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.