Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7tmb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-28T01:31:34.472Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some applications of coarse inner model theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Greg Hjorth
Greg Hjorth*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Ca 90095-1555, USA, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Martin-Steel coarse inner model theory is employed in obtaining new results in descriptive set theory. determinacy implies that for every thin equivalence relation there is a real, N, over which every equivalence class is generic—and hence there is a good (N#) wellordering of the equivalence classes. Analogous results are obtained for and quasilinear orderings and determinacy is shown to imply that every prewellorder has rank less than .

Keywords

Inner model theorylarge cardinalsequivalence relations
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 62 , Issue 2 , June 1997 , pp. 337 - 365
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1997

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

[1]Dodd, A., The core model, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, vol. 61, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Foreman, M. and Magidor, M., Large cardinals and definable counterexamples to the continuum hypothesis, to appear in the Annals of Pure and Applied Logic.Google Scholar
[3]Friedman, S., Analytic equivalence relations and illfounded models, preprint.Google Scholar
[4]Harrington, L., Long projective wellorderings, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 12 (1977), pp. 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Harrington, L. and Kechris, A., On the determinacy of games on ordinals, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 20 (1991), pp. 109–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Harrington, L. and Sami, R., Equivalence relations, projective and beyond, North-Holland, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Harrington, L. and Shelah, S., Counting equivalence classes for co-k-Souslin equivalence relations, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Harrrington, L., Analytic determinacy and 0#, this Journal, vol. 43 (1978), pp. 685–693.Google Scholar
[9]Hauser, K., The consistency strength of projective absoluteness, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 74 (1995), pp. 245–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Hjorth, G., Thin equivalence relations and effective decompositions, this Journal, vol. 58 (1993), pp. 1153–1164.Google Scholar
[11]Hjorth, G., The size of the ordinal μ2, Journal of the London Mathematical Society, vol. 52 (1995), pp. 417–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Hjorth, G., Two applications of inner model theory in the study of sets, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, vol. 2 (1996), pp. 94–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Hjorth, G., Variations on the Martin-Solovay tree, this Journal, vol. 61 (1996), pp. 40–51.Google Scholar
[14]Jackson, S., Partition properties and well-ordered sequences, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 48 (1990), pp. 81–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15]Jech, J., Set theory, Academic Press, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
[16]Kechris, A., On transfinite sequences of projective sets with an application to equivalence relations, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17]Kechris, A., Martin, D., and Solovay, R., Introduction to q-theory, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1019, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1983.Google Scholar
[18]Martin, D. and Steel, J., Iteration trees, Journal of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 7 (1994), pp. 1–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19]Mitchell, W. and Steel, J., The fine structure of iteration trees, Lecture Notes in Logic Series, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1995.Google Scholar
[20]Moschovakis, Y., Descriptive set theory, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1980.Google Scholar
[21]Shelah, S., Can you take Solovay's inaccessible away?, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 48 (1984), pp. 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[22]Shelah, S., On co-k-Souslin relations, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 47 (1984), pp. 139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[23]Shelah, S. and Woodin, W., Large cardinals imply that every reasonably definable set of reals is Lebesgue measurable, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 70 (1990), pp. 381–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[24]Solovay, R. M., On the cardinality of sets of reals, Symposium on Kurt Gödel (Buloff, et al., editors), 1969, pp. 58–73.Google Scholar
[25]Steel, J., The core model iterability problem, to appear in the Lecture Notes in Logic Series.Google Scholar
[26]Steel, J., HODL(ℝ) is a core model, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, vol. 1 (1995), pp. 75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar