SACKS FORCING AND THE SHRINK WRAPPING PROPERTY
|
|
- Annice Cook
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 SACKS FORCING AND THE SHRINK WRAPPING PROPERTY DAN HATHAWAY Abstract. We consider a property stronger than the Sacks property which holds between the ground model and the Sacks forcing extension. 1. The Shrink Wrapping Property Suppose that V is a Sacks forcing extension of a model M. Then the Sacks property holds between V and M. That is, for each x ω ω, there exists a tree T <ω ω in M such that x [T ] and each level of T is finite. The following is a stronger property that we might want to hold between V and M: for every sequence X = x n ω ω : n < ω there exists a sequence of trees T n <ω ω : n < ω such that 1) ( n ω) x n [T n ]; 2) ( n 1, n 2 ω) one of the following holds: a) x n1 = x n2 ; b) [T n1 ] [T n2 ] =. Unfortunately, if the sequence X is such that (n 1, n 2 ) : x n1 = x n2 M, then there can be no such sequence of trees in M. Thus, we need a weaker notion: a shrink wrapper. In this next definition, we fix a canonical bijection η : ω [ω] 2 so that for each ñ ω, we may talk about the ñ-th pair η(ñ) [ω] 2. The idea is that for each {n 1, n 2 } = η(ñ) [ω] 2, the functions Fñ,n1 and Fñ,n2, together with the finite sets I(n 1 ) and I(n 2 ), separate x n1 and x n2 as much as possible. For n η(ñ), the function Fñ,n : ñ2 P( <ω ω) is shrink-wrapping 2ñ possibilities for the value of x n. We need to make sure that what contains one possibility for x n1 is sufficiently disjoint from what contains another possibility for x n2, even if it is not possible that simultaneously both x n1 and x n2 are in the respective containers. The main idea of shrink-wrapping is that for a fixed ñ, if {n 1, n 2 } is the ñ-th pair, the trees Fñ,n1 (s) for s ñ2 and Fñ,n2 (s) for s ñ 2 separate x n1 from x n2 as much as possible. If x n1 = x n2, they 1
2 2 DAN HATHAWAY certainly cannot be separated and this is a special case. For the pair {x 1, x 2 }, there are finitely many isolated points which might prevent the separation of x 1 from x 2. In fact, we can get a finite set I(k) of isolated points associated to each x k as opposed to each pair {x n1, x n2 }. Definition 1.1. A shrink wrapper W for X = x n ω ω : n ω is a pair F, I such that I : ω [ ω ω] <ω and F is a collection of functions Fñ,n for ñ ω and n η(ñ) which satisfy the following conditions. 1) Fñ,n : ñ2 P( <ω ω) and each element of Im(Fñ,n ) is a leafless subtree of <ω ω all of whose levels are finite. 2) ( s ñ2) x n [Fñ,n (s)]. 3) given {n 1, n 2 } = η(ñ), ( s 1, s 2 ñ2) one of the following relationships holds between the sets C 1 := [Fñ,n1 (s 1 )] and C 2 := [Fñ,n2 (s 2 )]: 3a) C 1 = C 2 and if either x n1 C 1 or x n2 C 2, then x n1 = x n2 ; 3b) ( x I(n 1 ) I(n 2 )) C 1 = C 2 = {x}; 3c) C 1 C 2 =, and moreover there is an l ω such that all elements of C 1 deviate from all elements of C 2 before level l. We will show that if V is a Sacks forcing extension of M and X = x n ω ω : n < ω is in V, there is a shrink wrapper W for X in M. Also in this situation, we can build the shrink wrapper to satisfy the following additional property for all ñ ω and n η(ñ): 4) ( s 1, s 2 ñ2) one of the following relationships holds between the sets C 1 := [Fñ,n (s 1 )] and C 2 := [Fñ,n (s 2 )]: 4a) ( x I(n)) C 1 = C 2 = {x}; 4b) C 1 C 2 =, and moreover there is an l ω such that all elements of C 1 deviate from all elements of C 2 before level l. Note this is a requirement on the single function Fñ,n where n η(ñ), and not a requirement on the pair of functions Fñ,n1, Fñ,n2 where {n 1, n 2 } = η(ñ). Definition 1.2. A forcing P has the shrink wrapping property iff every sequence X = x n ω ω : n ω in the forcing extension has a shrink wrapper W in the ground model. In Theorem 3.7 we will show that Sacks forcing has the shrink wrapping property. If a forcing has the shrink wrapping property, then it has the Sacks property (consider the sequence x n (0) ω : n ω ). That is, consider a fixed real x ω ω. Fix any sequence X = x n ω ω : n ω such that ( n ω) x n (0) = x(n). Let W be a shrink
