Boolean-Valued Models and Forcing
|
|
- Scarlett Shauna Goodwin
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Boolean-Valued Models and Forcing Abstract This introduction to forcing is based on Chapters 5 6 in T. J. Jech s book The Axiom of Choice and is written primarily for the Fraenkel-Mostowski Models reading group. Forcing is introduced via Boolean-valued models and generic extensions, and these techniques are used to prove the independence of the axiom of choice of ZF. This is then related back to the theory of FM models. Please inform me of any errors by sending an to cn319@cam.ac.uk. 1 Boolean-valued models First we need to fix some notation. Let M be a fixed transitive model of ZFC sitting inside the universe V. Throughout this section we will be working inside M. Let B M be a complete Boolean algebra in M. This means that B is a set in M with the structure of a Boolean algebra, which is complete inside M, meaning that if A B and A M then A M and A M. Note that B need not contain the joins and meets of all its subsets just those that lie in M. We ll write for the Boolean operation defined by a b = a b. The B-valued model M B is defined by transfinite recursion: M B 0 =, M B α+1 = [M B α B], M B λ = α<λ M B α, M B = where [X Y ] denotes the set of functions f with dom(f) X and im(f) Y. We can embed M M B by x ˇx, where ˇx is the function defined recursively by dom(ˇx) = {ˇy : y x} and ˇx(ˇy) = 1 for all y x α Ord Very loosely speaking, it is intuitively helpful to think of elements of M B (which are functions) as being names for sets in another model. Then, for x M B and y dom(x), we can think of x(y) as being the probability that the set named y is a member of the set named x. We make this more precise by considering Boolean values of formulae with variables in M B ; that is, to each formula φ we assign an element of B. Suppose φ(x 1 x n ) is a formula with variables in M B. Its Boolean value φ(x 1 x n ) B B is defined by recursion on the complexity of φ: (i 1 ) x y B = z dom(y) (i 2 ) x = y B = z dom(x) y(z) z = x B (x(z) z y B ) z dom(y) (ii) B respects the Boolean operations,,,. 1 (iii 1 ) xφ B = { φ(x) B : x M B } (iii 2 ) xφ B = { φ(x) B : x M B } (y(z) z x B ) From now on, we drop the subscript. Before moving on, notice the similarity between (i 1 ) and the logical formula x y ( z y)(z = x) and, likewise, the similarity between (i 2 ) and the formula x = y ( z x)(z y) (z y)(z x) This is no coincidence. In fact, it is intuitively helpful to think of the order in B as being implication. This helps motivate and make sense of the following properties of the Boolean value: 1 Here I ve been lazy. What I mean is that, for example, φ ψ B = φ B ψ B, where is logical implication and is the Boolean operation on B. M B α 1
2 (1) x = x = 1 (2) x(y) y x (3) x = y = y = x (4) x = y y = z x = z (5) x = z x y z y (6) x = z y x y z (7) x = y φ(x) φ(y) (8) ( y x)φ(y) = y dom(x) {x(y) φ(y) } (9) ( y x)φ(y) = y dom(x) {x(y) φ(y) } Why are these useful? We say a formula φ(x 1 x n ) with variables in M B is valid in M B if φ(x 1 x n ) = 1. Theorem 1.1 ˆ Every axiom of the predicate calculus is valid in M B, and if φ is obtained via a rule of inference applied to valid formulae then φ is valid in M B. In particular, every theorem is valid in M B. ˆ Every axiom of ZFC is valid in M B. In particular, by the previous remark, we also have that every sentence provable from the ZFC axioms is valid in M B. 2 Generic extensions Now we step outside the model M and into the universe V. The goal is to extend M to a larger model M[G] obtained by adding to M a special subset G of our complete Boolean algebra B, and throwing in everything else that we need in order for this to be a model of ZFC (and nothing more). A subset G B is an M-generic ultrafilter if ˆ G is an ultrafilter, i.e. It is upwards-closed: for all b G, if b c then c G; It is closed under meets: for all a, b G, a b G; If b B then either b G or b G, but not both (so, in particular, 0 G). ˆ G contains the meets of all its subsets which lie in M, i.e. if A G and A M then A G. A generic ultrafilter is precisely the special subset we wish to adjoin to M. To construct M[G], we go via M B. The interpretation ι G of M B by G is defined recursively by ι G (x) = {ι G (y) : x(y) G, y dom(x)} We say that x M G is a G-name for x V if ι G (x) = x; so every function in M G is a name for some set in the universe. Then M[G] is defined to be precisely collection of sets in the universe which have G-names; that is, M[G] = {ι G (x) : x M B } So far this definition doesn t serve much use. But it turns out to be useful thanks to the following two theorems. Theorem 2.1 (a) M M[G] and G M[G] (b) If x, y are names for x, y, then x y if and only if x y G, and x = y if and only if x = y G Proof: 2
