤ ω and n = 0. There is nothing special about the ordinal ω1 here. The main ω1 ω1 property of ω1 which we use is the fact that all ordinals α<ω1 are simply definable from countable ordinals. It is easy to see how to extend our results somewhat beyond ω1 ω1 ω1 . Eliminating the restriction in our work to ordinals α<ω1 does not appear to be a very difficult problem. On the other hand, the restriction to n = 0 in the case that cof(α) ≤ ω seems to be more difficult to overcome. In fact, at the very first step, we are not even able to show that the set A(2,1) is a mouse set. We believe that the full conjecture, for all (α, n), is a very interesting open problem. In this paper we develop some ideas which should be useful towards solving this problem. 4 To explain the roles of the various sections of this paper, we will describe our strategy for proving the conjecture that A(α,n) is a mouse set. Our strategy is a natural general- ization of the strategy used by Martin, Steel, and Woodin in [St5]. The strategy begins with defining, for each ordinal α and each n ∈ ω, the notion of a mouse M being (α, n)- big. If a mouse is (α, n)-big then it satisfies a certain large cardinal hypothesis which is stronger than the hypothesis “∃k Woodin cardinals”, for all k ∈ ω, but weaker than the hypothesis “∃ω Woodin cardinals.” If a mouse is not (α, n)-big, we call it (α, n)-small. The definition of (α, n)-big is given in Section 3. Our definition there only works for ω1 α ≤ ω1 . The next step in our strategy is to prove a theorem which states that if M is a countable, iterable mouse and M is (α, n)-big, then A(α,n) ⊆ R ∩ M. We prove such a theorem in Section 4. The next step in our strategy is to define, for each ordinal α and each n ∈ ω, the notion of a mouse M being Π(α,n)-iterable.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Set-Theoretic Geology, the Ultimate Inner Model, and New Axioms
    Set-theoretic Geology, the Ultimate Inner Model, and New Axioms Justin William Henry Cavitt (860) 949-5686 [email protected] Advisor: W. Hugh Woodin Harvard University March 20, 2017 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics and Philosophy Contents 1 Introduction 2 1.1 Author’s Note . .4 1.2 Acknowledgements . .4 2 The Independence Problem 5 2.1 Gödelian Independence and Consistency Strength . .5 2.2 Forcing and Natural Independence . .7 2.2.1 Basics of Forcing . .8 2.2.2 Forcing Facts . 11 2.2.3 The Space of All Forcing Extensions: The Generic Multiverse 15 2.3 Recap . 16 3 Approaches to New Axioms 17 3.1 Large Cardinals . 17 3.2 Inner Model Theory . 25 3.2.1 Basic Facts . 26 3.2.2 The Constructible Universe . 30 3.2.3 Other Inner Models . 35 3.2.4 Relative Constructibility . 38 3.3 Recap . 39 4 Ultimate L 40 4.1 The Axiom V = Ultimate L ..................... 41 4.2 Central Features of Ultimate L .................... 42 4.3 Further Philosophical Considerations . 47 4.4 Recap . 51 1 5 Set-theoretic Geology 52 5.1 Preliminaries . 52 5.2 The Downward Directed Grounds Hypothesis . 54 5.2.1 Bukovský’s Theorem . 54 5.2.2 The Main Argument . 61 5.3 Main Results . 65 5.4 Recap . 74 6 Conclusion 74 7 Appendix 75 7.1 Notation . 75 7.2 The ZFC Axioms . 76 7.3 The Ordinals . 77 7.4 The Universe of Sets . 77 7.5 Transitive Models and Absoluteness .
    [Show full text]
  • Are Large Cardinal Axioms Restrictive?
