2. The ultrapower construction
|
|
- George Davis
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 2. The ultrapower construction The study of ultrapowers originates in model theory, although it has found applications both in algebra and in analysis. However, it is accurate to say that it is mainly exploited in set theory. Here I present the basic idea, showing its close connection to the study of measurable cardinals, defined last lecture. Suppose first that U is an ultrafilter over a set X. We want to define the ultrapower of the universe V of sets by U. The basic idea is to consider the product of X many copies of the structure (V, ). We want to amalgamate them somehow into a new structure (Ṽ, ). For this, we look for the typical properties of the elements {f(x) : x X} of each thread f : X V, and add an element f to Ṽ whose properties in (Ṽ, ) are precisely these typical properties. We use U to make this precise, by saying that a property ϕ is typical of the range of f iff {x X : ϕ(f(x))} U. This leads us to the following definition, due to Dana Scott, that adapts the ultrapower construction to the context of proper classes: Definition 1 Let U be an ultrafilter over a nonempty set X. We define the ultrapower (V X /U, ˆ ) of V by U as follows: For f, g : X V, say that f = U g iff {x X : f(x) = g(x)} U. This is easily seen to be an equivalence relation. We would like to make the elements of V X /U to be the equivalence classes of this relation. Unfortunately, these are all proper classes except for the trivial case when X is a singleton, so we cannot within the context of our formal theory form the collection of all equivalence classes. Scott s trick solves this problem by replacing the class of f with [f] := {g : X V : g = U f and rk(g) is least possible}. Here, as usual, rk(g) = min{α : g V α+1 } = sup{rk(x) + 1 : x g}. All the classes [f] are now sets, and we set V X /U = {[f] : f : X V }. We define ˆ by saying that for f, g : X V we have [f]ˆ [g] iff {x X : f(x) g(x)} U. (It is easy to see that ˆ is indeed well defined, i.e., if f = U f and g = U g then {x X : f(x) g(x)} U iff {x X : f (x) g (x)} U.) (The ultrapower construction is more general than as just defined; what I have presented is the particular case of interest to us.) The remarkable observation, due to Loś, is that this definition indeed captures the typical properties of each thread in the sense described above: 1
2 Lemma 2 ( Loś) Let ϕ(x 1,..., x n ) be a formula in the language of set theory, and let f 1,..., f n : X V. Then V X /U = ϕ([f 1 ],..., [f n ]) iff {x X : ϕ(f 1 (x),..., f n (x)} U. Proof: We argue by induction in the complexity of ϕ. If ϕ is atomic, the result holds by definition. Assume the result for φ, ψ. Suppose that ϕ φ ψ. Then the result also holds for ϕ, since U is both upwards closed and closed under intersections. Assume the result holds for φ. Suppose that ϕ φ. Then the result also holds for ϕ, since for any Y X, either Y U or else X \ Y U. Finally, assume the result holds for φ(x, x 1,..., x n ) and ϕ x φ(x, x 1,..., x n ). Let f 1,..., f n : X V. Then we have, by definition, that V X /U = ϕ([f 1 ],..., [f n ]) iff there is some g : X V such that V X /U = φ([g], [f 1 ],..., [f n ]). This is equivalent, by assumption, to the statement that there is some g : X V such that {x X : φ(g(x), f 1 (x),..., f n (x))} U. But this last statement is equivalent to {x X : ϕ(f 1 (x),..., f n (x))} U : In one direction, note that {x X : φ(g(x), f(x))} {x X : ϕ( f(x))} for any g. In the other, for each x such that ϕ( f(x)) holds pick a witness ι x. Define a function g : X V by g(x) = ι x if ϕ( f(x)) holds, and g(x) = 0 otherwise. Then {x X : ϕ( f(x))} = {x X : φ(g(x), f(x))}, and we are done. This completes the proof. Corollary 3 V X /U V. In particular, V X /U is a (proper class) model of set theory. We arrive at the first connection between the ultrapower construction and measurable cardinals. By Corollary 3, if U is an ultrafilter over X, then V X /U satisfies the axiom of foundation, and therefore it believes that ˆ is a well-founded relation. However, this may actually be false in V, since a witnessing ˆ -decreasing sequence may fail to be an element of V X /U. Recall that, by Homework problem 10, if a nonprincipal ultrafilter is σ-complete, then there is a measurable cardinal. Theorem 4 Let U be an ultrafilter over a set X, and form the ultrapower (V X /U, ˆ ). Then ˆ is well-founded iff U is σ-complete. 2
3 Proof: Suppose first that U is σ-complete. If there is a ˆ -decreasing sequence ([f n ] : n ω), let A n = {x X : f n+1 (x) f n (x)}. Then A n U for all n and therefore n A n (since it is in fact an element of U. If x is in this intersection, then (f n (x) : n < ω) is an -decreasing sequence of sets, contradiction. (This is just the proof of Lemma 14 in lecture II.6.) Suppose now that U is not σ-complete. Then there is a sequence (X n : n ω) of sets not in U whose union is in U. We may assume that the sets X n are pairwise disjoint and that their union is in fact all of X. Define g n : X V by g n (x) = max(m n, 0), where m is the unique number such that x X m. Then {x X : g n+1 (x) g n (x)} = m>n X m U, since m n X m is a finite union of sets not in U and is therefore not in U. This shows that ([g n ] : n ω) is a ˆ -decreasing sequence of elements of V X /U. Lemma 5 Let U be an ultrafilter over a set X, and let f : X V. Then {[g] : [g]ˆ [f]} is a set. Proof: Let ˆf = {[g] : [g]ˆ [f]}. If {x : f(x) = 0} U, then ˆf =. Otherwise, given [g]ˆ [f] let g : X V be given by g (x) = g(x) if g(x) f(x) and g (x) = 0 otherwise. Then g = U g and if Y = {x : f(x) } then g (x) = 0 outside of Y and the restriction of g to Y is in x Y f(x). Since the map that assigns to g its restriction to Y is injective, it follows that ˆf injects into the set x Y f(x) and is therefore a set. Suppose that U is a σ-complete ultrafilter over a set X (for example, U could be principal). Then (V X /U, ˆ ) is a well-founded structure by Theorem 4. Lemma 5 says that it is also set-like. Under these conditions, we can apply Mostowski s collapsing lemma and replace (V X /U, ˆ ) with an isomorphic, transitive structure M: Lemma 6 (Mostowski) Suppose (A, E) is a (possibly proper class) structure where E A A and the following conditions hold: 1. (A, E) = Extensionality, i.e., for any a, b A, a = b iff c A (cea ceb). 2. E is set-like, i.e., for all a A, â = {b A : bea} is a set. 3. E is well-founded (in V ). Then there is a unique (possibly proper) class M that is transitive (i.e., for all a M, a M), and a unique isomorphism π : (A, E) (M, ). The unique M as in Lemma 6 is the Mostowski (or transitive) collapse of A and the unique π is the Mostowski collapsing function. 3
