DOCSLIB.ORG

Contributions to Descriptive Inner Model Theory by Trevor Miles Wilson Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics University of California, Berkeley Professor John R

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. The coarse and fine-structural mouse witness conditions 33 2.6. Hyperprojective determinacy from a strong pseudo-homogeneous ideal 34 Chapter 3. The next Suslin cardinal in ZF + DCR 37 3.1. A local notion of ordinal definability 37 3.2. The envelope of a pointclass 40 3.3. Digression: gaps in L(R) 44 3.4. The models L[T; x] 47 3.5. Countably complete measures and towers 50 3.6. Semi-scales with norms in the envelope 53 + 3.7. Digression: ADR from divergent models of AD 56 3.8. Digression: ADR in certain derived models 56 Chapter 4. Sealing the envelope 61 4.1. Scales with norms in the envelope 61 4.2. Local term-capturing 64 4.3. Self-justifying systems and condensation 66 4.4. Sealing the envelope with a strong pseudo-homogeneous ideal 69 4.5. AD from a strong pseudo-homogeneous ideal 72 4.6. AD + θ0 < Θ from a strong pseudo-homogeneous ideal 74 i Chapter 5. Sealing the envelope: an alternative method 79 5.1. Quasi-iterable pre-mice and M1 79 5.2. Full hulls 80 5.3. The full factors property 82 5.4. Application to strong pseudo-homogeneous ideals 85 Bibliography 87 Index 91 ii Introduction We will prove the following relative consistency statements. Main Theorem. (1) Assuming ZF + ADR + \Θ is regular," there is a forcing extension where ZFC holds, (a) The nonstationary ideal NS!1;R is strong and pseudo-homogeneous, and (b) There is a c-dense pseudo-homogeneous ideal on }!1 (R). (2) Assuming ZFC and the existence of a strong pseudo-homogeneous ideal on }!1 (R), there is an inner model of ZF + AD + θ0 < Θ containing all the reals and ordinals. The theories ADR + “Θ is regular" and AD + θ0 < Θ are both natural strengthenings of AD, the Axiom of Determinacy. Strength is a property of ideals introduced in [1] that is intermediate between precipitousness and pre-saturation. Pseudo-homogeneity is a property of ideals introduced in Chapter 1 that is similar to homogeneity except that it pertains to the theory of the generic ultrapower rather than to that of the generic extension. The ideals in the conclusions of (1a) and (1b) both satisfy the hypothesis of (2), and in turn the model of AD + θ0 < Θ in the conclusion of (2) is a significant step toward constructing a model of ADR + “Θ is regular" and thereby acheving equiconsistency. Throughout the text we assume the following base theory unless otherwise noted: Assume ZF + DCR: So a theorem is a theorem of ZF + DCR, and AD means AD + ZF + DCR, for example. Part (1) of the Main Theorem, the forcing direction, is established in Chapter 1. We define a fairly general class of forcing notions P that can be used to force the conclusion of (1). This class of forcing notions contains P = Col(!1; R) and P = Pmax, showing respectively that we can add CH or :CH to the conclusion. These forcing extensions satisfy c-DC and we get full AC by a second forcing with Col(Θ;}(R)) whose role in the argument is negligible. We show that these forcing extensions have ideals I with the ordinal covering property, which says that for every function }!1 (R) ! Ord there are densely many I-positive sets on which the function agrees with a function in the ground model. The ordinal covering property in turn can be used to show that I is strong, and together with the homogeneity of P, to show that I is pseudo-homogeneous. The remaining chapters are all devoted to establishing the inner model direction (2) of the Main Theorem. From a strong pseudo-homogeneous ideal on }!1 (R) we construct an inner model of AD + θ0 < Θ via a core model induction. The basic idea of the core model induction is to analyze the extent of determinacy using mice with Woodin cardinals. The mice with Woodin cardinals