3 SACKS FORCING AND THE SHRINK WRAPPING PROPERTY 3 wrapper for X. For each n ω, let ñ n ω be the smallest number ñ such that n is a member of the ñ-th pair. Let S n be the set of all i ω such that the node i <ω ω is on the 1-st level of set tree Fñn,n(s) for some s ñn 2. We have that S n is a finite set of natural numbers and x(n) = x n (0) S n. Furthermore, the sequence S n : n ω is in any transitive model of ZF which contains the shrink wrapper W. This shows that the shrink wrapper property implies the Sacks property. 2. Application to Pointwise Evenual Domination Before we show that there is always a shrink wrapper in the ground model after doing Sacks forcing, let us discuss an application of shrink wrappers themselves. Given two functions f, g : ω ω ω ω, let us write f g and say that g pointwise eventually dominates f iff ( x ω ω)( n) f(x)(n) g(x)(n). One may ask what is the cofinality of the set of Borel functions from ω ω to ω ω ordered by. That answer is 2 ω, which follows from the result in [Hathaway] that given each A ω there is a Baire class one (and therefore Borel) function f A : ω ω ω ω such that given any Borel g : ω ω ω ω such that f A g, A is 1 1 in any code for g. One may then ask what functions f A have this property. Being precise, say that a function f A : ω ω ω ω sufficiently encodes A ω iff whenever g : ω ω ω ω is Borel and satisfies f A g, then A L[c] where c is any code for g. What must a function do to sufficiently encode A? Given a sequence X = x n <ω ω : n < ω, let us write f X : ω ω ω ω for the function f X (x)(n) := { min{l : x(l) x n (l)} if x x n, 0 otherwise. Given A ω, is there some X such that f X sufficiently encodes A? Using a shrink wrapper, we can show that the answer is no. Specifically, if V is a Sacks forcing extension of M, A M, and X is in V, then there is a shrink wrapper W for X in M which can be used to build a Borel function g : ω ω ω ω (with a code in M) satisfing f X g. Since g has a code c in M, L[c] M so A L[c]. To facilitate the discussion, let us make the following definition: Definition 2.1. Given a tree T <ω ω, Exit(T ) : ω ω ω is the function Exit(T )(x) := min{l : x l T }.
4 4 DAN HATHAWAY In this section we will show that if M is a transitive model of ZF and a sequence X of reals has a shrink wrapper in M, then there is a Borel function g with a code in M such that f X g. We will warm up to this by first considering the situation when M contains something stronger than a shrink wrapper. This will illustrate the main ideas. Proposition 2.2. Let X = x n ω ω : n ω. Suppose T = T n : n ω M is a sequence of subtrees of <ω ω satisfying the following: 1) ( n ω) x n [T n ]. 2) ( n 1, n 2 ω) one of the following holds: a) x n1 = x n2 ; b) [T n1 ] [T n2 ] =. Then there is a Borel function g : ω ω ω ω that has a Borel code in M satisfying ( x ω ω) f X (x) g(x). Proof. Let g : ω ω ω ω be defined by g(x)(n) := max{exit(t n )(x), n}. Certainly g is Borel, with a code in M (because T M). The Exit(T n )(x) part of the definition is doing most of the work. Specifically, for any n ω and x [T n ], f X (x)(n) = Exit([[x n ]])(x) Exit(T n )(x). This is because since x n is a path through the tree T n, x [T n ] implies the level where x exits T n is not before the level where x differs from x n. Thus, we have ( n ω) x [T n ] f X (x)(n) g(x)(n). Suppose, towards a contradiction, that there is some x ω ω satisfying f X (x) g(x). Fix such an x. Let A be the infinite set A := {n ω : f X (x)(n) > g(x)(n)}. It must be that x [T n ] for each n A. By hypothesis, this implies x n1 = x n2 for all n 1, n 2 A. Thus, f X (x)(n) is the same constant for all n A. This is a contradiction, because g(x)(n) n for all n. Here is the main result of this section: Theorem 2.3. Let X = x n ω ω : n ω. Suppose W = F, I M
5 SACKS FORCING AND THE SHRINK WRAPPING PROPERTY 5 is a shrink wrapper for X. Then there is a Borel function g : ω ω ω ω that has a Borel code in M satisfying ( x ω ω) f X (x) g(x). Proof. For each n ω, let T n <ω ω be the tree T n := { Im(Fñ,n ) : ñ ω n η(ñ)}. That is, for each t <ω ω, t T n iff ( ñ ω)[n η(ñ) t s ñ2 By part 2) of the definition of a shrink wrapper, ( n ω) x n [T n ]. Fñ,n (s)]. Let e(n 2 ) be the least level l such that if n 1 < n 2, ñ satisfies η(ñ) = {n 1, n 2 }, and s 1, s 2 ñ2 satisfy [Fñ,n1 (s 1 )] [Fñ,n2 (s 2 )] =, then all elements of [Fñ,n1 (s 1 )] deviate from all elements of [Fñ,n2 (s 2 )] before level l. Let g : ω ω ω ω be defined by