4 Proof: Notice first that the E-rank of any a A is defined. As usual, a E = sup{ b E : bea}; that E is set-like is used to justify that a E is an ordinal if b E is an ordinal for all bea. Hence, if a E is not defined, then b E is not defined for some bea, and we obtain an E-decreasing sequence, against well-foundedness. This is just as the argument following Definition 15 in lecture II.6. Now define π : A V by π(a) = {π(b) : bea}. This is well-defined since otherwise, one immediately arrives at a contradiction by considering an a of least E-rank for which π(a) is undefined. Let M = π[a]. Notice that for any a, b A, if aeb then π(a) π(b). Also, M is transitive, by definition and, by induction on a E, rk(π(a)) = a E for any a A. It follows that π is injective. Otherwise, π(a) = π(b) for some a b. By extensionality, there is some c such that exactly one of cea and ceb holds. Without loss, say that cea. Then there is some d such that π(c) = π(d) and deb. We thus arrive at a contradiction by considering the least possible rank of an x M with more than one preimage under π. This implies that π is an isomorphism, since if π(a) π(b) then there is some ceb such that π(a) = π(c). But then a = c so aeb. Finally, suppose that M is some transitive class and π is a map such that π : (A, E) (M, ) is an isomorphism. By considering again a possible counterexample of least E-rank, it follows that π (a) = π(a) for all a A. This shows that M and π are unique, and we are done. Hence, if U is σ-complete, there is a transitive structure isomorphic to V X /U. We denote this structure by Ult(V, U). (Sometimes, V X /U is denoted Ult (V, U).) Since Ult(V, U) is transitive and a model of set theory, there is certain resemblance between V and Ult(V, U). In the background, we are using that 1 formulas are absolute between transitive structures that satisfy a modicum of set theory. For example, if x Ult(V, U) and Ult(V, U) = x is a function, then x is indeed a function. Similarly, since each element of V ω is (easily) definable, then V ω Ult(V, U). It would take us too long to give a detailed presentation of absoluteness, and it is a standard part of any introductory course, so I will take it for granted. See for example Chapter IV of Kenneth Kunen, Set Theory: An introduction to independence proofs, North-Holland (1980). Consider now an arbitrary set t. Continuing with the motivation indicated at the beginning of the lecture, it should be clear that if c t : X V denotes the function constantly equal to t, then the typical properties of the elements in the range of c t are just the properties of t, and it is natural to consider the following map: 4
5 Definition 7 Let U be an ultrafilter over a set X and, for each t V, denote by c t : X V the map constantly equal to t. The map is defined by i U (t) = [c t ]. i U : V V X /U i U is an example of a class of maps very important in the study of large cardinals. Definition 8 An elementary embedding j : M N between two structures (in the same language L) is a function j from the universe of M to the universe of N such that for any formula ϕ(x 1,..., x n ) in language L and any a 1,..., a n M, M = ϕ(a 1,..., a n ) iff N = ϕ(j(a 1 ),..., j(a n )). Lemma 9 For any ultrafilter U over a set X, the map i U : V V X /U is an elementary embedding. Proof: This is an immediate corollary of Loś s Lemma 2: Given any formula ϕ( x) and elements a V, we have that ϕ( a) holds iff {x X : ϕ( a)} U since this set is either X if ϕ( a) holds, or otherwise. But {x : ϕ(a 1,..., a n )} = {x : ϕ(c a1 (x),..., c an (x))}, and Loś s lemma concludes the proof. Let U be an ultrafilter over a set X, and let κ be its additivity, i.e., κ is the least cardinal such that U is not closed under intersections of length κ. We can then define, by means of a projection, a nonprincipal ultrafilter W over κ as follows: There is a sequence (X α : α < κ) of sets not in U whose union is in U. We can modify this sequence slightly, if necessary, so they are pairwise disjoint and their union is X; this uses that U is κ-complete. Now set, for A κ, A W iff α A X α U. This is clearly an ultrafilter, and it is nonprincipal since otherwise one of the sets X α would be in U. (This is just like the projection used to define µ from λ in the remark before Theorem 2 from last lecture.) Define k : V κ /W V X /U by setting k([f] W ) = [g f ] U where g f : X V is the function given by g f (x) = f(α) for all x X α and all α κ. Here, I have added subscripts to the classes [ ] to clarify with respect to which ultrafilter they are being formed. It follows from the definition of W that k is well defined. 5
6 It is also immediate from the definition that whenever we have Ult (V, W) = [f 1 ]ˆ [f 2 ], then Ult (V, U) = k([f 1 ])ˆ k([f 2 ]), so k is an embedding. Lemma 10 With notation as above, k is elementary and the diagram commutes, i.e., k i W = i U. Proof: Given any x and A, let c A X denote the constant function with domain A and value x. Then k i W (x) = k(i W (x)) = k([c κ x] W ) = [c X x ] U = i U (x), by definition of k. This proves commutativity. Elementarity is also straightforward: Using notation as above, suppose that Ult (V, U) = x ϕ(x, [g f1 ],..., [g fn ]) for some formula ϕ(x, x 1,..., x n ). Let f : X V be a witness, in the sense that Y f = {a X : α < κ (a X α ϕ(f(a), f 1 (α),..., f n (α)))} U. Pick an a α X α Y f for each α < κ such that X α Y f, and define a function g : X V by g(a) = f(a α ) where α is such that a X α and X α Y f. If a α is not defined, set g(a) = 0. Then g = g h for some h : κ V, and Y g U, where Y g is defined using g exactly as Y f was defined from f. By definition of W, Ult (V, W) = ϕ([h], [f 1 ],..., [f n ]), and the elementarity of k follows from the Tarski-Vaught criterion. Consider again the case where U is σ-complete, so Ult(V, U) is defined. Let j = π i U, so j : V Ult(V, U) is an elementary embedding. Suppose that U is principal, say U = {Y X : x 0 Y } for some fixed x 0 X. Then, for any function f : X V, we have [f] = [c f(x0 )]. Also, by induction on the ˆ -rank of f, we have that π([f]) = f(x 0 ), since π([f]) = {π[g] : gef} = {g(x 0 ) : g(x 0 ) f(x 0 )} = f(x 0 ). But then, with j as above, j(t) = π i U (t) = π([c t ]) = t and we have that j is the identity. 6