themselves are obtained by core model theory, namely the Kc constructions of [40] and relativized versions that we call Kc;F constructions. Our core model induction argument is similar to that used to prove the following related theorem: Theorem (Ketchersid [18]). If ZFC + CH holds, the nonstationary ideal NS!1 is !1- dense below a stationary set, and the corresponding generic elementary embedding j Ord iii is independent of the generic filter, then there is an inner model of AD + θ0 < Θ containing all the reals and ordinals. By a theorem whose proof is outlined in Sargsyan's thesis [30], the conclusion of Ketcher- sid's theorem can be strengthened to the existence of an inner model of ADR +“Θ is regular" containing all the reals and ordinals. This produces an equiconsistency because Woodin has shown in unpublished work that the hypothesis can be forced from ADR + “Θ is regular" by a similar method to the one we use to prove (1) of the Main Theorem. The primary difference from Ketchersid's theorem is that our ideal is not assumed to be dense or even pre-saturated but merely strong. A generic ultrapower Ult(V; H) by a strong ideal may fail to contain all the reals of the generic extension V [H]. Although strong ideals were introduced thirty years ago in [1] it was not known how to derive significant large cardinal strength from them until recently. In [3] the existence of a strong ideal is shown to be equiconsistent with the existence of a Woodin cardinal. Another difference is that we take a new approach to the \gap in scales" case of the core model induction, which first occurs when going beyond hyperprojective determinacy. In Chapter 3, which can be read independently of the rest of the paper, we develop some descriptive-set-theoretic tools for analyzing a gap in scales. Then in Chapters 4 and 5 we present two parallel methods for \sealing" the gap; one using weakly homogeneous trees and the other using directed systems of quasi-iterable pre-mice. These methods are inter- changable in our argument except that the latter depends on a conjecture (Conjecture 5.1.2) and so it is not officially part of the proof of the Main Theorem. Changing the approach to the \gap in scales" case is not necessary to prove the Main Theorem but we have chosen to do so because it results in a substantial simplification of the argument. In particular, it erases the distinctions between weak and strong gaps, and between gaps that end inside a premouse over R and those that do not. The Main Theorem is a step toward our original goal, which was to find a theory sat- isfied by the Pmax extension of a model of ADR + “Θ is regular" that is equiconsistent with the theory ADR + “Θ is regular." Originally it was anticipated that this theory would in- volve forcing axioms and properties of the nonstationary ideal on !1 because these are the statements that Pmax was designed to force. For example, under ADR + “Θ is regular" the forcing axiom MM(c), which is Martin's Maximum for posets no larger than the continuum, is forced by Pmax. In turn MM(c) implies that AD holds in L(R) (Steel{Zoble [38]) and is expected to be stronger, possibly equiconsistent with ADR + “Θ is regular" itself. However, determining the consistency strength of MM(c) appears to be a hard problem because the known methods for getting a model of AD + θ0 < Θ, including those of Chapters 4 and 5, do not seem to apply. iv Acknowledgements I would like to thank my advisor, John Steel, for always listening patiently and for gently correcting my frequent mistakes. I also thank Hugh Woodin for explaining his proof of Theorem 3.6.5 and allowing me to include it here, and Paul Larson for several corrections on earlier drafts. Finally, I thank Alekos Kechris for introducing me to research in set theory. v CHAPTER 1 Forcing strong ideals from determinacy In this chapter we prove the forcing direction (1) of the Main Theorem.