    Are Large Cardinal Axioms Restrictive? Neil Barton∗ 24 June 2020y Abstract The independence phenomenon in set theory, while perva- sive, can be partially addressed through the use of large cardinal axioms. A commonly assumed idea is that large cardinal axioms are species of maximality principles. In this paper, I argue that whether or not large cardinal axioms count as maximality prin- ciples depends on prior commitments concerning the richness of the subset forming operation. In particular I argue that there is a conception of maximality through absoluteness, on which large cardinal axioms are restrictive. I argue, however, that large cardi- nals are still important axioms of set theory and can play many of their usual foundational roles. Introduction Large cardinal axioms are widely viewed as some of the best candi- dates for new axioms of set theory. They are (apparently) linearly ordered by consistency strength, have substantial mathematical con- sequences for questions independent from ZFC (such as consistency statements and Projective Determinacy1), and appear natural to the ∗Fachbereich Philosophie, University of Konstanz. E-mail: neil.barton@uni- konstanz.de. yI would like to thank David Aspero,´ David Fernandez-Bret´ on,´ Monroe Eskew, Sy-David Friedman, Victoria Gitman, Luca Incurvati, Michael Potter, Chris Scam- bler, Giorgio Venturi, Matteo Viale, Kameryn Williams and audiences in Cambridge, New York, Konstanz, and Sao˜ Paulo for helpful discussion. Two anonymous ref- erees also provided helpful comments, and I am grateful for their input. I am also very grateful for the generous support of the FWF (Austrian Science Fund) through Project P 28420 (The Hyperuniverse Programme) and the VolkswagenStiftung through the project Forcing: Conceptual Change in the Foundations of Mathematics.
    [Show full text]
  • UC Irvine UC Irvine Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    UC Irvine UC Irvine Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Axiom Selection by Maximization: V = Ultimate L vs Forcing Axioms Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9875g511 Author Schatz, Jeffrey Robert Publication Date 2019 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE Axiom Selection by Maximization: V = Ultimate L vs Forcing Axioms DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Philosophy by Jeffrey Robert Schatz Dissertation Committee: Distinguished Professor Penelope Maddy, Chair Professor Toby Meadows Dean’s Professor Kai Wehmeier Professor Jeremy Heis 2019 All materials c 2019 Jeffrey Robert Schatz DEDICATION To Mike and Lori Schatz for always encouraging me to pursue my goals AND In memory of Jackie, a true and honest friend. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv CURRICULUM VITAE vi ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION vii CHAPTER 1: Two Contemporary Candidates for A Strong Theory of Sets 1 1 The Axiomatization of Set Theory and The Question of Axiom Selection 2 1.1 The Inner Model Program 14 1.2 The Forcing Axiom Program 27 1.3 How to Settle This Dispute? 36 1.4 CHAPTER 2: Axiom Selection and the Maxim of ‘Maximize’ 38 2 ‘Maximize’ as a Methodological Maxim 39 2.1 Two Notions of Maximize 43 2.2 Re-characterizing M-Max for Extensions of ZFC 50 2.3 CHAPTER 3: Applying ‘Maximize’ to Contemporary Axiom Candidates 53 3 Towards a Theory for Ultimate L 54 3.1 S-Max:
    [Show full text]
  • Deconstructing Inner Model Theory
    Deconstructing inner model theory Ralf-Dieter Schindler John Steel Martin Zeman October 17, 2000 1 Introduction In this paper we shall repair some errors and fill some gaps in the inner model theory of [2]. The problems we shall address affect some quite basic definitions and proofs. We shall be concerned with condensation properties of canonical inner models constructed from coherent sequences E~ of extenders as in [2]. Con- densation results have the general form: if x is definable in a certain way E~ E~ E~ over a level Jα , then either x ∈ Jα , or else from x we can reconstruct Jα in a simple way. The first condensation property considered in [2] is the initial segment condition, or ISC. In section 1 we show that the version of this condition described in [2] is too strong, in that no coherent E~ in which the extenders are indexed in the manner of [2], and which is such that L[E~ ] satisfies the mild large cardinal hypothesis that there is a cardinal which is strong past a measurable, can satisfy the full ISC of [2]. It follows that the coherent sequences constructed in [2] do not satisfy the ISC of [2]. We shall describe the weaker ISC which these sequences do satisfy, and indicate the small changes in the arguments of [2] this new condition requires. In section 2, we fill a gap in the proof that the standard parameters of a sufficiently iterable premouse are solid. This is Theorem 8.1 of [2], one of its central fine structural results.