7 If, on the other hand, (there is a measurable cardinal and) U is nonprincipal, then j is not the identity. We say that j is non-trivial. Now we can deduce information about V by using that there are two sources of resemblance between V and Ult(V, U): The latter is transitive, and j is an elementary embedding. Note that by elementarity, j(α) is an ordinal for all ordinals α. Hence, j : ORD ORD is order preserving, and it follows that j(α) α for all α. Corollary 11 (Scott) If there is a measurable cardinal, then there is a nontrivial elementary embedding j : V M from V into some transitive class M. Proof: Let κ be measurable and let U be a κ-complete nonprincipal ultrafilter over κ. Let j : V Ult(V, U) be as above. I will show that j is not the identity by arguing that, in fact, j(κ) > κ. For this, notice that in V κ /U we have [c α ]ˆ [id]ˆ [c κ ] for all α < κ, where id is the identity map from κ to itself. This uses that bounded subsets of κ are not in U, a consequence of κ-completeness and U being nonprincipal. Then, in Ult(V, U), α j(α) < π([id]) < j(κ) for all α < κ. Hence, π([id]) κ and j(κ) > κ. The fact that some ordinal is moved is not an artifact of the proof but a general fact about elementary embeddings. Lemma 12 Suppose M is a transitive class and j : V M is elementary. If j = id is the identity map from V to itself, then M = V. If j is non-trivial, then there is an ordinal α such that j(α) α. Note that it is not automatic that the fact that j is the identity implies that M = V. For example, consider a countable elementary substructure of L ω1, and let M be its transitive collapse. By the condensation lemma, M = L α for some countable α and we have L α L ω1. Proof: j(v ) = j( α V α) α j(v α). If j is the identity, then j(v α ) = V α for all α, and M V. Suppose now that j is not the identity, so there is some x such that j(x) x. Pick such a set x of least possible rank. Since y x implies that rk(y) < rk(x), it follows that j(y) = y, so x j(x), and there must be some y j(x) \ x. Assume now that j is the identity on the ordinals. Since rk(t) is an ordinal for all t, it follows that rk(j(x)) = j(rk(x)) = rk(x). Thus rk(y) < rk(x) and y = j(y). Since y j(x) then j(y) j(x) and, by elementarity, y x, contradiction. 7
8 Definition 13 Let j : V M be a non-trivial elementary embedding from V into some transitive class M. (We will simply say that j : V M is a nontrivial elementary embedding, or even, that j : V M is elementary.) The smallest α such that j(α) > α is called the critical point of j, and denoted cp(j) or crit(j). Lemma 14 Let j : V M be elementary. Then κ = cp(j) is a strongly inaccessible cardinal. It follows from the lemma that the existence of elementary embeddings is not provable in ZFC. The argument to follow should probably remind the reader of Theorem 2 from last lecture. Proof: κ is a regular cardinal. Suppose that f : α κ where α < κ. Then, by elementarity, j(f) : j(α) j(κ). But j(α) = α since α < κ, and j(f)(β) = j(f)(j(β)) = j(f(β)) = f(β) for all β < α since both β and f(β) are smaller than κ. This shows that j(f) = f. In particular, sup f[α] = sup j(f)[α], so it is an ordinal fixed by j, and f is not cofinal in κ. κ is uncountable. This is because ω and each natural number are definable, so they are fixed by j. κ is limit. Otherwise, κ = λ + for some λ, but j(κ) = (j(λ) + ) M, the ordinal that, from the point of view of M, is the successor of j(λ). Since M V, (j(λ) + ) M j(λ) +. Since λ < κ, j(λ) = λ, and it follows that j(κ) λ + = κ, contradicting that j(κ) > κ. In fact, κ is strong limit. Suppose otherwise, and let ρ < κ be such that 2 ρ κ. So we can find A P(ρ) and a bijection f : A κ. Note that j(a) P M (j(ρ)) = P M (ρ) P(ρ). Suppose that x j(a). Then x ρ and j(x) ρ and for any β < ρ, β x iff j(β) = β j(x), so x = j(x). It follows that x A and j(a) A. On the other hand, if y A, then y = j(y) j(a), and we have shown that j(a) = A. Also, j(f)(x) = j(f)(j(x)) = j(f(x)) = f(x) for any x A, since f(x) < κ. It follows that j(f) = f, and we have shown that κ = ran(f) is fixed by j, contradiction. This is how things stood up for a while: We have shown that the critical point of any embedding is inaccessible, and that any measurable is inaccessible. Now the key idea of reflection shows up, and we can prove significantly more. Theorem 15 Let j : V M be elementary and let κ = cp(j). Then κ is the κ-th strongly inaccessible cardinal. Proof: κ is strongly inaccessible in V by Lemma 14 and therefore in M since M V. It follows that, for any α < κ, there is in M some inaccessible larger than α and below j(κ), namely, κ. By elementarity, the inaccessibles below κ are unbounded in κ. 8
9 The argument gives much more. For example, κ is inaccessible and limit of inaccessibles, so the same proof shows that κ is limit of inaccessibles that are limit of inaccessibles that are limit of inaccessibles... Even more is true, i.e., we can diagonalize and continue. This requires a new key idea. Theorem 16 (Keisler) If j : V M is elementary, then κ = cp(j) is measurable. Proof: Let U = {X κ : κ j(x)}. Then U is a nonprincipal ultrafilter over κ: 1. If X Y κ and X U then Y U since j(x) j(y ). 2. U is closed under intersections since j(a B) = j(a) j(b). 3. = j( ), so / U. 4. If A κ then j(κ) = j(a) j(κ \ A), so either A or κ \ A is in U. 5. If α < κ, then κ / {α} = j({α}) so U is nonprincipal. In fact, U is κ-closed: Let γ < κ and let f : γ U. Then j( α<γ f(α)) = α<j(γ) j(f)(α). But γ = j(γ) and therefore j(f)(α) = j(f)(j(α) = j(f(α)) for all such α. It follows that κ j( α<γ f(α)). The ultrafilter found by Keisler is particularly nice, since it is normal: Using the same notation as above, suppose that (X α : α < κ) is a sequence of elements of U. Let f : κ U be the map f(α) = X α. Recall that α X α = {β < κ : α < β (β X α )}. Then κ j( α X α ) iff for all α < κ, κ j(f)(α). But j(f)(α) = j(f(α)) = j(x α ), and we are done. Notice that U extends the club filter. This follows either from general arguments about normal filters, or simply by noticing that if C κ is club, then κ j(c) because j(c) κ = C is unbounded in κ and j(c) is closed. (To see that if F is a normal filter on κ, that contains the cobounded sets then it is κ-complete, given γ < κ and a sequence (X α : α < γ) extend it to a κ-sequence by setting X α = κ for all α γ, and notice that α<κ X α = A α<γ X α, where A γ. Since κ \ A F, it follows that α<γ X α F as claimed.) Corollary 17 If κ is measurable, then there is a nonprincipal normal ultrafilter on κ (extending the filter of cobounded sets). 9
10 Recall: Definition 18 A cardinal κ of uncountable cofinality is Mahlo iff the set of inaccessible cardinals below κ is stationary. It follows from the definition that if κ is Mahlo then it is regular: Suppose that X κ is unbounded and X < κ. Let C be the club of limit points of X \ X. Then C contains no inaccessibles, in fact, it contains no regular cardinals, contradiction. It also follows that κ is strong limit, since it is a limit of strong limit (in fact, inaccessible) cardinals. This, κ is the κ-th inaccessible, and an easy diagonal argument shows it is limit of inaccessibles that are limits of inaccessibles, etc. Corollary 19 If κ is measurable then it is the κ-th Mahlo cardinal. Proof: If j : V M is elementary and cp(j) = κ, then κ j(c) for any club C κ. It follows by elementarity that C contains an inaccessible. Hence, κ is Mahlo. By elementarity, C contains a Mahlo, etc. Stronger conclusions can be derived by taking j : V Ult(V, U), where U is normal. This is because of the following observation: Lemma 20 Let U be a nonprincipal κ-complete ultrafilter over the measurable cardinal κ. Then the following are equivalent: 1. U is normal. 2. Whenever X U and f : X κ is regressive, then there is ξ < κ such that {α < κ : f(α) = ξ} U. 3. π([id]) = κ where [ ] denotes (Scott) classes in V κ /U. Proof: From normality of U we get a version of Fodor s lemma just as before, so 1 implies 2. 2 implies 3, since 2 says that if [f]ˆ [id] then [f] = [c ξ ] for some ξ < κ. 3 implies 1, because given any X κ, we have that κ i U (X) iff [id]ˆ [c X ] iff {α < κ : id(α) c X (α)} U iff X U, so U is the ulrafilter derived from the embedding j : V Ult(V, U), which is normal by the remark following Keisler s Theorem 16. I close with a list of structural fact about (well-founded) ultrapower embeddings; I concentrate on the particular case of ultrafilters, although essentially this suffices by Lemma 10: 10
