Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:54:23.256Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chang's Conjecture and the Non-Stationary Ideal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Daniel Evan Seabold
Daniel Evan Seabold*
Affiliation:
Mathematics Department, 103, Hofstra University, Hempstead. New York 11549-1030, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In The Axiom of Determinacy, Forcing Axioms and the Nonstationary Ideal [W1], Woodin constructs the partial order ℙmax, which in the presence of large cardinals yields a forcing extension of L(ℝ) where ZFC holds and the non-stationary ideal on ω1 (hereafter denoted NSω1) is ω2-saturated. The basic analysis of ℙmax forcing over L(ℝ) can be carried out assuming only the Axiom of Determinacy (AD). In the central result of this paper, we show that if one increases slightly the strength of the determinacy assumptions, then Chang's Conjecture—the assertion that every finitary algebra on ω2 has a subalgebra of order type ω1—holds in this extension as well. Specifically, we obtain:

Corollary 4.6. Assume AD + V = L(ℝ, μ) + μ is a normal, fine measure on. Chang's Conjecture holds in any ℙmax-generic extension of L(ℝ).

This technique for obtaining Chang's Conjecture is fairly general. We [Se] have adapted it to obtain Chang's Conjecture in the model presented by Steel and Van Wesep [SVW] and Woodin [Wl] has adapted it to his ℚmax forcing notion. In each of these models, as in the ℙmax extension, one forces over L(ℝ) assuming AD to obtain ZFC and NSω1 is ω2-saturated.

By unpublished results of Woodin, the assumption for Corollary 4.6 is equiconsistent with the existence of ω2 many Woodin cardinals, and hence strictly stronger than ADL(ℝ). One would like to reduce this assumption to ADL(ℝ). Curiously, this reduction is not possible in the arguments for ℚmax or the Steel and Van Wesep model, and the following argument of Woodin suggests why it may not be possible for ℙmax either.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , March 2001 , pp. 144 - 170
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[FMS]Foreman, M., Magidor, M., and Shelah, S., Martin's Maximum, saturated ideals, and non-regular ultrafilters I, Annals of Mathematics, vol. 127 (1988), pp. 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[J]Jech, T., Set Theory, Academic Press, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Se]Seabold, D., Chang's Conjecture and the Steel and Van Wesep model, In preparation.Google Scholar
[S]Solovay, R., The Independence of DC from AD, Cabal Seminar 76-77, Lecture Notes in Mathematics #689, Springer-Verlag, 1978, pp. 171–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SVW]Steel, J. and Van Wesep, R., Two Consequences of Determinacy Consistent with Choice, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 272, 1982, pp. 67–85.Google Scholar
[W2]Woodin, H., Set Theory Seminar, UC Berkeley.Google Scholar
[W3]Woodin, H., Some consistency results in ZFC using AD, Cabal Seminar 79-81, Lecture Note Mathematics #1019, Springer-Verlag, pp. 172–198.Google Scholar
[W1]Woodin, H., The Axiom of Determinacy, Forcing Axioms, and the Nonstationary Ideal, In preparation.Google Scholar
[W4]Woodin, H., Σ12absoluteness, 1985, 05, Circulated Notes.Google Scholar