3 (a) By -recursion, ι G (ˇx) = {ι G (ˇy) : ˇy dom(ˇx)} = {y : y x} = x so each x M has a name, so M M[G]. We define the canonical generic ultrafilter G by dom(g) = {ǔ : u B}, G(ǔ) = u for all u B then so G has a name, so G M[G]. ι G (G) = {ι G (x) : G(x) G} = {ι G (ǔ) : u G} = G (b) Direct calculation. Theorem 2.2 If φ(x 1 x n ) is a formula and x i are names for x i for each 1 i n, then M[G] φ(x 1 x n ) if and only if φ(x 1 x n ) G Corollary 2.3 (a) M[G] is a model of ZFC; (b) M[G] is the least model N of ZF with M N and G N. We call M[G] the generic extension of M by G. At this point you might wonder what the point was in doing all this work: our goal is to prove the independence of the axiom of choice from ZF, and yet all we ve done so far is construct another model where choice holds! However, provided G M (as is usually the case), we have a strict inclusion M M[G]. The model N of ZF which we will construct in which the axiom of choice fails will satisfy M N M[G]; in particular, it cannot contain G as a set. Before we can do this properly, we need to introduce forcing. 3 Forcing Before we go too deep into forcing, let s review some of what we ve done. The intuition behind the Boolean values of formulae is to see φ B as being the probability that φ is true. So, in some vague sense, these formulae form a poset ordered by implication. Then if some formula φ is true, so are all its successors in this poset. What we do with forcing is take some poset (P, ) and embed it in a complete Boolean algebra B; then an element p P forces a formula φ if its image under the embedding lies somewhere below φ. We make this precise in what follows. Let (P, ) be a poset. We will call the elements of P forcing conditions, and if p q we say that p is stronger than q and that q is weaker than p. [Compare this to Section 1 where we said that can be thought of as meaning implies : indeed, p implies q if and only if p is stronger than q, so this terminology makes sense.] A collection D P of forcing conditions is dense if every forcing condition is weaker than one of its elements; that is, for all p P there exists d D with d p. We say p, q P are compatible if they share a stronger condition, i.e. if there exists r P with r p and r q; otherwise they are incompatible. [In the latter case, we write p q.] A subset Γ P is M-generic if ˆ Γ is upwards-closed: if x Γ and x y then y Γ; 3
4 ˆ Γ is compatible: if x, y Γ then x and y are compatible; ˆ If D P is dense and D M then D Γ. If B is a complete Boolean algebra and P B {0} is dense, then there is a correspondence between generic ultrafilters in B and generic subsets of P. More precisely: ˆ If G is a generic ultrafilter on B then Γ = G P is a generic subset of P ; ˆ If Γ P is generic then G = {u B : ( p Γ)(p u)} is a generic ultrafilter in B. Unfortunately, when we re dealing with most posets, we don t have for free that it is a dense subset of a complete Boolean algebra. However, with the help of some topological techniques, we can make it so. Let X be a topological space. A subset A X is regular open in X if it is equal to the interior of its closure. 2 We denote the collection of all such sets by RO(X). Then RO(X) is a complete Boolean algebra whose operations are defined by: ˆ A = A = int(a c ); ˆ A B = (A B) ; ˆ A B = A B. In particular, RO(X) is partially ordered by. We can endow an arbitrary poset (P, ) with the topology whose basic open sets are [p] = {q P : q p} Then P embeds into RO(P ) by e : P RO(P ), where e(p) = int(cl( [p])) This embedding has some useful properties: ˆ e preserves order: if p q then e(p) e(q); ˆ e preserves compatibility: if p and q are compatible then e(p) e(q) ; ˆ The image of P under e is dense in RO(P ). These conditions imply that the correspondence between generic subsets and generic ultrafilters can be carried over to this scenario. Indeed, if G RO(P ) is a generic ultrafilter then Γ = e 1 (G) P is generic; and if Γ P is generic then G = {u RO(P ) : ( p Γ)(e(p) u)} is a generic ultrafilter in RO(P ). We interchangeably write M[Γ] = M[G]. Returning to more familiar notation, let B = RO(P ), let M, M B, all be as before, and suppose φ(x 1 x n ) is a formula with free variables in M B. We say p P forces φ(x 1 x n ), and write p φ(x 1 x n ), if e(p) φ(x 1 x n ). Some useful properties of forcing are as follows: p φ if and only if for all q p, q φ p φ ψ if and only if p φ and p ψ p φ ψ if and only if for all q p there exists r q with r φ or r ψ p xφ if and only if for all x M B, p φ(x) p xφ if and only if for all q p there exist r q and x M B with r φ(x) 2 For example, in R, the set R {0} is open but it is not regular open because the interior of its closure is R. 4
5 The power behind forcing comes from the following theorem, which is essentially a restatement of Theorem 2.2. Theorem 3.1 Let φ(x 1 x n ) be a formula, Γ P an M-generic set, and x i names for x i in M B. Then M[Γ] φ(x 1 x n ) if and only if there is some p Γ with p φ(x 1 x n ). 4 Symmetric submodels Symmetric submodels can be motivated by looking at how we made the axiom of choice fail in a permutation model: we took our model of ZFA+( AC) to consist of those sets whose symmetric groups lie in a given normal filter of subgroups of a group of -automorphisms of the universe (with atoms). The reason why we can t just do that here is because there are no nontrivial -automorphisms of V : indeed, every -automorphism of the universe with atoms fixes the kernel V. Nevertheless, although there are no nontrivial automorphisms of V or of M, there are nontrivial automorphisms of M B. So instead of permuting sets in M[G], we ll permute their names, and then pass to a submodel where choice fails. So, let B be a complete Boolean algebra, G be a generic ultrafilter on B, and M and M B be as usual. An automorphism π of B is a bijection π : B B which preserves the Boolean operations of B. We can then extend π to an automorphism of M B by recursion: dom(π(x)) = {π(y) : y dom(x)}, π(x)(π(y)) = π(x(y)) for all π(y) dom(π(x)) Notice that π(ˇx) = ˇx for all x M, since ˇx(ˇy) = 1 for all y x and we must have π(1) = 1. The induced