We present some abstract theorems showing how domination properties equivalent to being or array nonrecursive can be used to construct sets generic for different notions of forcing. These theorems are then applied to give simple proofs of some known results. We also give a direct uniform proof of a recent result of Ambos-Spies, Ding, Wang, and Yu [2009] that every degree above any in is recursively enumerable in a 1-generic degree strictly below it. Our major new result is that every array nonrecursive degree is r.e. in some degree strictly below it. Our analysis of array nonrecursiveness and construction of generic sequences below ANR degrees also reveal a new level of uniformity in these types of results.

Let X and Y be uncountable Polish spaces. We show in ZF that there is a coanalytic subset P of X × Y with countable sections which cannot be expressed as the union of countably many partial coanalytic, or even PCA = , graphs. If X = Y = ωω, P may be taken to be . Assuming stronger set theoretic axioms, we identify the least pointclass such that any such coanalytic P can be expressed as the union of countably many graphs in this pointclass. This last result is extended (under suitable hypotheses) to all levels of the projective hierarchy.

Assume T is a superstable theory with < 2ℵ0 countable models. We prove that any *- algebraic type of -rank > 0 is m-nonorthogonal to a *-algebraic type of -rank 1. We study the geometry induced by m-dependence on a *-algebraic type p* of -rank 1. We prove that after some localization this geometry becomes projective over a division ring . Associated with p* is a meager type p. We prove that p is determined by p* up to nonorthogonality and that underlies also the geometry induced by forking dependence on any stationarization of p. Also we study some *-algebraic *-groups of -rank 1 and prove that any *-algebraic *-group of -rank 1 is abelian-by-finite.

In this paper, we show by a proof-theoretical argument that in a logic without structural rules, that is in noncommutative linear logic with exponentials, every formula A for which exchange rules (and weakening and contraction as well) are admissible is provably equivalent to? A. This property shows that the expressive power of “noncommutative exponentials” is much more important than that of “commutative exponentials”.

This article is concerned with functions k assigning a cardinal number to each infinite Boolean algebra (BA), and the behaviour of such functions under ultraproducts. For some common functions k we have

for others we have ≤ instead, under suitable assumptions. For the function π character we go into more detail. More specifically, ≥ holds when F is regular, for cellularity, length, irredundance, spread, and incomparability. ≤ holds for π. ≥ holds under GCH for F regular, for depth, π, πχ, χ, h-cof, tightness, hL, and hd. These results show that ≥ can consistently hold in ZFC since if V = L holds then all uniform ultrafilters are regular. For π-character we prove two more results: (1) If F is regular and ess , then

(2) It is relatively consistent to have , where A is the denumerable atomless BA.

A thorough analysis of what happens without the assumption that F is regular can be found in Rosłanowski, Shelah [8] and Magidor, Shelah [5]. Those papers also mention open problems concerning the above two possible inequalities.

In this paper, constructions of free ordered algebras on one generator are given that correspond to some one-variable fragments of affine propositional classical logic and their extensions with n-contraction (n ≥ 2). Moreover, embeddings of the already known infinite free structures into the algebras introduced below are furnished with; thus, solving along the respective cardinality problems.

We discuss saturating ultrafilters on N, relating them to other types of non-principal ultrafilter. (a) There is an (ω, c)-saturating ultrafllter on N iff 2λ ≤ c for every λ < c and there is no cover of R by fewer than c nowhere dense sets, (b) Assume Martin's axiom. Then, for any cardinal κ, a nonprincipal ultrafllter on N is (ω, κ)-saturating iff it is almost κ-good. In particular, (i) p(κ)-point ultrafilters are (ω, κ)-saturating, and (ii) the set of (ω, κ)-saturating ultrafilters is invariant under homeomorphisms of βN/N. (c) It is relatively consistent with ZFC to suppose that there is a Ramsey p(c)-point ultrafilter which is not (ω, c)-saturating.

We construct a decidable first-order theory T such that the theory of its finite models is undecidable. Moreover, T will be equationally axiomatizable and of finite type.

Our framework is ZFC, and we view cardinals as initial ordinals. Baumgartner ([Bal] and [Ba2]) studied properties of large cardinals by considering these properties as properties of normal ideals and not as properties of cardinals alone. In this paper we study these combinatorial properties by defining operations which take as input one or more ideals and give as output an ideal associated with a large cardinal property. We consider four operations T, P, S and C on ideals of a regular cardinal κ, and study the structure of the collection of subsets they give, and the relationships between them.

The operation T is defined using combinatorial properties based on trees 〈X, <T〉 on subsets X ⊆ κ (where α <T β → α < β). Given an ideal I, consider the property *: “every tree on κ with every branching set in I has a branch of size κ” (where a branching set is a maximal set with the same set of <T-predecessors, and a chain is a maximal <T-linearly ordered set; for definitions see §2). Now consider the collection T(I) of all subsets of κ that do not satisfy * (see Definition 2.2 and the introduction to §5). The operation T provides us with the large cardinal property (whether κ ∈ T(I) or not) and it also provides us with the ideal associated with this large cardinal property (namely T(I)); in general, we obtain different notions depending on the ideal I.

The purpose of this paper is to suggest two alternatives to Quine's definition of closure. These new definitions have two advantages over Quine's definition, and they probably are the simplest definitions having both advantages. The two advantages are:

(1). Principle *101 becomes superfluous and may be dropped from Quine's set of principles for quantification. (In the case of my second definition, however, the dropping of *101 must be balanced by a slight change in *104.)

(2). Closure is made independent of the alphabetical order of variables.

The second of these advantages turns on the fact that the “alphabetical order” possessed by variables in virtue of their respective positions in the alphabet (or arbitrarily assigned to them) is a mere convention and not of genuine logical significance. It seems therefore desirable to consider some alternatives to Quine's definition of closure, since according to his definition the closure of a given formula will be one statement or another, depending upon whether or not one letter of the alphabet is alphabetically prior to a certain other letter. It is interesting that the removal of this minor artificiality also enables us to dispense with *101.

According to Quine, the closure of a formula containing n free variables is obtained by prefixing to it in alphabetical order the n universal quantifiers formed from these variables by enclosing each in a pair of parentheses. (If n = 0 the formula is its own closure and is a “statement” rather than a “matrix.”) Thus the statement ‘(x)(y)(z)(xϵy ▪ yϵz)’ would be the closure of ‘xϵy ▪ yϵz’, but ‘(z)(x)(y)(xϵy ▪ yϵz)’ would not be its closure. Now there is no reason why ‘(z)(x)(y)(xϵy ▪ yϵz)’ or (y)(z)(x)(xϵy ▪ yϵz) and so on, could not just as well be regarded as “the” closure of ‘(xϵy ▪ yϵz’ as ‘(x)(y)(z)(xϵy ▪ yϵz)’. I therefore propose to allow to each formula not merely one closure, but as many closures as can be obtained by permuting in various ways the n prefixed universal quantifiers. In this way alphabetical order becomes irrelevant and no preference is given to one order of prefixed quantifiers in contrast to other orders which seem equally good. This constitutes my first redefinition of closure.