g(x)(n) := max{exit(t n )(x), e(n), n}. Certainly g is Borel, with a code in M (because W M). Just like in the previous proposition, since x n [T n ], for all x ω ω and n ω we have x [T n ] f X (x)(n) g(x)(n). Suppose, towards a contradiction, that there is some x ω ω satisfying f X (x) g(x). Fix such an x. Let A be the infinite set A := {n ω : f X (x)(n) > g(x)(n)}. It must be that x [T n ] for each n A. Since A is infinite, we may fix n 1, n 2 A satisfying the following: i) n 1 < n 2 ; ii) f X (x)(n 1 ) n 2. Let ñ satisfy η(ñ) = {n 1, n 2 }. Since x [T n1 ], fix some s 1 ñ2 satisfying x [Fñ,n1 (s 1)] =: C 1. Also, since x n2 [T n2 ], fix some s 2 ñ2 satisfying x n2 [Fñ,n2 (s 2 )] =: C 2. By the definition of e(n 2 ) and the fact that Exit([[x n2 ]])(x) > e(n 2 ), it cannot be that C 1 C 2 =. Thus, by part 3) of the definition of a separation device, one of the following holds:
6 6 DAN HATHAWAY a) x n1 = x n2 ; b) C 1 = C 2 = {x}. Now, b) cannot be the case because C 2 = {x} implies x n2 = x, which implies f X (x)(n 2 ) = 0, which contradicts the fact that f X (x)(n 2 ) > g(x)(n 2 ). On the other hand, a) cannot be the case because x n1 = x n2 implies f X (x)(n 1 ) = f X (x)(n 2 ), which by ii) implies f X (x)(n 2 ) = f X (x)(n 1 ) n 2 g(x)(n 2 ) < f X (x)(n 2 ), which is impossible. 3. Sacks Forcing In this section we will show that if V is a Sacks forcing extension of a transitive model M of ZF and X = x n ω ω : n ω is an arbitrary sequence, then there is a shrink wrapper for X in M. Definition 3.1. A tree p <ω 2 is perfect if it is nonempty and for each t p, there are incomparable t 1, t 2 p extending t. Sacks forcing S is the poset of all perfect trees p <ω 2 where p 1 p 2 iff p 1 p 2. Given p 1, p 2 S, p 1 p 2 means that p 1 and p 2 are incompatible. Definition 3.2. Let p <ω 2 be a perfect tree. A node t p is called a branching node if t 0, t 1 p. Stem(p) is the unique branching node t of p such that all elements of p are comparable to t. A node t p is said to be an n-th branching node if it is a branching node and there are exactly n branching nodes that are proper initial segments of it. In particular, Stem(p) is the unique 0-th branching node of p. Given Sacks conditions p, q, we write q n p if q p and all of the k-th branching nodes, for k n, of p are in q and are branching nodes. Lemma 3.3 (Fusion Lemma). Let p n : n ω be a sequence of Sacks conditions such that p 0 0 p 1 1 p Then p ω := n ω p n is a Sacks condition below each p n. Proof. This is standard and can be found in introductory presentations of Sacks forcing. See, for example, [1]. The sequence p n : n ω in the above lemma is known as a fusion sequence. The following will help in the construction of fusion sequences. Lemma 3.4 (Fusion Helper Lemma). Let S be Sacks forcing. R : <ω 2 S be a function with the following properties: Let
7 SACKS FORCING AND THE SHRINK WRAPPING PROPERTY 7 1) ( s 1, s 2 <ω 2) s 2 s 1 implies R(s 2 ) R(s 1 ); 2) ( s <ω 2) Stem(R(s 0)) Stem(R(s 1)). For each n ω, let p n be the Sacks condition p n := {R(s) : s n 2}. Then R( ) = p 0 p 1 0 p 2 1 p is a fusion sequence. Proof. Consider any n 1. Certainly p n p n+1, because for each s n 2, R(s) R(s 0) R(s 1). To show that p n n 1 p n+1, consider a k-th branching node t of p n for some k n 1. One can check that there is some s k 2 such that t is the largest common initial segment of Stem(R(s 0)) and Stem(R(s 1)). Since Stem(R(s 0)) Stem(R(s 1)) R(s 0) R(s 1) p n+1, we have that t is a branching node of p n+1. Thus, we have shown that for each k n 1, each k-th branching node of p n is a branching node of p n+1. Hence, p n n 1 p n+1. We present a forcing lemma that is a basic building block for separating x n1 from x n2. Combining this with a fusion argument gives us the result. Lemma 3.5. Let P be any forcing. Let p 0, p 1 P be conditions. Let τ 0, τ 1 be names for elements of ω ω. Suppose that there is no x ω ω satisfying the following two statements: 1) p 0 τ 0 = ˇx; 2) p 1 τ 1 = ˇx. Then there exist p 0 p 0 ; p 1 p 1 ; and t 0, t 1 <ω ω satisfying the following: 3) t 0 t 1, 4) p 0 τ 0 ť 0, 5) p 1 τ 1 ť 1. Proof. There are two cases to consider. The first is that there exists some x ω ω such that 1) is true. When this happens, 2) is false. Hence, there exist t 1 <ω ω and p 1 p 1 such that 5) is true and x t 1. Letting p 0 := p 0 and t 0 be some initial segment of x incompatible with t 1, we see that 3) and 4) are true. The second case is that there is no x ω ω satisfying 1). When this happens, there exist conditions p a 0, p b 0 p 0 and incompatible nodes s a, s b <ω ω satisfying both p a 0 τ 0 š a and p b 0 τ 0 š b. Now, it