automorphism of π has a useful homogeneity property: Lemma 4.1 If φ(x 1 x n ) has variables in M B then φ(π(x 1 ) π(x n )) = π( φ(x 1 x n ) ) This can be proved by direct calculation using induction on the complexity of φ. After the following definitions we will have all the machinery we need to prove the independence of the axiom of choice from ZF, provided we make smart chioces along the way. Let G be a group of automorphisms of B. We say a collection F of subsets of G is a normal filter if ˆ F is closed upwards: if H F and H K G then K F; ˆ F is closed under intersections: if H, K F then H K F; ˆ F is closed under G-conjugations: if H F and π G then π 1 Hπ F. We say a name x M B is (F-)symmetric if sym G (x) = {π G : π(x) = x} F Let HS F denote the class of hereditarily (F-)symmetric names; that is, HS F and if dom(x) HS F and x is F-symmetric then x HS F. Finally, define N F = {ι G (x) : x HS F } to be the class of sets with hereditarily F-symmetric names. Notice that, by our observation, ˇx HS F for each x M, since sym G (ˇx) = G F, and so M N F M[G] 5
6 and, usually, both of these inclusions will be strict. This is useful because... Theorem 4.2 N F is a model of ZF The proof is in Jech s book; working through it isn t as illuminating as seeing how it is used. Notice the lack of C in Theorem 4.2: it is in N F that we hope the axiom of choice will fail, and we ensure this by choosing G and F cleverly. 5 A model of ZF where choice fails The following construction is due to Cohen. Let M be a model of ZFC, and define a poset (P, ) by P = [ω ω 2] fin = {(f : ω ω 2) : dom(f) < ℵ 0 } with f g if and only if f extends g. Let B = RO(P ) and let G be a generic filter over B. We define M B and M[G] as in the previous sections. A permutation π of ω induces an automorphism of P given by dom(π(p)) = {(n, m) : (π(n), m) dom(p)}, π(p)(n, m) = p(π(n), m) and thus induces an automorphism of B by π(u) = {π(p) : p u} Let G be the group of automorphisms of B which are induced by permutations of ω in the above sense, and define a normal filter F = {H G : ( e ω)( e < ℵ 0 fix G (e) H)} where fix G (e) = {π G : π e = id e }. Let N F be as in Section 4. Theorem 5.1 N F AC Corollary 5.2 The axiom of choice is independent of ZF. Proof of Theorem 5.1: For each n ω define x n = {m ω : p(n, m) = 1 for some p G} P(ω) = R and let A = {x n : n ω}. We ll show that A and all its members lie in the model N = N F, but that there is no bijection ω A in N. This proves what we want, since if A were to have a choice function then there would certainly be a bijection ω A. We ll do this in a few steps. Step 1: x n N for all n ω, and A N. Each x n has a name x n M B defined by dom(x n ) = { ˇm : m ω}, x n ( ˇm) = u n,m = {p P : p(n, m) = 1} Then π(u n,m ) = u π 1 (n),m, and so we have sym G (x n ) = fix G ({n}) F, and hence x n N. And A has a name A M B defined by dom(a) = {x n : n ω}, A(x n ) = 1 for all n ω Then π(a) = A, and so we have sym G (A) = G F and hence A N. Step 2: The reals in A are pairwise distinct. 6
7 Suppose, for contradiction, that we have p P and i j with p (x i = x j ). By definition there is some m ω with (i, m) dom(p) and (j, m) dom(p). For this m, define q p to be the function extending p which satisfies q(i, m) = 0 and q(j, m) = 1. Then q (x i x j ). But q p, so this would mean p (x i x j ), contradicting our assumption. Hence x i = x j = 0 for all i j, and so the x i are distinct. Step 3: There is no bijection ω A in N. Suppose, for contradiction, that such a bijection exists, and let its name be f. Then there must be some p G with p (f is a bijection ˇω A). Let e ω be a finite subset with fix G (e) sym G (f). Then there exists i ω, q p and n e such that p (f(ǐ) = x n ). Choose n ω e with (n, m) dom(q) for each m ω, and let π be the permutation of ω which swaps n and n and fixes everything else. Then q and π(q) are compatible, so r = q π(q) q is a well-defined function extending q. Moreover, π fix(e), π(ǐ) = ǐ and π(p) (π(f)(ǐ) = π(x n )), so and in particular, r (f(ǐ) = x n f(x i ) = x π 1 (n) ) r (x n = x π 1 (n) ) So we must have p (x n = x π 1 (n)). But this contradicts our assumption since, by Step 2, x n x π 1 (n) since π 1 (n) n. 6 Relation to FM models In Cohen s model of ZF+( AC) in Section 5, it is quite remarkable how similarly the set A behaves like the set of atoms in a permutation model. It is natural to look for some kind of correspondence between symmetric extensions of a transitive model M of ZFC and permutation models of ZFA. 3 Unfortunately, whereas atoms are structureless and it is (in general) impossible to distinguish between them, subsets of ω carry too much structure and we can usually distinguish between them. However, if we look for a different kind of set to correspond to the set of atoms, we will have more luck. This is put precisely in the following theorem. Theorem 6.1 (First embedding theorem) Let U be a model of ZFCA, let A U be the set of atoms, let M be the kernel of U and let α be an ordinal in U. Then, for every permutation model V U of ZFA, there exists a symmetric extension N M (which is a model of ZF) and a set à N such that P α (A) V is -isomorphic to P α (Ã)N We will not prove this in full here; but we will construct a generic extension M[G] of M explicitly. Let G be a group of permutations of A and let F be a normal filter of subgroups of G such for which V is the class of hereditarily (G, F)-symmetric sets in U. Note that this is not the same construction as in Section 4; it is a model of ZFA, not ZF(C)! Let κ be a regular cardinal with κ > P α (A) in U. Define 3 For more on what this is, see Chapter 4 in Jech s book. P = {p [A κ κ 2] : dom(p) < κ} 7