    [Show full text]
  • Inner Model Theoretic Geology∗
    Inner model theoretic geology∗ Gunter Fuchsy Ralf Schindler November 4, 2015 Abstract One of the basic concepts of set theoretic geology is the mantle of a model of set theory V: it is the intersection of all grounds of V, that is, of all inner models M of V such that V is a set-forcing extension of M. The main theme of the present paper is to identify situations in which the mantle turns out to be a fine structural extender model. The first main result is that this is the case when the universe is constructible from a set and there is an inner model with a Woodin cardinal. The second situation like that arises if L[E] is an extender model that is iterable in V but not internally iterable, as guided by P -constructions, L[E] has no strong cardinal, and the extender sequence E is ordinal definable in L[E] and its forcing extensions by collapsing a cutpoint to ! (in an appropriate sense). The third main result concerns the Solid Core of a model of set theory. This is the union of all sets that are constructible from a set of ordinals that cannot be added by set-forcing to an inner model. The main result here is that if there is an inner model with a Woodin cardinal, then the solid core is a fine-structural extender model. 1 Introduction In [3], the authors introduced several types of inner models which are defined following the paradigm of \undoing" forcing. Thus, the mantle M of a model of set theory V is the intersection of all of its ground models (i.e., the intersection of all ∗AMS MSC 2010: 03E35, 03E40, 03E45, 03E47, 03E55.
    [Show full text]
  • Inner Models from Extended Logics: Part 1*
    Inner Models from Extended Logics: Part 1* Juliette Kennedy† Menachem Magidor‡ Helsinki Jerusalem Jouko Va¨an¨ anen¨ § Helsinki and Amsterdam December 15, 2020 Abstract If we replace first order logic by second order logic in the original def- inition of Godel’s¨ inner model L, we obtain HOD ([33]). In this paper we consider inner models that arise if we replace first order logic by a logic that has some, but not all, of the strength of second order logic. Typical examples are the extensions of first order logic by generalized quantifiers, such as the Magidor-Malitz quantifier ([24]), the cofinality quantifier ([35]), or station- ary logic ([6]). Our first set of results show that both L and HOD manifest some amount of formalism freeness in the sense that they are not very sen- sitive to the choice of the underlying logic. Our second set of results shows that the cofinality quantifier gives rise to a new robust inner model between L and HOD. We show, among other things, that assuming a proper class of Woodin cardinals the regular cardinals > @1 of V are weakly compact in the inner model arising from the cofinality quantifier and the theory of that model is (set) forcing absolute and independent of the cofinality in question. *The authors would like to thank the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences for its hospitality during the programme Mathematical, Foundational and Computational Aspects of the Higher Infinite supported by EPSRC Grant Number EP/K032208/1. The authors are grateful to John Steel, Philip Welch and Hugh Woodin for comments on the results presented here.
    [Show full text]
  • Large Cardinals and the Iterative Conception of Set
    Large cardinals and the iterative conception of set Neil Barton∗ 4 December 2017y Abstract The independence phenomenon in set theory, while pervasive, can be par- tially addressed through the use of large cardinal axioms. One idea sometimes alluded to is that maximality considerations speak in favour of large cardinal ax- ioms consistent with ZFC, since it appears to be ‘possible’ (in some sense) to continue the hierarchy far enough to generate the relevant transfinite number. In this paper, we argue against this idea based on a priority of subset formation under the iterative conception. In particular, we argue that there are several con- ceptions of maximality that justify the consistency but falsity of large cardinal axioms. We argue that the arguments we provide are illuminating for the debate concerning the justification of new axioms in iteratively-founded set theory. Introduction Large cardinal axioms (discussed in detail below) are widely viewed as some of the best candidates for new axioms of set theory. They are (apparently) linearly ordered by consistency strength, have substantial mathematical consequences for indepen- dence results (both as a tool for generating new models and for consequences within the models in which they reside), and often appear natural to the working set theo- rist, providing fine-grained information about different properties of transfinite sets. They are considered mathematically interesting and central for the study of set the- ory and its philosophy. In this paper, we do not deny any of the above views. We will, however, argue that the status of large cardinal axioms as maximality principles is questionable.