11 Lemma 21 Let U be a κ-complete nonpricipal ultrafilter over the measurable cardinal κ, and let j : V Ult(V, U) be the corresponding ultrapower embedding. To ease notation, write M instead of Ult(V, U). Then: 1. cp(j) = κ. 2. κ M M, V κ+1 M, and (κ + ) M = κ κ+ M M. 4. U / M so V κ+2 M κ (2 κ ) M < j(κ) < (2 κ ) +. This result indicates that there are limits to the embeddings that can be represented by means of ulrapowers. For example, even though there is a great deal of resemblance between V and M = Ult(V, U), M is not closed under κ + -sequences and does not contain V κ+2, and j(κ) is not really a cardinal. Any embedding with these additional properties would necessarily capture stronger large cardinal properties and would produce stronger reflection arguments than those once can do in our setting. (For example, if V κ+2 M for some elementary j : V M with cp(j) = κ, then κ is measurable in M and therefore there is a normal ultrafilter V over κ that concentrates on measurable cardinals, i.e., {α < κ : α is measurable} V.) The modern template for defining large cardinals stipulates the existence of embeddings j : V M with large resemblance between V and M and stronger correctness of j. It is natural to wonder how much resemblance can be asked. Kunen showed, for example, that M = V is impossible. Proof: We already know from Corollary 11 that cp(j) κ. If α = cp(j) < κ, let f : κ V be such that π([f]) = α. Then {β < κ : f(β) < c α (β)} = {β : f(β) < α)} U. By κ-completeness, f = U c β for some β < α, so j(β) = π([f]) = α, and cp(j) β, contradiction. This proves 1. If A V κ, then an easy argument as in the proof of Lemma 14 gives that A = j(a), so V κ = Vκ M. If A V κ, then it follows that A = j(a) V κ and therefore V κ+1 = Vκ+1 M M. Note that any well-ordering of κ is a subset of κ κ and can be identified with a subset of κ. Since V κ+1 M, all these subsets are in M, and M computes κ + correctly. To show that κ M M, suppose more generally that j[x] := {j(a) : a x} M for some x and that y M, where y x, and conclude that y M. This gives the result, since j[κ] = κ. To see the claim, say y = {π([f z ]) : z x} and let h : j[x] y be the map h(j(z)) = π([f z ]). It is easy to see that h is well defined. If h M, then y M 11
12 also, since y = ran(h). To see that h M, we find some F such that h = π([f ]). To do this, note that since j[x] M, there is some f such that π([f]) = j[x], and set F : κ V to be the function such that, for all α < κ, F (α) : f(α) V is the map F (α)(z) = f z (α), whenever this makes sense, and F (α) = otherwise. It is easy to check that, indeed, π([f ]) = h. This proves 2. On the other hand, j[κ + ] / M, which proves 3. To see this, note that if π([f]) < j(κ + ), then f = U f for some f : κ κ +. By regularity of κ +, f is bounded, so there is some α < κ + such that π([f]) < j(α). This shows that j[κ + ] is cofinal in j(κ + ), so cf(j(κ + )) = κ +. But j(κ + ) > j(κ) and j(κ) > κ is a limit cardinal of M, so in fact j(κ) > κ +, since κ + = (κ + ) M. Hence, j(κ + ) > κ +. We are done, since j(κ + ) is regular from the point of view of M, by elementarity. Now we prove 5: First, P(κ) = P M (κ). Since M V, it follows that 2 κ (2 κ ) M. Since j(κ) is, from the point of view of M, a strong limit cardinal larger than κ, we must have (2 κ ) M < j(κ). On the other hand, if π([f]) < j(κ), then f = U f for some f : κ κ, and there are only κ κ = 2 κ many such functions f, so only 2 κ many ordinals below j(κ). Therefore, j(κ) < (2 κ ) +, and 5 follows. This gives us 4: Since κ M M, we have κ κ = ( κ κ) M. If U M, then we could correctly compute, in M, the value of j(κ), which would prove that (2 κ ) M < j(κ) < ((2 κ ) + ) M, contradicting the fact that j(κ) is a cardinal in M. The results in this lecture are all classical, although I don t remember ever seen Lemma 10 (and its preceeding remarks) explicitly stated. It is certainly part of the folklore. A good reference is Akihiro Kanamori, The Higher Infinite, Springer (1994). For the few model theoretic results we need, any standard reference would work, for example, Chen-Chung Chang, H. Jerome Keisler, Model theory, North- Holland (1990). Typeset using LaTeX2WP. 12
LECTURE NOTES - ADVANCED TOPICS IN MATHEMATICAL LOGIC
LECTURE NOTES - ADVANCED TOPICS IN MATHEMATICAL LOGIC PHILIPP SCHLICHT Abstract. Lecture notes from the summer 2016 in Bonn by Philipp Lücke and Philipp Schlicht. We study forcing axioms and their applications.
More informationSilver type theorems for collapses.
Silver type theorems for collapses. Moti Gitik May 19, 2014 The classical theorem of Silver states that GCH cannot break for the first time over a singular cardinal of uncountable cofinality. On the other
More informationA HIERARCHY OF RAMSEY-LIKE CARDINALS
A HIERARCHY OF RAMSEY-LIKE CARDINALS PETER HOLY AND PHILIPP SCHLICHT Abstract. We introduce a hierarchy of large cardinals between weakly compact and measurable cardinals, that is closely related to the
More informationPhilipp Moritz Lücke
Σ 1 -partition properties Philipp Moritz Lücke Mathematisches Institut Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn http://www.math.uni-bonn.de/people/pluecke/ Logic & Set Theory Seminar Bristol, 14.02.2017
More informationarxiv: v2 [math.lo] 13 Feb 2014
A LOWER BOUND FOR GENERALIZED DOMINATING NUMBERS arxiv:1401.7948v2 [math.lo] 13 Feb 2014 DAN HATHAWAY Abstract. We show that when κ and λ are infinite cardinals satisfying λ κ = λ, the cofinality of the
More informationLARGE CARDINALS AND L-LIKE UNIVERSES
LARGE CARDINALS AND L-LIKE UNIVERSES SY D. FRIEDMAN There are many different ways to extend the axioms of ZFC. One way is to adjoin the axiom V = L, asserting that every set is constructible. This axiom
More informationNotes on getting presaturation from collapsing a Woodin cardinal
Notes on getting presaturation from collapsing a Woodin cardinal Paul B. Larson November 18, 2012 1 Measurable cardinals 1.1 Definition. A filter on a set X is a set F P(X) which is closed under intersections
More informationSy D. Friedman. August 28, 2001
0 # and Inner Models Sy D. Friedman August 28, 2001 In this paper we examine the cardinal structure of inner models that satisfy GCH but do not contain 0 #. We show, assuming that 0 # exists, that such
More informationANNALES ACADEMIÆ SCIENTIARUM FENNICÆ DIAMONDS ON LARGE CARDINALS
ANNALES ACADEMIÆ SCIENTIARUM FENNICÆ MATHEMATICA DISSERTATIONES 134 DIAMONDS ON LARGE CARDINALS ALEX HELLSTEN University of Helsinki, Department of Mathematics HELSINKI 2003 SUOMALAINEN TIEDEAKATEMIA Copyright
More informationStrongly compact Magidor forcing.