8 where A M has the same cardinality of A. [From now on we ll abuse notation by identifying A with A ; but we must really use A so that P lies in M.] P is ordered by reverse-extension, i.e. p q if and only if p extends q. Let B = RO(P ) and let G be a generic ultrafilter of B. We ll construct Ã, and its name Ã, as follows: ˆ For a A and ξ < κ, define x a,ξ κ by x a,ξ = {η < κ : p(a, ξ, η) = 1 for some a A} Then x a,ξ has name x a,ξ M B, given by dom(x a,ξ ) = {ˇη : η < κ}, x a,ξ (ˇη) = u a,ξ,η = {p P : p(a, ξ, η) = 1} ˆ For a A, define Then ã has name ã M B, given by ã = {x a,ξ : ξ < κ} dom(ã) = {x a,ξ : ξ < η}, ã(x a,ξ ) = 1 for all ξ < κ ˆ At long last, à is defined by and this has name à given by à = {ã : a A} dom(ã) = {ã : a A}, Ã(ã) = 1 for all a A That is, we have a set (Ã) of sets (ã) of sets (x a,ξ) of ordinals (η), and these are all sets in M[G] since they all have names. In order to obtain the -isomorphism, we need some more identifications; fortunately, these are much more painless. For x U, define x M G by recursion: Then each x has a name x M B, given by x = {ỹ : y x} dom( x) = {ỹ : y x}, x(ỹ) = 1 for all y x The following results, whose proofs are in Chapter 6 of Jech s book, complete the proof: Step 1 x y if and only if x ỹ and x = y if and only if x = ỹ. Step 2 There is a group G of permutations of B and a normal filter F of subgroups of G for which, for all x U, x V if and only if x HS F. [Note to self, put the construction of G and F here some time.] Step 3 For all x U, x V if and only if x N = N F. Step 4 Pα (A) V = P α (Ã)N. Clive Newstead November
Permutation models, topological groups and Ramsey actions
Permutation models, topological groups and Ramsey actions University of Cambridge Thursday 27 th June 2013 Clive Newstead Abstract Permutation models in which the axiom of choice fails but the Boolean
More informationRELATIONS BETWEEN SOME CARDINALS IN THE ABSENCE OF THE AXIOM OF CHOICE
RELATIONS BETWEEN SOME CARDINALS IN THE ABSENCE OF THE AXIOM OF CHOICE DEDICATED TO THE MEMORY OF PROF. HANS LÄUCHLI LORENZ HALBEISEN 1 AND SAHARON SHELAH 2 Abstract. If we assume the axiom of choice,
More informationPermutation Models for Set Theory
Permutation Models for Set Theory An essay submitted for Part III of the Mathematical Tripos Clive Newstead Robinson College, University of Cambridge Friday 3rd May 2013 Permutation Models for Set Theory
More informationThe axiom of choice and two-point sets in the plane
A.Miller AC and 2-point sets The axiom of choice and two-point sets in the plane Abstract Arnold W. Miller In this paper we prove that it consistent to have a two-point set in a model of ZF in which the
More informationShort Introduction to Admissible Recursion Theory
Short Introduction to Admissible Recursion Theory Rachael Alvir November 2016 1 Axioms of KP and Admissible Sets An admissible set is a transitive set A satisfying the axioms of Kripke-Platek Set Theory
More informationPart II. Logic and Set Theory. Year
Part II Year 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2018 60 Paper 4, Section II 16G State and prove the ǫ-recursion Theorem. [You may assume the Principle of ǫ- Induction.]
More informationWeak Choice Principles and Forcing Axioms
Weak Choice Principles and Forcing Axioms Elizabeth Lauri 1 Introduction Faculty Mentor: David Fernandez Breton Forcing is a technique that was discovered by Cohen in the mid 20th century, and it is particularly
More informationFORCING WITH SEQUENCES OF MODELS OF TWO TYPES
FORCING WITH SEQUENCES OF MODELS OF TWO TYPES ITAY NEEMAN Abstract. We present an approach to forcing with finite sequences of models that uses models of two types. This approach builds on earlier work
More informationFORCING (LECTURE NOTES FOR MATH 223S, SPRING 2011)
FORCING (LECTURE NOTES FOR MATH 223S, SPRING 2011) ITAY NEEMAN 1. General theory of forcing extensions Hilbert s 1st problem: Is there a cardinal strictly between ℵ 0 and 2 ℵ 0? Equivalently, is there
More informationGREGORY TREES, THE CONTINUUM, AND MARTIN S AXIOM
The Journal of Symbolic Logic Volume 00, Number 0, XXX 0000 GREGORY TREES, THE CONTINUUM, AND MARTIN S AXIOM KENNETH KUNEN AND DILIP RAGHAVAN Abstract. We continue the investigation of Gregory trees and
More informationAn Iterated Forcing Extension In Which All Aleph-1 Dense Sets of Reals Are Isomorphic
San Jose State University SJSU ScholarWorks Master's Theses Master's Theses and Graduate Research Summer 2010 An Iterated Forcing Extension In Which All Aleph-1 Dense Sets of Reals Are Isomorphic Michael
More informationThe constructible universe
The constructible universe In this set of notes I want to sketch Gödel s proof that CH is consistent with the other axioms of set theory. Gödel s argument goes well beyond this result; his identification
More informationLöwenheim-Skolem Theorems, Countable Approximations, and L ω. David W. Kueker (Lecture Notes, Fall 2007)
Löwenheim-Skolem Theorems, Countable Approximations, and L ω 0. Introduction David W. Kueker (Lecture Notes, Fall 2007) In its simplest form the Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem for L ω1 ω states that if σ L ω1
More informationInitial Ordinals. Proposition 57 For every ordinal α there is an initial ordinal κ such that κ α and α κ.