    [Show full text]
  • Contributions to Descriptive Inner Model Theory by Trevor Miles Wilson Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics University of California, Berkeley Professor John R
    Contributions to Descriptive Inner Model Theory by Trevor Miles Wilson A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor John R. Steel, Chair Professor W. Hugh Woodin Professor Sherrilyn Roush Fall 2012 Abstract Contributions to Descriptive Inner Model Theory by Trevor Miles Wilson Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics University of California, Berkeley Professor John R. Steel, Chair Descriptive inner model theory is the study of connections between descript- ive set theory and inner model theory. Such connections form the basis of the core model induction, which we use to prove relative consistency results relating strong forms of the Axiom of Determinacy with the existence of a strong ideal on }!1 (R) having a certain property related to homogeneity. The main innovation is a unified approach to the \gap in scales" step of the core model induction. 1 Contents Introduction iii Acknowledgements v Chapter 1. Forcing strong ideals from determinacy 1 1.1. The theory \ADR + Θ is regular" 1 1.2. Col(!; R)-generic ultrapowers 2 1.3. A covering property for ideals in generic extensions 5 1.4. The covering property for NS!1;R 8 1.5. A c-dense ideal with the covering property 10 Chapter 2. The core model induction 13 2.1. Model operators 14 2.2. F -mice 18 2.3. The Kc;F construction and the KF existence dichotomy 22 F;] 2.4. M1 from a strong pseudo-homogeneous ideal 28 2.5.
    [Show full text]
  • Contributions to Descriptive Inner Model Theory by Trevor Miles Wilson Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics University of California, Berkeley Professor John R
    Contributions to Descriptive Inner Model Theory by Trevor Miles Wilson A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor John R. Steel, Chair Professor W. Hugh Woodin Professor Sherrilyn Roush Fall 2012 Abstract Contributions to Descriptive Inner Model Theory by Trevor Miles Wilson Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics University of California, Berkeley Professor John R. Steel, Chair Descriptive inner model theory is the study of connections between descript- ive set theory and inner model theory. Such connections form the basis of the core model induction, which we use to prove relative consistency results relating strong forms of the Axiom of Determinacy with the existence of a strong ideal on }!1 (R) having a certain property related to homogeneity. The main innovation is a unified approach to the \gap in scales" step of the core model induction. 1 Contents Introduction iii Acknowledgements v Chapter 1. Forcing strong ideals from determinacy 1 1.1. The theory \ADR + Θ is regular" 1 1.2. Col(!; R)-generic ultrapowers 2 1.3. A covering property for ideals in generic extensions 5 1.4. The covering property for NS!1;R 8 1.5. A c-dense ideal with the covering property 10 Chapter 2. The core model induction 13 2.1. Model operators 14 2.2. F -mice 18 2.3. The Kc;F construction and the KF existence dichotomy 22 F;] 2.4. M1 from a strong pseudo-homogeneous ideal 28 2.5.