8 8 DAN HATHAWAY cannot be that both p 1 τ 1 š a and p 1 τ 1 š b. Assume, without loss of generality, that p 1 τ 1 š a. This implies that there exist p 1 p 1 and t 1 <ω ω such that s a t 1 and p 1 τ 1 ť 1. Letting p 0 := p a 0 and t 0 := s a, we are done. At this point, the reader may want to think about how to use this lemma to prove that if V is a Sacks forcing extension of M and X = x n : n ω satisfies ( n ω) x n M and { n 1, n 2 : x n1 = x n2 } M, then there is a sequence T of subtrees of <ω ω satisfying the hypotheses of Proposition 2.2. The next lemma explains the appearance of I in the definition of a separation device. We are intending the name τ to be such that τ(n) refers to the x n in the sequence X = x n : n ω. Lemma 3.6. Consider Sacks forcing S. Let p S be a condition and τ a name satisfying p τ : ω ω ω. Then there exists a condition p p and there exists a function I : ω [ ω ω] <ω satisfying p ( n ω) τ(n) ˇV τ(n) Ǐ(n). Proof. We may easily construct a function R : ω S that satisfies the conditions of Lemma 3.4 such that R( ) p and for each s n 2, either R(s) τ(n) ˇV or ( x ω ω) R(s) τ(n) = ˇx. Define I as follows: I(n) := {x ω ω : ( s n 2) R(s) τ(n) = ˇx}. Let p := n {R(s) : s n 2}. The condition p and the function I are as desired. We are now ready for the main forcing argument of this section. Theorem 3.7. Consider Sacks forcing S. Let p S be a condition and τ be a name satisfying p τ : ω ω ω. Then there exists a condition q p and there exists a pair W = F, I satisfying q ˇW is a shrink wrapper for τ(n) : n ω. Proof. First, let p p and I : ω [ ω ω] <ω be given by the lemma above. That is, for each n ω, p τ(ň) ˇV τ(ň) Ǐ(ň). We will define a function R : <ω 2 S with R( ) p satisfying conditions 1) and 2) of Lemma 3.4. At the same time, we will construct
9 SACKS FORCING AND THE SHRINK WRAPPING PROPERTY 9 a family of functions Our q will be F = Fñ,n : ñ ω, n η(ñ). q := ñ s ñ2 R(s). The function Fñ,n will return a leafless subtree of <ω ω. We will have it so for all n ω and all ñ satisfying n η(ñ), ( s ñ2) R(s) τ(ň) [ ˇFñ,n (š)]. Thus, q will easily force that W satisfies conditions 1) and 2) of the definition of a shrink wrapper. To show that q forces condition 3) of that definition, it suffices to show that for all {n 1, n 2 } = η(ñ) and all s 1, s 2 ñ2, one of the following holds, where T 1 := Fñ,n1 (s 1 ) and T 2 := Fñ,n2 (s 2 ): 3a ) T 1 = T 2 and ( s ñ2), R(s) ( τ(ň 1 ) [Ť1] τ(ň 2 ) [Ť2]) τ(ň 1 ) = τ(ň 2 ); 3b ) ( x I(n 1 ) I(n 2 )) [T 1 ] = [T 2 ] = {x}; 3c ) [T 1 ] [T 2 ] =, and moreover Stem(T 1 ) Stem(T 2 ). We will define the functions Fñ,n and the conditions R(s) for s ñ2 by induction on ñ. Beginning at ñ = 0, let {n 1, n 2 } = η(0). We will define F 0,n1 : 0 2 S, F 0,n2 : 0 2 S, and R( ) p. If p τ(ň 1 ) = τ(ň 2 ), then let R( ) := p and define F 0,n1 ( ) = F 0,n2 ( ) = T where T <ω ω is any leafless tree satisfying p τ(ň 1 ) [Ť ]. This causes 3a ) to be satisfied. If p τ(ň 1 ) = τ(ň 2 ), then let t 1, t 2 <ω ω be incomparable nodes and let R( ) p satisfy R( ) τ(ň 1 ) ť 1 and R( ) τ(ň 2 ) ť 2. Then we may define F 0,n1 ( ) = T 1 and F 0,n2 ( ) = T 2 where T 1 and T 2 are leafless trees such that Stem(T 1 ) t 1, Stem(T 2 ) t 2, R( ) τ(ň 1 ) [Ť1], and R( ) τ(ň 2 ) [Ť2]. This causes 3c ) to be satisfied. We will now handle the successor step of the induction. Let {n 1, n 2 } = η(ñ) for some ñ > 0. We will define R(s) for each s ñ2, and we will define both Fñ,n1 and Fñ,n2 assuming R(s ) has been defined for each s <ñ 2. To keep the construction readable, we will start with initial values for the R(s) s and the Fñ,n s, and we will modify them as the construction progresses until we arrive at their final values. That is, we will say replace R(s) with a stronger condition... and shrink the tree Fñ,n (s).... When we make these replacements, it is understood that still R(s) τ(ň) [ ˇFñ,n (š)]. The construction consists of 5 steps.