Initial Ordinals We now return to ordinals in general and use them to give a more precise meaning to the notion of a cardinal. First we make some observations. Note that if there is an ordinal with a certain
More informationIncreasing δ 1 2 and Namba-style forcing
Increasing δ 1 2 and Namba-style forcing Richard Ketchersid Miami University Jindřich Zapletal University of Florida April 17, 2007 Paul Larson Miami University Abstract We isolate a forcing which increases
More informationNOTES FOR 197, SPRING 2018
NOTES FOR 197, SPRING 2018 We work in ZFDC, Zermelo-Frankel Theory with Dependent Choices, whose axioms are Zermelo s I - VII, the Replacement Axiom VIII and the axiom DC of dependent choices; when we
More informationUNIVERSALLY BAIRE SETS AND GENERIC ABSOLUTENESS TREVOR M. WILSON
UNIVERSALLY BAIRE SETS AND GENERIC ABSOLUTENESS TREVOR M. WILSON Abstract. We prove several equivalences and relative consistency results involving notions of generic absoluteness beyond Woodin s ) (Σ
More informationA NOTE ON THE EIGHTFOLD WAY
A NOTE ON THE EIGHTFOLD WAY THOMAS GILTON AND JOHN KRUEGER Abstract. Assuming the existence of a Mahlo cardinal, we construct a model in which there exists an ω 2 -Aronszajn tree, the ω 1 -approachability
More informationMore Model Theory Notes
More Model Theory Notes Miscellaneous information, loosely organized. 1. Kinds of Models A countable homogeneous model M is one such that, for any partial elementary map f : A M with A M finite, and any
More informationDEFINITIONS OF FINITENESS BASED ON ORDER PROPERTIES
DEFINITIONS OF FINITENESS BASED ON ORDER PROPERTIES OMAR DE LA CRUZ, DAMIR D. DZHAFAROV, AND ERIC J. HALL July 24, 2004 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification: 03E25, 03E20, 03E35, 06A07. Research of
More informationWinter School on Galois Theory Luxembourg, February INTRODUCTION TO PROFINITE GROUPS Luis Ribes Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
Winter School on alois Theory Luxembourg, 15-24 February 2012 INTRODUCTION TO PROFINITE ROUPS Luis Ribes Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada LECTURE 2 2.1 ENERATORS OF A PROFINITE ROUP 2.2 FREE PRO-C ROUPS
More informationPart II Logic and Set Theory
Part II Logic and Set Theory Theorems Based on lectures by I. B. Leader Notes taken by Dexter Chua Lent 2015 These notes are not endorsed by the lecturers, and I have modified them (often significantly)
More informationDO FIVE OUT OF SIX ON EACH SET PROBLEM SET
DO FIVE OUT OF SIX ON EACH SET PROBLEM SET 1. THE AXIOM OF FOUNDATION Early on in the book (page 6) it is indicated that throughout the formal development set is going to mean pure set, or set whose elements,
More informationSEPARATION IN CLASS FORCING EXTENSIONS. Contents
SEPARATION IN CLASS FORCING EXTENSIONS PETER HOLY, REGULA KRAPF, AND PHILIPP SCHLICHT Abstract. We investigate the validity of instances of the Separation scheme in generic extensions for class forcing.
More informationThe Bounded Axiom A Forcing Axiom
The Bounded Axiom A Forcing Axiom Thilo Weinert 1 1 Contact: e-mail: weinert@math.uni-bonn.de, Phone: +49 228 73 3791 Abstract We introduce the Bounded Axiom A Forcing Axiom(BAAFA). It turns out that it
More informationViolating the Singular Cardinals Hypothesis Without Large Cardinals
Violating the Singular Cardinals Hypothesis Without Large Cardinals CUNY Logic Workshop, November 18, 2011 by Peter Koepke (Bonn); joint work with Moti Gitik (Tel Aviv) Easton proved that the behavior
More informationtp(c/a) tp(c/ab) T h(m M ) is assumed in the background.
Model Theory II. 80824 22.10.2006-22.01-2007 (not: 17.12) Time: The first meeting will be on SUNDAY, OCT. 22, 10-12, room 209. We will try to make this time change permanent. Please write ehud@math.huji.ac.il
More informationDiagonalize This. Iian Smythe. Department of Mathematics Cornell University. Olivetti Club November 26, 2013
Diagonalize This Iian Smythe Department of Mathematics Cornell University Olivetti Club November 26, 2013 Iian Smythe (Cornell) Diagonalize This Nov 26, 2013 1 / 26 "Surprised Again on the Diagonal", Lun-Yi
More information3. FORCING NOTION AND GENERIC FILTERS
3. FORCING NOTION AND GENERIC FILTERS January 19, 2010 BOHUSLAV BALCAR, balcar@math.cas.cz 1 TOMÁŠ PAZÁK, pazak@math.cas.cz 1 JONATHAN VERNER, jonathan.verner@matfyz.cz 2 We now come to the important definition.
More informationGAMES ON BOOLEAN ALGEBRAS
UNIVERSITY OF NOVI SAD FACULTY OF SCIENCE DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND INFORMATICS Boris Šobot, M.Sc. GAMES ON BOOLEAN ALGEBRAS -Ph.D. thesis- Supervisor: Professor Miloš Kurilić, Ph.D. Novi Sad, 2009.
More informationViolating the Singular Cardinals Hypothesis Without Large Cardinals
Violating the Singular Cardinals Hypothesis Without Large Cardinals Talk at the University of Bristol by Peter Koepke (Bonn), joint work with Moti Gitik (Jerusalem) November 29, 2010 Cantor s Continuum
More informationLINDSTRÖM S THEOREM SALMAN SIDDIQI
LINDSTRÖM S THEOREM SALMAN SIDDIQI Abstract. This paper attempts to serve as an introduction to abstract model theory. We introduce the notion of abstract logics, explore first-order logic as an instance
More informationFunctions and cardinality (solutions) sections A and F TA: Clive Newstead 6 th May 2014
Functions and cardinality (solutions) 21-127 sections A and F TA: Clive Newstead 6 th May 2014 What follows is a somewhat hastily written collection of solutions for my review sheet. I have omitted some
More informationSet Theory and the Foundation of Mathematics. June 19, 2018
1 Set Theory and the Foundation of Mathematics June 19, 2018 Basics Numbers 2 We have: Relations (subsets on their domain) Ordered pairs: The ordered pair x, y is the set {{x, y}, {x}}. Cartesian products
More informationJónsson posets and unary Jónsson algebras
Jónsson posets and unary Jónsson algebras Keith A. Kearnes and Greg Oman Abstract. We show that if P is an infinite poset whose proper order ideals have cardinality strictly less than P, and κ is a cardinal
More informationGeneralizing Gödel s Constructible Universe:
Generalizing Gödel s Constructible Universe: Ultimate L W. Hugh Woodin Harvard University IMS Graduate Summer School in Logic June 2018 Ordinals: the transfinite numbers is the smallest ordinal: this is
More informationThis paper is also taken by Combined Studies Students. Optional Subject (i): Set Theory and Further Logic
UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BA EXAMINATION for Internal Students This paper is also taken by Combined Studies Students PHILOSOPHY Optional Subject (i): Set Theory and Further Logic Answer THREE questions, at
More informationWell Ordered Sets (continued)
Well Ordered Sets (continued) Theorem 8 Given any two well-ordered sets, either they are isomorphic, or one is isomorphic to an initial segment of the other. Proof Let a,< and b, be well-ordered sets.