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]
  • Axiomatic Set Teory P.D.Welch
    Axiomatic Set Teory P.D.Welch. August 16, 2020 Contents Page 1 Axioms and Formal Systems 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Preliminaries: axioms and formal systems. 3 1.2.1 The formal language of ZF set theory; terms 4 1.2.2 The Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms 7 1.3 Transfinite Recursion 9 1.4 Relativisation of terms and formulae 11 2 Initial segments of the Universe 17 2.1 Singular ordinals: cofinality 17 2.1.1 Cofinality 17 2.1.2 Normal Functions and closed and unbounded classes 19 2.1.3 Stationary Sets 22 2.2 Some further cardinal arithmetic 24 2.3 Transitive Models 25 2.4 The H sets 27 2.4.1 H - the hereditarily finite sets 28 2.4.2 H - the hereditarily countable sets 29 2.5 The Montague-Levy Reflection theorem 30 2.5.1 Absoluteness 30 2.5.2 Reflection Theorems 32 2.6 Inaccessible Cardinals 34 2.6.1 Inaccessible cardinals 35 2.6.2 A menagerie of other large cardinals 36 3 Formalising semantics within ZF 39 3.1 Definite terms and formulae 39 3.1.1 The non-finite axiomatisability of ZF 44 3.2 Formalising syntax 45 3.3 Formalising the satisfaction relation 46 3.4 Formalising definability: the function Def. 47 3.5 More on correctness and consistency 48 ii iii 3.5.1 Incompleteness and Consistency Arguments 50 4 The Constructible Hierarchy 53 4.1 The L -hierarchy 53 4.2 The Axiom of Choice in L 56 4.3 The Axiom of Constructibility 57 4.4 The Generalised Continuum Hypothesis in L.
    [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]
  • Small Cardinals and Small Efimov Spaces 3
    SMALL CARDINALS AND SMALL EFIMOV SPACES WILL BRIAN AND ALAN DOW Abstract. We introduce and analyze a new cardinal characteristic of the continuum, the splitting number of the reals, denoted s(R). This number is connected to Efimov’s problem, which asks whether every infinite compact Hausdorff space must contain either a non-trivial con- vergent sequence, or else a copy of βN. 1. Introduction This paper is about a new cardinal characteristic of the continuum, the splitting number of the reals, denoted s(R). Definition 1.1. If U and A are infinite sets, we say that U splits A provided that both A ∩ U and A \ U are infinite. The cardinal number s(R) is defined as the smallest cardinality of a collection U of open subsets of R such that every infinite A ⊆ R is split by some U ∈U. In this definition, R is assumed to have its usual topology. The number s(R) is a topological variant of the splitting number s, and is a cardinal characteristic of the continuum in the sense of [2]. Most of this paper is devoted to understanding the place of s(R) among the classical cardinal characteristics of the continuum. Our main achievement along these lines is to determine completely the place of s(R) in Cichoń’s diagram. More precisely, for every cardinal κ appearing in Cichoń’s diagram, we prove either that κ is a (consistently strict) lower bound for s(R), or that κ is a (consistently strict) upper bound for s(R), or else that each of κ< s(R) and s(R) < κ is consistent.
    [Show full text]
  • An Outline of Algebraic Set Theory
    An Outline of Algebraic Set Theory Steve Awodey Dedicated to Saunders Mac Lane, 1909–2005 Abstract This survey article is intended to introduce the reader to the field of Algebraic Set Theory, in which models of set theory of a new and fascinating kind are determined algebraically. The method is quite robust, admitting adjustment in several respects to model different theories including classical, intuitionistic, bounded, and predicative ones. Under this scheme some familiar set theoretic properties are related to algebraic ones, like freeness, while others result from logical constraints, like definability. The overall theory is complete in two important respects: conventional elementary set theory axiomatizes the class of algebraic models, and the axioms provided for the abstract algebraic framework itself are also complete with respect to a range of natural models consisting of “ideals” of sets, suitably defined. Some previous results involving realizability, forcing, and sheaf models are subsumed, and the prospects for further such unification seem bright. 1 Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 The category of classes 10 2.1 Smallmaps ............................ 12 2.2 Powerclasses............................ 14 2.3 UniversesandInfinity . 15 2.4 Classcategories .......................... 16 2.5 Thetoposofsets ......................... 17 3 Algebraic models of set theory 18 3.1 ThesettheoryBIST ....................... 18 3.2 Algebraic soundness of BIST . 20 3.3 Algebraic completeness of BIST . 21 4 Classes as ideals of sets 23 4.1 Smallmapsandideals . .. .. 24 4.2 Powerclasses and universes . 26 4.3 Conservativity........................... 29 5 Ideal models 29 5.1 Freealgebras ........................... 29 5.2 Collection ............................. 30 5.3 Idealcompleteness . .. .. 32 6 Variations 33 References 36 2 1 Introduction Algebraic set theory (AST) is a new approach to the construction of models of set theory, invented by Andr´eJoyal and Ieke Moerdijk and first presented in [16].