10 10 DAN HATHAWAY Step 1: First, for each s (ñ 1) 2, let R(s 0) and R(s 1) be arbitrary extensions of R(s) such that Stem(R(s 0)) Stem(R(s 1)). Also, for each n {n 1, n 2 } and s ñ2, let Fñ,n (s) be an arbitrary leafless subtree of <ω ω such that R(s) τ(ň) [ ˇFñ,n (š)]. Step 2: For each s ñ2 and n {n 1, n 2 }, strengthen R(s) so that either R(s) τ(ň) ˇV or ( x I(n)) R(s) τ(ň) = ˇx. If the latter case holds, shrink Fñ,n (s) so that it has only one path. Step 3: Fix n {n 1, n 2 }. For each pair of distinct s 1, s 2 ñ2, strengthen each R(s 1 ) and R(s 2 ) and shrink each Fñ,n (s 1 ) and Fñ,n (s 2 ) so that one of the following holds: i) ( x I(n)) [Fñ,n (s 1 )] = [Fñ,n (s 2 )] = {x}; ii) Stem(Fñ,n (s 1 )) Stem(Fñ,n (s 2 )). That is, if i) cannot be satisfied, then we may use Lemma 3.5 to satisfy ii). Step 4: For each pair of distinct s 1, s 2 ñ2 such that either R(s 1 ) τ(ň 1 ) ˇV or R(s 2 ) τ(ň 2 ) ˇV, use Lemma 3.5 to strengthen R(s 1 ) and R(s 2 ) and shrink Fñ,n1 (s 1 ) and Fñ,n1 (s 1 ) so that Stem(Fñ,n1 (s 1 )) Stem(Fñ,n2 (s 2 )). Step 5: For each s ñ2, do the following: If R(s) τ(ň 1 ) = τ(ň 2 ), then replace both Fñ,n1 (s) and Fñ,n2 (s) with Fñ,n1 (s) Fñ,n2 (s). Otherwise, strengthen R(s) and shrink Fñ,n1 (s) and Fñ,n2 (s) so that Stem(Fñ,n1 (s)) Stem(Fñ,n2 (s)). This completes the construction of {R(s) : s ñ2}, Fñ,n1, and Fñ,n2. We will now prove that it works. Fix s 1, s 2 ñ2 and let T 1 := Fñ,n1 (s 1 ) and T 2 := Fñ,n2 (s 2 ). We must show that one of 3a ), 3b ), or 3c ) holds. The cleanest way to do this is to break into cases depending on whether s 1 = s 2 or not. Case s 1 s 2 : If either R(s 1 ) τ(ň 1 ) ˇV or R(s 2 ) τ(ň 2 ) ˇV, then by Step 4, we see that 3c ) holds. Otherwise, by Step 2, ( x I(n 1 )) [T 1 ] = {x} and ( x I(n 1 )) [T 2 ] = {x}. Hence, easily either 3b ) or 3c ) holds. Case s 1 = s 2 : If R(s 1 ) τ(ň 1 ) = τ(ň 2 ), then by Step 5, we see that 3c ) holds. Otherwise, we are in the case that R(s 1 ) τ(ň 1 ) = τ(ň 2 ). By Step 5, T 1 = T 2. Now, if R(s 1 ) τ(ň 1 ) ˇV, then of course also R(s 1 ) τ(ň 2 ) ˇV, and by Step 2) we see that 3b ) holds. Otherwise, R(s 1 ) τ(ň 1 ) ˇV. Hence, [T 1 ] is not a singleton. We will show that
11 SACKS FORCING AND THE SHRINK WRAPPING PROPERTY 11 3a ) holds. Consider any s ñ2. We must show R(s) ( τ(ň 1 ) [Ť1] τ(ň 2 ) [Ť1]) τ(ň 1 ) = τ(ň 2 ). If s = s 1, we are done. Now suppose s s 1. It suffices to show R(s) ( τ(ň 1 ) [Ť1] τ(ň 2 ) [Ť1]). That is, it suffices to show R(s) τ(ň 1 ) [Ť1] and R(s) τ(ň 2 ) [Ť1]. Since s s 1 and [T 1 ] is not a singleton, by Step 3, Stem(Fñ,n (s)) Stem(T 1 ). Recall that R(s) τ(ň 1 ) [ ˇFñ,n (š)]. Hence, since [ ˇFñ,n (š)] [T 1 ] =, R(s) τ(ň 1 ) [Ť1]. By a similar argument, R(s) τ(ň 2 ) [Ť1]. This completes the proof. References [1] T. Jech. Multiple forcing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Mathematics Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI , U.S.A. address: danhath@umich.edu
A product of γ-sets which is not Menger.