More informationNotes on ordinals and cardinals
Notes on ordinals and cardinals Reed Solomon 1 Background Terminology We will use the following notation for the common number systems: N = {0, 1, 2,...} = the natural numbers Z = {..., 2, 1, 0, 1, 2,...}
More informationEXTERNAL AUTOMORPHISMS OF ULTRAPRODUCTS OF FINITE MODELS
EXTERNAL AUTOMORPHISMS OF ULTRAPRODUCTS OF FINITE MODELS PHILIPP LÜCKE AND SAHARON SHELAH Abstract. Let L be a finite first-order language and M n n < ω be a sequence of finite L-models containing models
More informationA BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO ZFC. Contents. 1. Motivation and Russel s Paradox
A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO ZFC CHRISTOPHER WILSON Abstract. We present a basic axiomatic development of Zermelo-Fraenkel and Choice set theory, commonly abbreviated ZFC. This paper is aimed in particular
More informationFORCING SUMMER SCHOOL LECTURE NOTES 19
FORCING SUMMER SCHOOL LECTURE NOTES 19 8. First Order Logic. In this section we take a brief detour into first order logic. The idea for the section is to provide just enough background in first order
More informationSix lectures on the stationary tower
Six lectures on the stationary tower Paul B. Larson November 19, 2012 1 The stationary tower 1.1 Definition. Let X be a nonempty set. A set c P(X) is club in P(X) if there is a function f : X
More informationClub degrees of rigidity and almost Kurepa trees
Club degrees of rigidity and almost Kurepa trees Gunter Fuchs The College of Staten Island/CUNY August 25, 2012 Abstract A highly rigid Souslin tree T is constructed such that forcing with T turns T into
More informationNon-trivial automorphisms from variants of small d
Non-trivial automorphisms from variants of small d Fields October 24, 2012 Notation If A and B are subsets of N let denote the equivalence relation defined by A B if and only if A B is finite. Let [A]
More informationVARIATIONS FOR SEPARATING CLUB GUESSING PRINCIPLES
P max VARIATIONS FOR SEPARATING CLUB GUESSING PRINCIPLES TETSUYA ISHIU AND PAUL B. LARSON Abstract. In his book on P max [6], Woodin presents a collection of partial orders whose extensions satisfy strong
More informationω-stable Theories: Introduction
ω-stable Theories: Introduction 1 ω - Stable/Totally Transcendental Theories Throughout let T be a complete theory in a countable language L having infinite models. For an L-structure M and A M let Sn
More informationCanonical models for fragments of the Axiom of Choice
Canonical models for fragments of the Axiom of Choice Paul Larson Miami University Jindřich Zapletal University of Florida October 31, 2016 Abstract We develop technology for investigation of natural forcing
More informationPosets, homomorphisms and homogeneity
Posets, homomorphisms and homogeneity Peter J. Cameron and D. Lockett School of Mathematical Sciences Queen Mary, University of London Mile End Road London E1 4NS, U.K. Abstract Jarik Nešetřil suggested
More informationQualifying Exam Logic August 2005
Instructions: Qualifying Exam Logic August 2005 If you signed up for Computability Theory, do two E and two C problems. If you signed up for Model Theory, do two E and two M problems. If you signed up
More informationTIE-POINTS, REGULAR CLOSED SETS, AND COPIES OF N
TIE-POINTS, REGULAR CLOSED SETS, AND COPIES OF N ALAN DOW Abstract. We show that it is consistent to have a non-trivial embedding of N into itself even if all autohomeomorphisms of N are trivial. 1. Introduction
More informationTHE STRONG TREE PROPERTY AND THE FAILURE OF SCH
THE STRONG TREE PROPERTY AND THE FAILURE OF SCH JIN DU Abstract. Fontanella [2] showed that if κ n : n < ω is an increasing sequence of supercompacts and ν = sup n κ n, then the strong tree property holds
More informationarxiv: v1 [math.lo] 7 Dec 2017
CANONICAL TRUTH MERLIN CARL AND PHILIPP SCHLICHT arxiv:1712.02566v1 [math.lo] 7 Dec 2017 Abstract. We introduce and study a notion of canonical set theoretical truth, which means truth in a transitive
More informationTallness and Level by Level Equivalence and Inequivalence
Tallness and Level by Level Equivalence and Inequivalence 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 informationCOMPACT C-CLOSED SPACES NEED NOT BE SEQUENTIAL
COMPACT C-CLOSED SPACES NEED NOT BE SEQUENTIAL ALAN DOW UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHARLOTTE Abstract. We obtain an independence result connected to the classic Moore-Mrowka problem. A property known
More informationUSING ULTRAPOWERS TO CHARACTERIZE ELEMENTARY EQUIVALENCE
USING ULTRAPOWERS TO CHARACTERIZE ELEMENTARY EQUIVALENCE MIKAYLA KELLEY Abstract. This paper will establish that ultrapowers can be used to determine whether or not two models have the same theory. More
More informationAn inner model from Ω-logic. Daisuke Ikegami
An inner model from Ω-logic Daisuke Ikegami Kobe University 12. November 2014 Goal & Result Goal Construct a model of set theory which is close to HOD, but easier to analyze. Goal & Result Goal Construct
More informationLattices, closure operators, and Galois connections.
125 Chapter 5. Lattices, closure operators, and Galois connections. 5.1. Semilattices and lattices. Many of the partially ordered sets P we have seen have a further valuable property: that for any two
More informationMath 280A Fall Axioms of Set Theory
Math 280A Fall 2009 1. Axioms of Set Theory Let V be the collection of all sets and be a membership relation. We consider (V, ) as a mathematical structure. Analogy: A group is a mathematical structure
More informationHandbook of Set Theory. Foreman, Kanamori, and Magidor (eds.)