    [Show full text]
  • An Outline of Inner Model Theory
    An Outline of Inner Model Theory John R. Steel October 26, 2006 2 Contents I AnOutlineofInnerModelTheory 5 by John R. Steel 1Introduction ............................. 5 2Premice................................ 6 2.1 Extenders .......................... 6 2.2 Fine Extender Sequences . 9 2.3 The Levy Hierarchy, Cores, and Soundness . 13 2.4 Fine structure and ultrapowers . 18 3 IterationTreesandComparison . 20 3.1 Iterationtrees. .... ... .... ... .... ... .. 22 3.2 Thecomparisonprocess . 27 4 TheDodd-JensenLemma. 32 4.1 Thecopyingconstruction . 32 4.2 TheDodd-JensenLemma . 37 4.3 The Weak Dodd-Jensen Property . 39 5 SolidityandCondensation . 42 6 Background-Certified Fine Extender Sequences . 49 6.1 Kc constructions ... ... .... ... .... ... .. 50 6.2 The iterability of Kc .................... 52 6.3 Large cardinals in Kc .................... 61 7 The reals of Mω ........................... 63 7.1 Iteration strategies in L(R) ................ 64 7.2 Correctness and genericity iterations . 69 R 8 HODL( ) belowΘ.......................... 80 3 4 CONTENTS I. An Outline of Inner Model Theory John R. Steel 1. Introduction This article is an exposition of the theory of canonical inner models for large cardinal hypotheses, or extender models. We hope to convey the most important ideas and methods of this theory without sinking into the morass of fine-structural detail surrounding them. The resulting outline should be accessible to anyone familiar with the theory of iterated ultrapowers and L[µ] contained in Kunen’s paper [14], and with the fine structure theory for L contained in Jensen’s paper [11]. We shall present basic inner model theory in what is roughly the greatest generality in which it is currently known. This means that the theory we shall outline applies to extender models which may satisfy large cardinal hypotheses as strong as “There is a Woodin cardinal which is a limit of Woodin cardinals”.
    [Show full text]
  • Iteration Trees
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 7. Number I. January 1994 ITERATION TREES D. A. MARTIN AND J. R. STEEL O. INTRODUCTION In this paper we shall develop some ideas which lead to a proof of the fol- lowing Theorem. Suppose there are n Woodin cardinals, where n < w. Then there is a proper class model Mn such that Mn F ZFC + «There are n Woodin cardinals" 1 + "lR has a Lln+2 wellorder." This theorem is best possible, in the sense that if there are n Woodin cardi- . 1 . nals and a measurable cardinal above them all, then lR has no Lln+2 well order [ShW], and in fact I1~+1 determinacy holds [MS]. The theorem shows that the large cardinal hypothesis used to prove I1~+1 determinacy in [MS] cannot be substantially improved. Our theorem is an application of the theory of core models or canonical inner models for large cardinal hypotheses. Our work develops further some of the basic ideas of this theory. The theory itself has many other applications, particularly in the realm of relative consistency results. (As a quotable paradigm for a broad class of results, let us mention the following theorem of Solovay and Shelah: ZF + DC + "All sets of reals are Lebesgue measurable" is consistent if and only if ZFC + "There is an inaccessible cardinal" is consistent. In the "only if' direction, the model that one produces of ZFC + "There is an inaccessible cardinal" is a core model and, in fact, the smallest core model, Godel's L.) We shall begin with a general description of core model theory, of some of its history, and of the advance we have made.
    [Show full text]
  • [Math.LO] 13 Jun 2012 Descriptive Inner Model Theory
    Descriptive inner model theory ∗† Grigor Sargsyan ‡ Department of Mathematics Rutgers University Hill Center for the Mathematical Sciences 110 Frelinghuysen Rd. Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA http://math.rutgers.edu/∼gs481 [email protected] Dedicated to my father Edvard Sargsyan on the occasion of his 60th birthday June 14, 2012 Abstract The purpose of this paper is to outline some recent progress in descriptive inner model theory, a branch of set theory which studies descriptive set theoretic and inner model theoretic objects using tools from both areas. There are several interlaced problems that lie on the border of these two areas of set theory, but one that has been rather central for almost two decades is the conjecture known as the Mouse Set Conjecture (MSC). One arXiv:1206.2712v1 [math.LO] 13 Jun 2012 particular motivation for resolving MSC is that it provides grounds for solving the inner model problem which dates back to 1960s. There have been some new partial results on MSC and the methods used to prove the new instances suggest a general program for solving the full conjecture. It is then our goal to communicate the ideas of this program to the community at large. The program of constructing canonical inner models for large cardinals has been a source of increasingly sophisticated ideas leading to a beautiful theory of canonical models of fragments ∗2000 Mathematics Subject Classifications: 03E15, 03E45, 03E60. †Keywords: Mouse, inner model theory, descriptive set theory, hod mouse. ‡This material is partially based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No DMS-0902628.
    [Show full text]