Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T12:19:00.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DEPENDENT CHOICE, PROPERNESS, AND GENERIC ABSOLUTENESS

Part of: Philosophical aspects of logic and foundations Set theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2020

DAVID ASPERÓ  and
ASAF KARAGILA
DAVID ASPERÓ
Affiliation:
SCHOOL OF MATHEMATICS UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA NORWICH NR4 7TJ, UKE-mail: [email protected]: [email protected]
ASAF KARAGILA
Affiliation:
SCHOOL OF MATHEMATICS UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA NORWICH NR4 7TJ, UKE-mail: [email protected]: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We show that Dependent Choice is a sufficient choice principle for developing the basic theory of proper forcing, and for deriving generic absoluteness for the Chang model in the presence of large cardinals, even with respect to $\mathsf {DC}$ -preserving symmetric submodels of forcing extensions. Hence, $\mathsf {ZF}+\mathsf {DC}$ not only provides the right framework for developing classical analysis, but is also the right base theory over which to safeguard truth in analysis from the independence phenomenon in the presence of large cardinals. We also investigate some basic consequences of the Proper Forcing Axiom in $\mathsf {ZF}$ , and formulate a natural question about the generic absoluteness of the Proper Forcing Axiom in $\mathsf {ZF}+\mathsf {DC}$ and $\mathsf {ZFC}$ . Our results confirm $\mathsf {ZF} + \mathsf {DC}$ as a natural foundation for a significant portion of “classical mathematics” and provide support to the idea of this theory being also a natural foundation for a large part of set theory.

Keywords

Axiom of Choiceforcing axiomsproper forcingPFAgeneric absolutenessthe Chang model

MSC classification

Primary: 03E25: Axiom of choice and related propositions
Secondary: 03E55: Large cardinals 03E35: Consistency and independence results 03E57: Generic absoluteness and forcing axioms 03A05: Philosophical and critical
Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , March 2021 , pp. 225 - 249
Check for updates
Copyright
© Association for Symbolic Logic, 2020

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abraham, U. (2010). Proper forcing . In Foreman, M., and Kanamori, A., editors. Handbook of Set Theory, Vol. 1. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 333–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asperó, D. & Viale, M. (2018). Incompatible category forcing axioms. Preprint. arXiv:1805.08732.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, J. E. (1984). Applications of the proper forcing axiom. In Kunen, K., and Vaughan, J. E., editors. Handbook of Set-Theoretic Topology . Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., pp. 913–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boolos, G. & Jeffrey, R. C. (1980). Computability and Logic (second edition). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. (2011). Is the Continuum Hypothesis a definite mathematical problem? Exploring the Frontiers of Incompleteness (EFI) Project. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Grigorieff, S. (1975). Intermediate submodels and generic extensions in set theory . Annals of Mathematics, 101(2), 447–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamkins, J. D. (1998). Small forcing makes any cardinal superdestructible. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 63(1), 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamkins, J. D. & Löwe, B. (2008). The modal logic of forcing. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 360(4), 1793–1817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayut, Y. & Karagila, A. (2020). Critical cardinals. Israel Journal of Mathematics, 236, 449–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayut, Y. & Karagila, A. (2019). Spectra of uniformity. Commentationes Mathematicae Universitatis Carolinae , 60(2), 285–298.Google Scholar
Howard, P. & Rubin, J. E. (1998). Consequences of the Axiom of Choice. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, Vol. 59. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society. With 1 IBM-PC floppy disk (3.5 inch; WD).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, P. E. (1975). Łoś' theorem and the Boolean prime ideal theorem imply the axiom of choice . Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 49, 426–428.Google Scholar
Jech, T. J. (1973). The Axiom of Choice. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 75. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Kanamori, A. (2003). The Higher Infinite: Large Cardinals in Set Theory from Their Beginnings. Springer Monographs in Mathematics (second edition). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Karagila, A. (2018). The Bristol model: An abyss called a Cohen real . Journal of Mathematical Logic , 18(2), 1850008–1850037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karagila, A. (2019). Preserving dependent choice . Bulletin of the Polish Academy of Sciences Mathematics, 67(1), 19–29.Google Scholar
König, B. & Yoshinobu, Y. (2004). Fragments of Martin's maximum in generic extensions. Mathematical Logic Quarterly, 50(3), 297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunen, K. (1971). Elementary embeddings and infinitary combinatorics . The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 36, 407–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lévy, A. & Solovay, R. M. (1967). Measurable cardinals and the continuum hypothesis. Israel Journal of Mathematics, 5, 234–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mekler, A. H. (1984). C.c.c. forcing without combinatorics . Journal of Symbolic Logic, 49(3), 830–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monro, G. P. (1983). On generic extensions without the axiom of choice. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 48(1), 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, J. T. (2005). Set mapping reflection . Journal of Mathematical Logic, 5(1), 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pincus, D. (1977). Adding dependent choice . Annals of Mathematical Logic, 11(1), 105–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schölder, J. J. (2013). Forcing Axioms Through Iterations of Minimal Counterexamples. Master's Thesis, Mathematical Institute of the University of Bonn.Google Scholar
Shelah, S. (1998). Proper and Improper Forcing (second edition). Perspectives in Mathematical Logic. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solovay, R. M. (1970). A model of set-theory in which every set of reals is Lebesgue measurable. Annals of Mathematics, 92(2), 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viale, M. (2016). Category forcings, ${\mathsf{MM}}^{+++}$ , and generic absoluteness for the theory of strong forcing axioms. Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 29(3), 675–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodin, W. H. (1988). Supercompact cardinals, sets of reals, and weakly homogeneous trees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 85(18), 6587–6591.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woodin, W. H. (2010). Suitable extender models I . Journal of Mathematical Logic, 10(1–2), 101–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodin, W. H. (2011). The continuum hypothesis, the generic-multiverse of sets, and the omega conjecture. In Kennedy, J., and Kossak, R., editors. Set Theory, Arithmetic, and Foundations of Mathematics: Theorems, Philosophies. Lecture Notes Log., Vol. 36. La Jolla, CA: The Association for Symbolic Logic, pp. 13–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodin, W. H. (2017). In search of Ultimate- $\mathrm{L}$ : The 19th Midrasha Mathematicae Lectures. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 23(1), 1–109.10.1017/bsl.2016.34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoshinobu, Y. (2019). Properness under closed forcing. Preprint, arXiv:1904.11168.Google Scholar