    [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]
  • Arxiv:1710.03586V1 [Math.LO] 10 Oct 2017 Strong Compactness and the Ultrapower Axiom
    Strong Compactness and the Ultrapower Axiom Gabriel Goldberg October 11, 2017 1 Some consequences of UA We announce some recent results relevant to the inner model problem. These results involve the development of an abstract comparison theory from a hy- pothesis called the Ultrapower Axiom, a natural generalization to larger car- dinals of the assumption that the Mitchell order on normal measures is linear. Roughly, it says that any pair of ultrapowers can be ultrapowered to a com- mon ultrapower. The formal statement is not very different. Let Uf denote the class of countably complete ultrafilters. MU Ultrapower Axiom. For any U0, U1 ∈ Uf, there exist W0 ∈ Uf 0 and MU W1 ∈ Uf 1 such that M M U0 U1 MW0 = MW1 and M M U0 U1 jW0 ◦ jU0 = jW1 ◦ jU1 The Ultrapower Axiom, which we will refer to from now on as UA, holds in all known inner models. This is a basic consequence of the methodology used to build these models, the comparison process. For example, assuming there arXiv:1710.03586v1 [math.LO] 10 Oct 2017 is a proper class of strong cardinals and V = HOD, UA follows from Woodin’s principle Weak Comparison [1], which is an immediate consequence of the basic comparison lemma used to construct and analyze canonical inner models. These hypotheses are just an artifact of the statement of Weak Comparison, and in fact the methodology of inner model theory simply cannot produce models in which UA fails (although of course it can produce models in which V =6 HOD and there are no strong cardinals).
    [Show full text]
  • On Lattices and Their Ideal Lattices, and Posets and Their Ideal Posets
    This is the final preprint version of a paper which appeared at Tbilisi Math. J. 1 (2008) 89-103. Published version accessible to subscribers at http://www.tcms.org.ge/Journals/TMJ/Volume1/Xpapers/tmj1_6.pdf On lattices and their ideal lattices, and posets and their ideal posets George M. Bergman 1 ∗ 1 Department of Mathematics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3840, USA E-mail: [email protected] Abstract For P a poset or lattice, let Id(P ) denote the poset, respectively, lattice, of upward directed downsets in P; including the empty set, and let id(P ) = Id(P )−f?g: This note obtains various results to the effect that Id(P ) is always, and id(P ) often, \essentially larger" than P: In the first vein, we find that a poset P admits no <-respecting map (and so in particular, no one-to-one isotone map) from Id(P ) into P; and, going the other way, that an upper semilattice P admits no semilattice homomorphism from any subsemilattice of itself onto Id(P ): The slightly smaller object id(P ) is known to be isomorphic to P if and only if P has ascending chain condition. This result is strength- ened to say that the only posets P0 such that for every natural num- n ber n there exists a poset Pn with id (Pn) =∼ P0 are those having ascending chain condition. On the other hand, a wide class of cases is noted where id(P ) is embeddable in P: Counterexamples are given to many variants of the statements proved.