Strongly compact Magidor forcing. Moti Gitik June 25, 2014 Abstract We present a strongly compact version of the Supercompact Magidor forcing ([3]). A variation of it is used to show that the following
More informationContinuous images of closed sets in generalized Baire spaces ESI Workshop: Forcing and Large Cardinals
Continuous images of closed sets in generalized Baire spaces ESI Workshop: Forcing and Large Cardinals Philipp Moritz Lücke (joint work with Philipp Schlicht) Mathematisches Institut, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität
More informationGlobal singularization and the failure of SCH
Global singularization and the failure of SCH Radek Honzik 1 Charles University, Department of Logic, Celetná 20, Praha 1, 116 42, Czech Republic Abstract We say that κ is µ-hypermeasurable (or µ-strong)
More informationTHE NUMBER OF UNARY CLONES CONTAINING THE PERMUTATIONS ON AN INFINITE SET
THE NUMBER OF UNARY CLONES CONTAINING THE PERMUTATIONS ON AN INFINITE SET MICHAEL PINSKER Abstract. We calculate the number of unary clones (submonoids of the full transformation monoid) containing the
More informationThe Outer Model Programme
The Outer Model Programme Peter Holy University of Bristol presenting joint work with Sy Friedman and Philipp Lücke February 13, 2013 Peter Holy (Bristol) Outer Model Programme February 13, 2013 1 / 1
More informationMITCHELL S THEOREM REVISITED. Contents
MITCHELL S THEOREM REVISITED THOMAS GILTON AND JOHN KRUEGER Abstract. Mitchell s theorem on the approachability ideal states that it is consistent relative to a greatly Mahlo cardinal that there is no
More informationCharacterizing large cardinals in terms of layered partial orders
Characterizing large cardinals in terms of layered partial orders Philipp Moritz Lücke Joint work with Sean D. Cox (VCU Richmond) Mathematisches Institut Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn
More informationAnnals of Pure and Applied Logic
Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 161 (2010) 895 915 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Annals of Pure and Applied Logic journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apal Global singularization and
More informationSTRONGLY UNFOLDABLE CARDINALS MADE INDESTRUCTIBLE
The Journal of Symbolic Logic Volume 73, Number 4, Dec. 2008 STRONGLY UNFOLDABLE CARDINALS MADE INDESTRUCTIBLE THOMAS A. JOHNSTONE Abstract. I provide indestructibility results for large cardinals consistent
More informationGUESSING MODELS IMPLY THE SINGULAR CARDINAL HYPOTHESIS arxiv: v1 [math.lo] 25 Mar 2019
GUESSING MODELS IMPLY THE SINGULAR CARDINAL HYPOTHESIS arxiv:1903.10476v1 [math.lo] 25 Mar 2019 Abstract. In this article we prove three main theorems: (1) guessing models are internally unbounded, (2)
More informationOn almost precipitous ideals.
On almost precipitous ideals. Asaf Ferber and Moti Gitik December 20, 2009 Abstract With less than 0 # two generic extensions of L are identified: one in which ℵ 1, and the other ℵ 2, is almost precipitous.
More informationGeneralising the weak compactness of ω
Generalising the weak compactness of ω Andrew Brooke-Taylor Generalised Baire Spaces Masterclass Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences 22 August 2018 Andrew Brooke-Taylor Generalising the weak
More informationLevel by Level Inequivalence, Strong Compactness, and GCH
Level by Level Inequivalence, Strong Compactness, and GCH Arthur W. Apter Department of Mathematics Baruch College of CUNY New York, New York 10010 USA and The CUNY Graduate Center, Mathematics 365 Fifth
More informationCOMBINATORICS OF REDUCTIONS BETWEEN EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS
COMBINATORICS OF REDUCTIONS BETWEEN EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS DAN HATHAWAY AND SCOTT SCHNEIDER Abstract. We discuss combinatorial conditions for the existence of various types of reductions between equivalence
More informationChain conditions, layered partial orders and weak compactness
Chain conditions, layered partial orders and weak compactness Philipp Moritz Lücke Joint work with Sean D. Cox (VCU Richmond) Mathematisches Institut Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn http://www.math.uni-bonn.de/people/pluecke/
More informationCardinal arithmetic: The Silver and Galvin-Hajnal Theorems
B. Zwetsloot Cardinal arithmetic: The Silver and Galvin-Hajnal Theorems Bachelor thesis 22 June 2018 Thesis supervisor: dr. K.P. Hart Leiden University Mathematical Institute Contents Introduction 1 1
More informationUPWARD STABILITY TRANSFER FOR TAME ABSTRACT ELEMENTARY CLASSES
UPWARD STABILITY TRANSFER FOR TAME ABSTRACT ELEMENTARY CLASSES JOHN BALDWIN, DAVID KUEKER, AND MONICA VANDIEREN Abstract. Grossberg and VanDieren have started a program to develop a stability theory for
More informationSHORT EXTENDER FORCING
SHORT EXTENDER FORCING MOTI GITIK AND SPENCER UNGER 1. Introduction These notes are based on a lecture given by Moti Gitik at the Appalachian Set Theory workshop on April 3, 2010. Spencer Unger was the
More informationJanuary 28, 2013 EASTON S THEOREM FOR RAMSEY AND STRONGLY RAMSEY CARDINALS
January 28, 2013 EASTON S THEOREM FOR RAMSEY AND STRONGLY RAMSEY CARDINALS BRENT CODY AND VICTORIA GITMAN Abstract. We show that, assuming GCH, if κ is a Ramsey or a strongly Ramsey cardinal and F is a
More informationbeing saturated Lemma 0.2 Suppose V = L[E]. Every Woodin cardinal is Woodin with.