Handbook of Set Theory Foreman, Kanamori, and Magidor (eds.) August 5, 2006 2 Contents I Forcing over models of determinacy 5 by Paul B. Larson 1 Iterations............................... 7 2 P max.................................
More informationTHE NEXT BEST THING TO A P-POINT
THE NEXT BEST THING TO A P-POINT ANDREAS BLASS, NATASHA DOBRINEN, AND DILIP RAGHAVAN Abstract. We study ultrafilters on ω 2 produced by forcing with the quotient of P(ω 2 ) by the Fubini square of the
More information2.2 Lowenheim-Skolem-Tarski theorems
Logic SEP: Day 1 July 15, 2013 1 Some references Syllabus: http://www.math.wisc.edu/graduate/guide-qe Previous years qualifying exams: http://www.math.wisc.edu/ miller/old/qual/index.html Miller s Moore
More informationINDEPENDENCE OF THE CONTINUUM HYPOTHESIS
INDEPENDENCE OF THE CONTINUUM HYPOTHESIS CAPSTONE MATT LUTHER 1 INDEPENDENCE OF THE CONTINUUM HYPOTHESIS 2 1. Introduction This paper will summarize many of the ideas from logic and set theory that are
More informationRussell Sets, Topology, and Cardinals
Russell Sets, Topology, and Cardinals Ethan Thomas Undergraduate Honors Thesis Professor Marcia Groszek, Advisor Department of Mathematics Dartmouth College May, 2014 i Abstract The Axiom of Choice is
More informationINTRODUCTION TO CARDINAL NUMBERS
INTRODUCTION TO CARDINAL NUMBERS TOM CUCHTA 1. Introduction This paper was written as a final project for the 2013 Summer Session of Mathematical Logic 1 at Missouri S&T. We intend to present a short discussion
More informationA Crash Course in Topological Groups
A Crash Course in Topological Groups Iian B. Smythe Department of Mathematics Cornell University Olivetti Club November 8, 2011 Iian B. Smythe (Cornell) Topological Groups Nov. 8, 2011 1 / 28 Outline 1
More informationChapter 0. Introduction: Prerequisites and Preliminaries
Chapter 0. Sections 0.1 to 0.5 1 Chapter 0. Introduction: Prerequisites and Preliminaries Note. The content of Sections 0.1 through 0.6 should be very familiar to you. However, in order to keep these notes
More informationMath 455 Some notes on Cardinality and Transfinite Induction
Math 455 Some notes on Cardinality and Transfinite Induction (David Ross, UH-Manoa Dept. of Mathematics) 1 Cardinality Recall the following notions: function, relation, one-to-one, onto, on-to-one correspondence,
More informationWHY Y-C.C. DAVID CHODOUNSKÝ AND JINDŘICH ZAPLETAL
WHY Y-C.C. DAVID CHODOUNSKÝ AND JINDŘICH ZAPLETAL Abstract. We outline a portfolio of novel iterable properties of c.c.c. and proper forcing notions and study its most important instantiations, Y-c.c.
More informationIsomorphisms and Well-definedness
Isomorphisms and Well-definedness Jonathan Love October 30, 2016 Suppose you want to show that two groups G and H are isomorphic. There are a couple of ways to go about doing this depending on the situation,
More informationPROPER FORCING REMASTERED
PROPER FORCING REMASTERED BOBAN VELIČKOVIĆ AND GIORGIO VENTURI Abstract. We present the method introduced by Neeman of generalized side conditions with two types of models. We then discuss some applications:
More informationLecture 6: Finite Fields
CCS Discrete Math I Professor: Padraic Bartlett Lecture 6: Finite Fields Week 6 UCSB 2014 It ain t what they call you, it s what you answer to. W. C. Fields 1 Fields In the next two weeks, we re going
More informationConstructing classical realizability models of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory
Constructing classical realizability models of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory Alexandre Miquel Plume team LIP/ENS Lyon June 5th, 2012 Réalisabilité à Chambéry Plan 1 The theory ZF ε 2 The model M (A ) of
More informationChapter 2 Linear Transformations
Chapter 2 Linear Transformations Linear Transformations Loosely speaking, a linear transformation is a function from one vector space to another that preserves the vector space operations. Let us be more
More informationTheorem 5.3. Let E/F, E = F (u), be a simple field extension. Then u is algebraic if and only if E/F is finite. In this case, [E : F ] = deg f u.
5. Fields 5.1. Field extensions. Let F E be a subfield of the field E. We also describe this situation by saying that E is an extension field of F, and we write E/F to express this fact. If E/F is a field
More informationfy (X(g)) Y (f)x(g) gy (X(f)) Y (g)x(f)) = fx(y (g)) + gx(y (f)) fy (X(g)) gy (X(f))
1. Basic algebra of vector fields Let V be a finite dimensional vector space over R. Recall that V = {L : V R} is defined to be the set of all linear maps to R. V is isomorphic to V, but there is no canonical
More informationOctober 12, Complexity and Absoluteness in L ω1,ω. John T. Baldwin. Measuring complexity. Complexity of. concepts. to first order.