    [Show full text]
  • The Set-Theoretic Universe $ V $ Is Not Necessarily a Class-Forcing
    THE SET-THEORETIC UNIVERSE V IS NOT NECESSARILY A CLASS-FORCING EXTENSION OF HOD JOEL DAVID HAMKINS AND JONAS REITZ Abstract. In light of the celebrated theorem of Vopˇenka [VH72], proving in ZFC that every set is generic over HOD, it is natural to inquire whether the set-theoretic universe V must be a class-forcing extension of HOD by some possibly proper-class forcing notion in HOD. We show, negatively, that if ZFC is consistent, then there is a model of ZFC that is not a class-forcing extension of its HOD for any class forcing notion definable in HOD and with definable forcing relations there (allowing parameters). Meanwhile, S. Friedman [Fri12] showed, positively, that if one augments HOD with a certain ZFC-amenable class A, definable in V , then the set-theoretic universe V is a class-forcing extension of the expanded structure hHOD, ∈,Ai. Our result shows that this augmentation process can be necessary. The same example shows that V is not necessarily a class-forcing extension of the mantle, and the method provides counterexamples to the intermediate model property, namely, a class-forcing extension V ⊆ W ⊆ V [G] with an intermediate transitive inner model W that is neither a class-forcing extension of V nor a ground model of V [G] by any definable class forcing notion with definable forcing relations. 1. Introduction In 1972, Vopˇenka proved the following celebrated result. Theorem 1 (Vopˇenka [VH72]). If V = L[A] where A is a set of ordinals, then V is a forcing extension of the inner model HOD.
    [Show full text]
  • Forcing and the Universe of Sets: Must We Lose Insight?
    Forcing and the Universe of Sets: Must we lose insight? Neil Barton∗ 29 January 2018y Abstract A central area of current philosophical debate in the foundations of mathe- matics concerns whether or not there is a single, maximal, universe of set theory. Universists maintain that there is such a universe, while Multiversists argue that there are many universes, no one of which is ontologically privileged. Often forc- ing constructions that add subsets to models are cited as evidence in favour of the latter. This paper informs this debate by analysing ways the Universist might interpret this discourse that seems to necessitate the addition of subsets to V . We argue that despite the prima facie incoherence of such talk for the Universist, she nonetheless has reason to try and provide interpretation of this discourse. We analyse extant interpretations of such talk, and argue that while tradeoffs in nat- urality have to be made, they are not too severe. Introduction Recent discussions of the philosophy of set theory have often focussed on how many universes of sets there are. The following is a standard position: Universism. There is a unique, maximal, proper class sized universe containing all the sets (denoted by ‘V ’). Universism has often been thought of as the ‘default’ position on the ontology of sets.1 However, some have seen the existence of many different epistemic pos- sibilities for the nature of the set-theoretic universe, shown by the large diversity of model-theoretic constructions witnessing independence (we discuss two of these methods later) as indicative of the existence of a diversity of different set-theoretic universes.
    [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]
  • Some Elementary Informal Set Theory
    Chapter 1 Some Elementary Informal Set Theory Set theory is due to Georg Cantor. \Elementary" in the title above does not apply to the body of his work, since he went into considerable technical depth in this, his new theory. It applies however to our coverage as we are going to restrict ourselves to elementary topics only. Cantor made many technical mistakes in the process of developing set theory, some of considerable consequence. The next section is about the easiest and most fundamental of his mistakes. How come he made mistakes? The reason is that his theory was not based on axioms and rigid rules of reasoning |a state of affairs for a theory that we loosely characterise as \informal". At the opposite end of informal we have the formal theories that are based on axioms and logic and are thus \safer" to develop (they do not lead to obvious contradictions). One cannot fault Cantor for not using logic in arguing his theorems |that process was not invented when he built his theory| but then, a fortiori, mathe- matical logic was not invented in Euclid's time either, and yet he did use axioms that stated how his building blocks, points, lines and planes interacted and be- haved! Guess what: Euclidean Geometry leads to no contradictions. The problem with Cantor's set theory is that anything goes as to what sets are and how they come about. He neglected to ask the most fundamental question: \How are sets formed?"y He just sidestepped this and simply said that a set is any collection.
    [Show full text]