On NS ω1 being saturated Ralf Schindler 1 Institut für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagenforschung, Universität Münster Einsteinstr. 62, 48149 Münster, Germany Definition 0.1 Let δ be a cardinal. We say
More informationTall, Strong, and Strongly Compact Cardinals
Tall, Strong, and Strongly Compact Cardinals Arthur W. Apter Department of Mathematics Baruch College of CUNY New York, New York 10010 USA and The CUNY Graduate Center, Mathematics 365 Fifth Avenue New
More informationGeneralization by Collapse
Generalization by Collapse Monroe Eskew University of California, Irvine meskew@math.uci.edu March 31, 2012 Monroe Eskew (UCI) Generalization by Collapse March 31, 2012 1 / 19 Introduction Our goal is
More information3 The Model Existence Theorem
3 The Model Existence Theorem Although we don t have compactness or a useful Completeness Theorem, Henkinstyle arguments can still be used in some contexts to build models. In this section we describe
More informationNotes to The Resurrection Axioms
Notes to The Resurrection Axioms Thomas Johnstone Talk in the Logic Workshop CUNY Graduate Center September 11, 009 Abstract I will discuss a new class of forcing axioms, the Resurrection Axioms (RA),
More informationInterpolation of κ-compactness and PCF
Comment.Math.Univ.Carolin. 50,2(2009) 315 320 315 Interpolation of κ-compactness and PCF István Juhász, Zoltán Szentmiklóssy Abstract. We call a topological space κ-compact if every subset of size κ has
More informationGeneric embeddings associated to an indestructibly weakly compact cardinal
Generic embeddings associated to an indestructibly weakly compact cardinal Gunter Fuchs Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster gfuchs@uni-muenster.de December 4, 2008 Abstract I use generic embeddings
More informationINDESTRUCTIBLE STRONG UNFOLDABILITY
INDESTRUCTIBLE STRONG UNFOLDABILITY JOEL DAVID HAMKINS AND THOMAS A. JOHNSTONE Abstract. Using the lottery preparation, we prove that any strongly unfoldable cardinal κ can be made indestructible by all
More informationarxiv:math/ v1 [math.lo] 15 Jan 1991
ON A CONJECTURE OF TARSKI ON PRODUCTS OF CARDINALS arxiv:math/9201247v1 [mathlo] 15 Jan 1991 Thomas Jech 1 and Saharon Shelah 2 Abstract 3 We look at an old conjecture of A Tarski on cardinal arithmetic
More informationPARTITIONS OF 2 ω AND COMPLETELY ULTRAMETRIZABLE SPACES
PARTITIONS OF 2 ω AND COMPLETELY ULTRAMETRIZABLE SPACES WILLIAM R. BRIAN AND ARNOLD W. MILLER Abstract. We prove that, for every n, the topological space ω ω n (where ω n has the discrete topology) can
More informationExtender based forcings, fresh sets and Aronszajn trees
Extender based forcings, fresh sets and Aronszajn trees Moti Gitik August 31, 2011 Abstract Extender based forcings are studied with respect of adding branches to Aronszajn trees. We construct a model
More informationPERFECT TREE FORCINGS FOR SINGULAR CARDINALS
PERFECT TREE FORCINGS FOR SINGULAR CARDINALS NATASHA DOBRINEN, DAN HATHAWAY, AND KAREL PRIKRY Abstract. We investigate forcing properties of perfect tree forcings defined by Prikry to answer a question
More informationSatisfaction in outer models
Satisfaction in outer models Radek Honzik joint with Sy Friedman Department of Logic Charles University logika.ff.cuni.cz/radek CL Hamburg September 11, 2016 Basic notions: Let M be a transitive model
More informationRUDIN-KEISLER POSETS OF COMPLETE BOOLEAN ALGEBRAS
RUDIN-KEISLER POSETS OF COMPLETE BOOLEAN ALGEBRAS PETER JIPSEN, ALEXANDER PINUS, HENRY ROSE Abstract. The Rudin-Keisler ordering of ultrafilters is extended to complete Boolean algebras and characterised
More informationON THE SINGULAR CARDINALS. A combinatorial principle of great importance in set theory is the Global principle of Jensen [6]:
ON THE SINGULAR CARDINALS JAMES CUMMINGS AND SY-DAVID FRIEDMAN Abstract. We give upper and lower bounds for the consistency strength of the failure of a combinatorial principle introduced by Jensen, Square
More informationStrongly Unfoldable Cardinals Made Indestructible
Strongly Unfoldable Cardinals Made Indestructible by Thomas A. Johnstone A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Mathematics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor
More informationThe first author was supported by FWF Project P23316-N13.
The tree property at the ℵ 2n s and the failure of SCH at ℵ ω SY-DAVID FRIEDMAN and RADEK HONZIK Kurt Gödel Research Center for Mathematical Logic, Währinger Strasse 25, 1090 Vienna Austria sdf@logic.univie.ac.at
More informationChapter 4. Cardinal Arithmetic.
Chapter 4. Cardinal Arithmetic. 4.1. Basic notions about cardinals. We are used to comparing the size of sets by seeing if there is an injection from one to the other, or a bijection between the two. Definition.
More informationThe (λ, κ)-fn and the order theory of bases in boolean algebras
The (λ, κ)-fn and the order theory of bases in boolean algebras David Milovich Texas A&M International University david.milovich@tamiu.edu http://www.tamiu.edu/ dmilovich/ June 2, 2010 BLAST 1 / 22 The
More informationADDING A LOT OF COHEN REALS BY ADDING A FEW II. 1. Introduction
ADDING A LOT OF COHEN REALS BY ADDING A FEW II MOTI GITIK AND MOHAMMAD GOLSHANI Abstract. We study pairs (V, V 1 ), V V 1, of models of ZF C such that adding κ many Cohen reals over V 1 adds λ many Cohen
More informationA precipitous club guessing ideal on ω 1
on ω 1 Tetsuya Ishiu Department of Mathematics and Statistics Miami University June, 2009 ESI workshop on large cardinals and descriptive set theory Tetsuya Ishiu (Miami University) on ω 1 ESI workshop
More informationDEPTH OF BOOLEAN ALGEBRAS SHIMON GARTI AND SAHARON SHELAH
DEPTH OF BOOLEAN ALGEBRAS SHIMON GARTI AND SAHARON SHELAH Abstract. Suppose D is an ultrafilter on κ and λ κ = λ. We prove that if B i is a Boolean algebra for every i < κ and λ bounds the Depth of every
More informationCARDINALITIES OF RESIDUE FIELDS OF NOETHERIAN INTEGRAL DOMAINS
CARDINALITIES OF RESIDUE FIELDS OF NOETHERIAN INTEGRAL DOMAINS KEITH A. KEARNES AND GREG OMAN Abstract. We determine the relationship between the cardinality of a Noetherian integral domain and the cardinality
More informationarxiv: v2 [math.lo] 21 Mar 2016
WEAK DISTRIBUTIVITY IMPLYING DISTRIBUTIVITY arxiv:1410.1970v2 [math.lo] 21 Mar 2016 DAN HATHAWAY Abstract. Let B be a complete Boolean algebra. We show that if λ is an infinite cardinal and B is weakly
More informationThe Resurrection Axioms
The Resurrection Axioms Thomas Johnstone New York City College of Technology, CUNY and Kurt Gödel Research Center, Vienna tjohnstone@citytech.cuny.edu http://www.logic.univie.ac.at/~tjohnstone/ Young Set
More informationLarge cardinals and the Continuum Hypothesis
Large cardinals and the Continuum Hypothesis RADEK HONZIK Charles University, Department of Logic, Celetná 20, Praha 1, 116 42, Czech Republic radek.honzik@ff.cuni.cz Abstract. This is a survey paper which
More informationOn the Splitting Number at Regular Cardinals
On the Splitting Number at Regular Cardinals Omer Ben-Neria and Moti Gitik January 25, 2014 Abstract Let κ,λ be regular uncountable cardinals such that κ + < λ. We construct a generic extension with s(κ)
More informationHierarchies of (virtual) resurrection axioms
Hierarchies of (virtual) resurrection axioms Gunter Fuchs August 18, 2017 Abstract I analyze the hierarchies of the bounded resurrection axioms and their virtual versions, the virtual bounded resurrection
More informationarxiv: v1 [math.lo] 27 Mar 2009
arxiv:0903.4691v1 [math.lo] 27 Mar 2009 COMBINATORIAL AND MODEL-THEORETICAL PRINCIPLES RELATED TO REGULARITY OF ULTRAFILTERS AND COMPACTNESS OF TOPOLOGICAL SPACES. V. PAOLO LIPPARINI Abstract. We generalize
More informationOn the strengths and weaknesses of weak squares
On the strengths and weaknesses of weak squares Menachem Magidor and Chris Lambie-Hanson 1 Introduction The term square refers not just to one but to an entire family of combinatorial principles. The strongest
More informationLarge cardinals and their effect on the continuum function on regular cardinals
Large cardinals and their effect on the continuum function on regular cardinals RADEK HONZIK Charles University, Department of Logic, Celetná 20, Praha 1, 116 42, Czech Republic radek.honzik@ff.cuni.cz
More informationFORCING AND THE HALPERN-LÄUCHLI THEOREM. 1. Introduction This document is a continuation of [1]. It is intended to be part of a larger paper.