A product of γ-sets which is not Menger. A. Miller Dec 2009 Theorem. Assume CH. Then there exists γ-sets A 0, A 1 2 ω such that A 0 A 1 is not Menger. We use perfect sets determined by Silver forcing (see
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 informationTHE TREE PROPERTY AND THE FAILURE OF THE SINGULAR CARDINAL HYPOTHESIS AT ℵ ω 2
THE TREE PROPERTY AND THE FAILURE OF THE SINGULAR CARDINAL HYPOTHESIS AT ℵ ω 2 DIMA SINAPOVA Abstract. We show that given ω many supercompact cardinals, there is a generic extension in which the tree property
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 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 informationCofinalities of Marczewski-like ideals
Cofinalities of Marczewski-like ideals Jörg Brendle Graduate School of System Informatics Kobe University Rokko-dai 1-1, Nada-ku Kobe 657-8501, Japan email: brendle@kobe-u.ac.jp and Yurii Khomskii Hamburg
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 informationTHE TREE PROPERTY AT ℵ ω+1 DIMA SINAPOVA
THE TREE PROPERTY AT ℵ ω+1 DIMA SINAPOVA Abstract. We show that given ω many supercompact cardinals, there is a generic extension in which there are no Aronszajn trees at ℵ ω+1. This is an improvement
More informationON THE COMPUTABILITY OF PERFECT SUBSETS OF SETS WITH POSITIVE MEASURE
ON THE COMPUTABILITY OF PERFECT SUBSETS OF SETS WITH POSITIVE MEASURE C. T. CHONG, WEI LI, WEI WANG, AND YUE YANG Abstract. A set X 2 ω with positive measure contains a perfect subset. We study such perfect
More informationON A QUESTION OF SIERPIŃSKI
ON A QUESTION OF SIERPIŃSKI THEODORE A. SLAMAN Abstract. There is a set of reals U such that for every analytic set A there is a continuous function f which maps U bijectively to A. 1. Introduction A set
More informationNAMBA FORCING, WEAK APPROXIMATION, AND GUESSING
NAMBA FORCING, WEAK APPROXIMATION, AND GUESSING SEAN COX AND JOHN KRUEGER Abstract. We prove a variation of Easton s lemma for strongly proper forcings, and use it to prove that, unlike the stronger principle
More informationConnectivity and tree structure in finite graphs arxiv: v5 [math.co] 1 Sep 2014
Connectivity and tree structure in finite graphs arxiv:1105.1611v5 [math.co] 1 Sep 2014 J. Carmesin R. Diestel F. Hundertmark M. Stein 20 March, 2013 Abstract Considering systems of separations in a graph
More informationUltrafilters with property (s)
Ultrafilters with property (s) Arnold W. Miller 1 Abstract A set X 2 ω has property (s) (Marczewski (Szpilrajn)) iff for every perfect set P 2 ω there exists a perfect set Q P such that Q X or Q X =. Suppose
More informationHomogeneous spaces and Wadge theory
Homogeneous spaces and Wadge theory Andrea Medini Kurt Gödel Research Center University of Vienna July 18, 2018 Everybody loves homogeneous stuff! Topological homogeneity A space is homogeneous if all
More informationSMALL SUBSETS OF THE REALS AND TREE FORCING NOTIONS
SMALL SUBSETS OF THE REALS AND TREE FORCING NOTIONS MARCIN KYSIAK AND TOMASZ WEISS Abstract. We discuss the question which properties of smallness in the sense of measure and category (e.g. being a universally
More informationSilver trees and Cohen reals
Silver trees and Cohen reals Otmar Spinas Abstract We prove that the meager ideal M is Tukey reducible to the Mycielski ideal J(Si) which is the ideal associated with Silver forcing Si. This implies add
More informationOn the Effectiveness of Symmetry Breaking
On the Effectiveness of Symmetry Breaking Russell Miller 1, Reed Solomon 2, and Rebecca M Steiner 3 1 Queens College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York Flushing NY 11367 2 University
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 informationA UNIVERSAL SEQUENCE OF CONTINUOUS FUNCTIONS
A UNIVERSAL SEQUENCE OF CONTINUOUS FUNCTIONS STEVO TODORCEVIC Abstract. We show that for each positive integer k there is a sequence F n : R k R of continuous functions which represents via point-wise
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 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 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 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 information5 Set Operations, Functions, and Counting