October 12, 2010 Sacks Dicta... the central notions of model theory are absolute absoluteness, unlike cardinality, is a logical concept. That is why model theory does not founder on that rock of undecidability,
More informationIntroduction to generalized topological spaces
@ Applied General Topology c Universidad Politécnica de Valencia Volume 12, no. 1, 2011 pp. 49-66 Introduction to generalized topological spaces Irina Zvina Abstract We introduce the notion of generalized
More informationREU 2007 Transfinite Combinatorics Lecture 9
REU 2007 Transfinite Combinatorics Lecture 9 Instructor: László Babai Scribe: Travis Schedler August 10, 2007. Revised by instructor. Last updated August 11, 3:40pm Note: All (0, 1)-measures will be assumed
More informationThe Axiom of Choice. Contents. 1 Motivation 2. 2 The Axiom of Choice 2. 3 Two powerful equivalents of AC 4. 4 Zorn s Lemma 5. 5 Using Zorn s Lemma 6
The Axiom of Choice Contents 1 Motivation 2 2 The Axiom of Choice 2 3 Two powerful equivalents of AC 4 4 Zorn s Lemma 5 5 Using Zorn s Lemma 6 6 More equivalences of AC 11 7 Consequences of the Axiom of
More informationForcing Axioms and Inner Models of Set Theory
Forcing Axioms and Inner Models of Set Theory Boban Veličković Equipe de Logique Université de Paris 7 http://www.logique.jussieu.fr/ boban 15th Boise Extravaganza in Set Theory Boise State University,
More informationIsomorphisms between pattern classes
Journal of Combinatorics olume 0, Number 0, 1 8, 0000 Isomorphisms between pattern classes M. H. Albert, M. D. Atkinson and Anders Claesson Isomorphisms φ : A B between pattern classes are considered.
More informationSOME COMBINATORIAL PRINCIPLES DEFINED IN TERMS OF ELEMENTARY SUBMODELS. 1. Introduction
SOME COMBINATORIAL PRINCIPLES DEFINED IN TERMS OF ELEMENTARY SUBMODELS SAKAÉ FUCHINO AND STEFAN GESCHKE Abstract. We give an equivalent, but simpler formulation of the axiom SEP, which was introduced in
More informationHOW DO ULTRAFILTERS ACT ON THEORIES? THE CUT SPECTRUM AND TREETOPS
HOW DO ULTRAFILTERS ACT ON THEORIES? THE CUT SPECTRUM AND TREETOPS DIEGO ANDRES BEJARANO RAYO Abstract. We expand on and further explain the work by Malliaris and Shelah on the cofinality spectrum by doing
More informationGÖDEL S CONSTRUCTIBLE UNIVERSE
GÖDEL S CONSTRUCTIBLE UNIVERSE MICHAEL WOLMAN Abstract. This paper is about Gödel s Constructible Universe and the relative consistency of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, the Continuum Hypothesis and the
More informationALL UNCOUNTABLE CARDINALS IN THE GITIK MODEL ARE ALMOST RAMSEY AND CARRY ROWBOTTOM FILTERS
ALL UNCOUNTABLE CARDINALS IN THE GITIK MODEL ARE ALMOST RAMSEY AND CARRY ROWBOTTOM FILTERS ARTHUR W. APTER, IOANNA M. DIMITRIOU, AND PETER KOEPKE Abstract. Using the analysis developed in our earlier paper
More informationFilters in Analysis and Topology
Filters in Analysis and Topology David MacIver July 1, 2004 Abstract The study of filters is a very natural way to talk about convergence in an arbitrary topological space, and carries over nicely into
More informationErdös-Rado without choice
Erdös-Rado without choice Thomas Forster Centre for Mathematical Sciences Wilberforce Road Cambridge, CB3 0WB, U.K. March 11, 2007 ABSTRACT A version of the Erdös-Rado theorem on partitions of the unordered
More informationITERATIONS WITH MIXED SUPPORT
ITERATIONS WITH MIXED SUPPORT VERA FISCHER Abstract. In this talk we will consider three properties of iterations with mixed (finite/countable) supports: iterations of arbitrary length preserve ω 1, iterations
More informationAlgebraic Topology. Oscar Randal-Williams. or257/teaching/notes/at.pdf
Algebraic Topology Oscar Randal-Williams https://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/ or257/teaching/notes/at.pdf 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Some recollections and conventions...................... 2 1.2 Cell complexes.................................
More informationEXAMPLES AND EXERCISES IN BASIC CATEGORY THEORY
EXAMPLES AND EXERCISES IN BASIC CATEGORY THEORY 1. Categories 1.1. Generalities. I ve tried to be as consistent as possible. In particular, throughout the text below, categories will be denoted by capital
More informationAnalysis II: The Implicit and Inverse Function Theorems
Analysis II: The Implicit and Inverse Function Theorems Jesse Ratzkin November 17, 2009 Let f : R n R m be C 1. When is the zero set Z = {x R n : f(x) = 0} the graph of another function? When is Z nicely
More informationNotas de Aula Grupos Profinitos. Martino Garonzi. Universidade de Brasília. Primeiro semestre 2018
Notas de Aula Grupos Profinitos Martino Garonzi Universidade de Brasília Primeiro semestre 2018 1 Le risposte uccidono le domande. 2 Contents 1 Topology 4 2 Profinite spaces 6 3 Topological groups 10 4
More informationKruskal s theorem and Nash-Williams theory
Kruskal s theorem and Nash-Williams theory Ian Hodkinson, after Wilfrid Hodges Version 3.6, 7 February 2003 This is based on notes I took at Wilfrid s seminar for Ph.D. students at Queen Mary College,
More informationACTING FREELY GABRIEL GASTER
ACTING FREELY GABRIEL GASTER 1. Preface This article is intended to present a combinatorial proof of Schreier s Theorem, that subgroups of free groups are free. While a one line proof exists using the
More informationCompact subsets of the Baire space
Compact subsets of the Baire space Arnold W. Miller Nov 2012 Results in this note were obtained in 1994 and reported on at a meeting on Real Analysis in Lodz, Poland, July 1994. Let ω ω be the Baire space,
More informationAxioms for Set Theory
Axioms for Set Theory The following is a subset of the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms for set theory. In this setting, all objects are sets which are denoted by letters, e.g. x, y, X, Y. Equality is logical identity:
More informationFinite affine planes in projective spaces
Finite affine planes in projective spaces J. A.Thas H. Van Maldeghem Ghent University, Belgium {jat,hvm}@cage.ugent.be Abstract We classify all representations of an arbitrary affine plane A of order q
More information4 Choice axioms and Baire category theorem
Tel Aviv University, 2013 Measure and category 30 4 Choice axioms and Baire category theorem 4a Vitali set....................... 30 4b No choice....................... 31 4c Dependent choice..................
More information