FORCING AND THE HALPERN-LÄUCHLI THEOREM NATASHA DOBRINEN AND DAN HATHAWAY Abstract. We will show the various effects that forcing has on the Halpern-Läuchli Theorem. We will show that the the theorem at
More informationThe Semi-Weak Square Principle
The Semi-Weak Square Principle Maxwell Levine Universität Wien Kurt Gödel Research Center for Mathematical Logic Währinger Straße 25 1090 Wien Austria maxwell.levine@univie.ac.at Abstract Cummings, Foreman,
More informationOn almost precipitous ideals.
On almost precipitous ideals. Asaf Ferber and Moti Gitik July 21, 2008 Abstract We answer questions concerning an existence of almost precipitous ideals raised in [5]. It is shown that every successor
More informationA Laver-like indestructibility for hypermeasurable cardinals
Radek Honzik Charles University, Department of Logic, Celetná 20, Praha 1, 116 42, Czech Republic radek.honzik@ff.cuni.cz The author was supported by FWF/GAČR grant I 1921-N25. Abstract: We show that if
More informationMODIFIED EXTENDER BASED FORCING
MODIFIED EXTENDER BASED FORCING DIMA SINAPOVA AND SPENCER UNGER Abstract. We analyze the modified extender based forcing from Assaf Sharon s PhD thesis. We show there is a bad scale in the extension and
More informationMODEL THEORETIC CHARACTERIZATIONS OF LARGE CARDINALS
MODEL THEORETIC CHARACTERIZATIONS OF LARGE CARDINALS WILL BONEY Abstract. We consider compactness characterizations of large cardinals. Based on results of Benda [Ben78], we study compactness for omitting
More informationEaston s theorem and large cardinals from the optimal hypothesis
Easton s theorem and large cardinals from the optimal hypothesis SY-DAVID FRIEDMAN and RADEK HONZIK Kurt Gödel Research Center for Mathematical Logic, Währinger Strasse 25, 1090 Vienna Austria sdf@logic.univie.ac.at
More informationOn Singular Stationarity II (tight stationarity and extenders-based methods)
On Singular Stationarity II (tight stationarity and extenders-based methods) Omer Ben-Neria Abstract We study the notion of tightly stationary sets which was introduced by Foreman and Magidor in [8]. We
More informationLOCAL CLUB CONDENSATION AND L-LIKENESS
LOCAL CLUB CONDENSATION AND L-LIKENESS PETER HOLY, PHILIP WELCH, AND LIUZHEN WU Abstract. We present a forcing to obtain a localized version of Local Club Condensation, a generalized Condensation principle
More informationCONSECUTIVE SINGULAR CARDINALS AND THE CONTINUUM FUNCTION
CONSECUTIVE SINGULAR CARDINALS AND THE CONTINUUM FUNCTION ARTHUR W. APTER AND BRENT CODY Abstract. We show that from a supercompact cardinal κ, there is a forcing extension V [G] that has a symmetric inner
More informationAxiomatization of generic extensions by homogeneous partial orderings
Axiomatization of generic extensions by homogeneous partial orderings a talk at Colloquium on Mathematical Logic (Amsterdam Utrecht) May 29, 2008 (Sakaé Fuchino) Chubu Univ., (CRM Barcelona) (2008 05 29
More informationarxiv: v3 [math.lo] 23 Jul 2018
SPECTRA OF UNIFORMITY arxiv:1709.04824v3 [math.lo] 23 Jul 2018 YAIR HAYUT AND ASAF KARAGILA Abstract. We study some limitations and possible occurrences of uniform ultrafilters on ordinals without the
More informationLarge Cardinals with Few Measures
Large Cardinals with Few Measures arxiv:math/0603260v1 [math.lo] 12 Mar 2006 Arthur W. Apter Department of Mathematics Baruch College of CUNY New York, New York 10010 http://faculty.baruch.cuny.edu/apter
More informationSUCCESSIVE FAILURES OF APPROACHABILITY
SUCCESSIVE FAILURES OF APPROACHABILITY SPENCER UNGER Abstract. Motivated by showing that in ZFC we cannot construct a special Aronszajn tree on some cardinal greater than ℵ 1, we produce a model in which
More informationWähringer Strasse 25, 1090 Vienna Austria
The tree property at ℵ ω+2 with a finite gap Sy-David Friedman, 1 Radek Honzik, 2 Šárka Stejskalová 2 1 Kurt Gödel Research Center for Mathematical Logic, Währinger Strasse 25, 1090 Vienna Austria sdf@logic.univie.ac.at
More informationFat subsets of P kappa (lambda)
Boston University OpenBU Theses & Dissertations http://open.bu.edu Boston University Theses & Dissertations 2013 Fat subsets of P kappa (lambda) Zaigralin, Ivan https://hdl.handle.net/2144/14099 Boston
More informationOn Singular Stationarity I (mutual stationarity and ideal-based methods)
On Singular Stationarity I (mutual stationarity and ideal-based methods) Omer Ben-Neria Abstract We study several ideal-based constructions in the context of singular stationarity. By combining methods
More informationON NORMAL PRECIPITOUS IDEALS
ON NORMAL PRECIPITOUS IDEALS MOTI GITIK SCHOOL OF MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES RAYMOND AND BEVERLY SACKLER FACULTY OF EXACT SCIENCE TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY RAMAT AVIV 69978, ISRAEL Abstract. An old question of T.