5 Set Operations, Functions, and Counting Let N denote the positive integers, N 0 := N {0} be the non-negative integers and Z = N 0 ( N) the positive and negative integers including 0, Q the rational numbers,
More informationNotes on the Dual Ramsey Theorem
Notes on the Dual Ramsey Theorem Reed Solomon July 29, 2010 1 Partitions and infinite variable words The goal of these notes is to give a proof of the Dual Ramsey Theorem. This theorem was first proved
More informationThe length-ω 1 open game quantifier propagates scales
The length-ω 1 open game quantifier propagates scales John R. Steel June 5, 2006 0 Introduction We shall call a set T an ω 1 -tree if only if T α
More informationSelective Ultrafilters on FIN
Selective Ultrafilters on FIN Yuan Yuan Zheng Abstract We consider selective ultrafilters on the collection FIN of all finite nonempty subsets of N. If countablesupport side-by-side Sacks forcing is applied,
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 informationUniquely Universal Sets
Uniquely Universal Sets 1 Uniquely Universal Sets Abstract 1 Arnold W. Miller We say that X Y satisfies the Uniquely Universal property (UU) iff there exists an open set U X Y such that for every open
More informationSELF-DUAL UNIFORM MATROIDS ON INFINITE SETS
SELF-DUAL UNIFORM MATROIDS ON INFINITE SETS NATHAN BOWLER AND STEFAN GESCHKE Abstract. We extend the notion of a uniform matroid to the infinitary case and construct, using weak fragments of Martin s Axiom,
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 informationSOME TRANSFINITE INDUCTION DEDUCTIONS
SOME TRANSFINITE INDUCTION DEDUCTIONS SYLVIA DURIAN Abstract. This paper develops the ordinal numbers and transfinite induction, then demonstrates some interesting applications of transfinite induction.
More informationClasses of Polish spaces under effective Borel isomorphism
Classes of Polish spaces under effective Borel isomorphism Vassilis Gregoriades TU Darmstadt October 203, Vienna The motivation It is essential for the development of effective descriptive set theory to
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 informationPSEUDO P-POINTS AND SPLITTING NUMBER
PSEUDO P-POINTS AND SPLITTING NUMBER ALAN DOW AND SAHARON SHELAH Abstract. We construct a model in which the splitting number is large and every ultrafilter has a small subset with no pseudo-intersection.
More informationMath 4606, Summer 2004: Inductive sets, N, the Peano Axioms, Recursive Sequences Page 1 of 10
Math 4606, Summer 2004: Inductive sets, N, the Peano Axioms, Recursive Sequences Page 1 of 10 Inductive sets (used to define the natural numbers as a subset of R) (1) Definition: A set S R is an inductive
More informationPropositional and Predicate Logic - IV
Propositional and Predicate Logic - IV Petr Gregor KTIML MFF UK ZS 2015/2016 Petr Gregor (KTIML MFF UK) Propositional and Predicate Logic - IV ZS 2015/2016 1 / 19 Tableau method (from the previous lecture)
More informationGeneralized Pigeonhole Properties of Graphs and Oriented Graphs
Europ. J. Combinatorics (2002) 23, 257 274 doi:10.1006/eujc.2002.0574 Available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on Generalized Pigeonhole Properties of Graphs and Oriented Graphs ANTHONY BONATO, PETER
More informationPETER A. CHOLAK, PETER GERDES, AND KAREN LANGE
D-MAXIMAL SETS PETER A. CHOLAK, PETER GERDES, AND KAREN LANGE Abstract. Soare [20] proved that the maximal sets form an orbit in E. We consider here D-maximal sets, generalizations of maximal sets introduced
More informationThe Banach-Tarski paradox
The Banach-Tarski paradox 1 Non-measurable sets In these notes I want to present a proof of the Banach-Tarski paradox, a consequence of the axiom of choice that shows us that a naive understanding of the
More informationWell-foundedness of Countable Ordinals and the Hydra Game
Well-foundedness of Countable Ordinals and the Hydra Game Noah Schoem September 11, 2014 1 Abstract An argument involving the Hydra game shows why ACA 0 is insufficient for a theory of ordinals in which
More informationCardinal invariants of closed graphs
Cardinal invariants of closed graphs Francis Adams University of Florida Jindřich Zapletal University of Florida April 28, 2017 Abstract We study several cardinal characteristics of closed graphs G on