More informationOrthogonality to the value group is the same as generic stability in C-minimal expansions of ACVF
Orthogonality to the value group is the same as generic stability in C-minimal expansions of ACVF Will Johnson February 18, 2014 1 Introduction Let T be some C-minimal expansion of ACVF. Let U be the monster
More information4: SINGLE-PERIOD MARKET MODELS
4: SINGLE-PERIOD MARKET MODELS Marek Rutkowski School of Mathematics and Statistics University of Sydney Semester 2, 2016 M. Rutkowski (USydney) Slides 4: Single-Period Market Models 1 / 87 General Single-Period
More informationIntroduction to Probability Theory and Stochastic Processes for Finance Lecture Notes
Introduction to Probability Theory and Stochastic Processes for Finance Lecture Notes Fabio Trojani Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland Correspondence address: Fabio Trojani,
More informationDeterminacy models and good scales at singular cardinals
Determinacy models and good scales at singular cardinals University of California, Irvine Logic in Southern California University of California, Los Angeles November 15, 2014 After submitting the title
More informationTwo Stationary Sets with Different Gaps of the Power Function
Two Stationary Sets with Different Gaps of the Power Function Moti Gitik School of Mathematical Sciences Tel Aviv University Tel Aviv 69978, Israel gitik@post.tau.ac.il August 14, 2014 Abstract Starting
More informationAttempt QUESTIONS 1 and 2, and THREE other questions. Do not turn over until you are told to do so by the Invigilator.
UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA School of Mathematics Main Series UG Examination 2016 17 SET THEORY MTHE6003B Time allowed: 3 Hours Attempt QUESTIONS 1 and 2, and THREE other questions. Notes are not permitted
More informationCovering properties of derived models
University of California, Irvine June 16, 2015 Outline Background Inaccessible limits of Woodin cardinals Weakly compact limits of Woodin cardinals Let L denote Gödel s constructible universe. Weak covering
More informationNotes on the symmetric group
Notes on the symmetric group 1 Computations in the symmetric group Recall that, given a set X, the set S X of all bijections from X to itself (or, more briefly, permutations of X) is group under function
More informationCOMBINATORICS AT ℵ ω
COMBINATORICS AT ℵ ω DIMA SINAPOVA AND SPENCER UNGER Abstract. We construct a model in which the singular cardinal hypothesis fails at ℵ ω. We use characterizations of genericity to show the existence
More informationARONSZAJN TREES AND THE SUCCESSORS OF A SINGULAR CARDINAL. 1. Introduction
ARONSZAJN TREES AND THE SUCCESSORS OF A SINGULAR CARDINAL SPENCER UNGER Abstract. From large cardinals we obtain the consistency of the existence of a singular cardinal κ of cofinality ω at which the Singular
More informationDIAGONAL PRIKRY EXTENSIONS
DIAGONAL PRIKRY EXTENSIONS JAMES CUMMINGS AND MATTHEW FOREMAN 1. Introduction It is a well-known phenomenon in set theory that problems in infinite combinatorics involving singular cardinals and their
More informationEASTON FUNCTIONS AND SUPERCOMPACTNESS
EASTON FUNCTIONS AND SUPERCOMPACTNESS BRENT CODY, SY-DAVID FRIEDMAN, AND RADEK HONZIK Abstract. Suppose κ is λ-supercompact witnessed by an elementary embedding j : V M with critical point κ, and further
More informationOpen Problems. Problem 2. Assume PD. C 3 is the largest countable Π 1 3-set of reals. Is it true that C 3 = {x M 2 R x is. Known:
Open Problems Problem 1. Determine the consistency strength of the statement u 2 = ω 2, where u 2 is the second uniform indiscernible. Best known bounds: Con(there is a strong cardinal) Con(u 2 = ω 2 )
More informationALL LARGE-CARDINAL AXIOMS NOT KNOWN TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH ZFC ARE JUSTIFIED arxiv: v3 [math.lo] 30 Dec 2017
ALL LARGE-CARDINAL AXIOMS NOT KNOWN TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH ZFC ARE JUSTIFIED arxiv:1712.08138v3 [math.lo] 30 Dec 2017 RUPERT M c CALLUM Abstract. In other work we have outlined how, building on ideas
More informationChromatic number of infinite graphs
Chromatic number of infinite graphs Jerusalem, October 2015 Introduction [S] κ = {x S : x = κ} [S]
More informationCATEGORICAL SKEW LATTICES
CATEGORICAL SKEW LATTICES MICHAEL KINYON AND JONATHAN LEECH Abstract. Categorical skew lattices are a variety of skew lattices on which the natural partial order is especially well behaved. While most
More informationNORMAL MEASURES ON A TALL CARDINAL. 1. Introduction We start by recalling the definitions of some large cardinal properties.
NORMAL MEASRES ON A TALL CARDINAL ARTHR. APTER AND JAMES CMMINGS Abstract. e study the number of normal measures on a tall cardinal. Our main results are that: The least tall cardinal may coincide with
More informationShort Extenders Forcings II
Short Extenders Forcings II Moti Gitik July 24, 2013 Abstract A model with otp(pcf(a)) = ω 1 + 1 is constructed, for countable set a of regular cardinals. 1 Preliminary Settings Let κ α α < ω 1 be an an
More informationSHIMON GARTI AND SAHARON SHELAH
(κ, θ)-weak NORMALITY SHIMON GARTI AND SAHARON SHELAH Abstract. We deal with the property of weak normality (for nonprincipal ultrafilters). We characterize the situation of Q λ i/d = λ. We have an application
More informationNon replication of options
Non replication of options Christos Kountzakis, Ioannis A Polyrakis and Foivos Xanthos June 30, 2008 Abstract In this paper we study the scarcity of replication of options in the two period model of financial
More informationRVM, RVC revisited: Clubs and Lusin sets
RVM, RVC revisited: Clubs and Lusin sets Ashutosh Kumar, Saharon Shelah Abstract A cardinal κ is Cohen measurable (RVC) if for some κ-additive ideal I over κ, P(κ)/I is forcing isomorphic to adding λ Cohen
More informationAN INFINITE CARDINAL-VALUED KRULL DIMENSION FOR RINGS
AN INFINITE CARDINAL-VALUED KRULL DIMENSION FOR RINGS K. ALAN LOPER, ZACHARY MESYAN, AND GREG OMAN Abstract. We define and study two generalizations of the Krull dimension for rings, which can assume cardinal
More informationarxiv:math/ v1 [math.lo] 9 Dec 2006
arxiv:math/0612246v1 [math.lo] 9 Dec 2006 THE NONSTATIONARY IDEAL ON P κ (λ) FOR λ SINGULAR Pierre MATET and Saharon SHELAH Abstract Let κ be a regular uncountable cardinal and λ > κ a singular strong
More information