More informationOn poset Boolean algebras
1 On poset Boolean algebras Uri Abraham Department of Mathematics, Ben Gurion University, Beer-Sheva, Israel Robert Bonnet Laboratoire de Mathématiques, Université de Savoie, Le Bourget-du-Lac, France
More informationVALUATION THEORY, GENERALIZED IFS ATTRACTORS AND FRACTALS
VALUATION THEORY, GENERALIZED IFS ATTRACTORS AND FRACTALS JAN DOBROWOLSKI AND FRANZ-VIKTOR KUHLMANN Abstract. Using valuation rings and valued fields as examples, we discuss in which ways the notions of
More informationThomas Jech 1 and Saharon Shelah 2,3 The Pennsylvania State University The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Rutgers University
SIMPLE COMPLETE BOOLEAN ALGEBRAS Thomas Jech 1 and Saharon Shelah 2,3 The Pennsylvania State University The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Rutgers University Abstract. For every regular cardinal κ
More informationRAMSEY S THEOREM AND CONE AVOIDANCE
RAMSEY S THEOREM AND CONE AVOIDANCE DAMIR D. DZHAFAROV AND CARL G. JOCKUSCH, JR. Abstract. It was shown by Cholak, Jockusch, and Slaman that every computable 2-coloring of pairs admits an infinite low
More informationA NEW CLASS OF RAMSEY-CLASSIFICATION THEOREMS AND THEIR APPLICATION IN THE TUKEY THEORY OF ULTRAFILTERS, PART 1
TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 00, Number 0, Pages 000 000 S 0002-9947(XX)0000-0 A NEW CLASS OF RAMSEY-CLASSIFICATION THEOREMS AND THEIR APPLICATION IN THE TUKEY THEORY OF ULTRAFILTERS,
More information1 Topology Definition of a topology Basis (Base) of a topology The subspace topology & the product topology on X Y 3
Index Page 1 Topology 2 1.1 Definition of a topology 2 1.2 Basis (Base) of a topology 2 1.3 The subspace topology & the product topology on X Y 3 1.4 Basic topology concepts: limit points, closed sets,
More informationMaharam Algebras. Equipe de Logique, Université de Paris 7, 2 Place Jussieu, Paris, France
Maharam Algebras Boban Veličković Equipe de Logique, Université de Paris 7, 2 Place Jussieu, 75251 Paris, France Abstract Maharam algebras are complete Boolean algebras carrying a positive continuous submeasure.
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 informationMetainduction in Operational Set Theory
Metainduction in Operational Set Theory Luis E. Sanchis Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Syracuse University Syracuse, NY 13244-4100 Sanchis@top.cis.syr.edu http://www.cis.syr.edu/
More informationBorel hierarchies. These are lecture notes from a course I gave in the spring semester of The following results are new:
Borel hierarchies A.Miller Spring 2014 last revised August 10, 2017 (still working on it) These are lecture notes from a course I gave in the spring semester of 2014 1. The following results are new: 5.10
More informationA Basis Theorem for Perfect Sets
A Basis Theorem for Perfect Sets Marcia J. Groszek Theodore A. Slaman November 17, 2000 Abstract We show that if there is a nonconstructible real, then every perfect set has a nonconstructible element,
More informationAn introduction to OCA
An introduction to OCA Gemma Carotenuto January 29, 2013 Introduction These notes are extracted from the lectures on forcing axioms and applications held by professor Matteo Viale at the University of
More informationGENERALIZED ELLENTUCK SPACES AND INITIAL CHAINS IN THE TUKEY STRUCTURE OF NON-P-POINTS
GENERALIZED ELLENTUCK SPACES AND INITIAL CHAINS IN THE TUKEY STRUCTURE OF NON-P-POINTS NATASHA DOBRINEN Abstract. In [1], it was shown that the generic ultrafilter G 2 forced by P(ω ω)/(fin Fin) is neither
More informationKönig s Lemma and Kleene Tree
König s Lemma and Kleene Tree Andrej Bauer May 3, 2006 Abstract I present a basic result about Cantor space in the context of computability theory: the computable Cantor space is computably non-compact.
More informationStrong theories, burden, and weight
Strong theories, burden, and weight Hans Adler 13th March 2007 Abstract We introduce the notion of the burden of a partial type in a complete first-order theory and call a theory strong if all types have
More informationA BOREL SOLUTION TO THE HORN-TARSKI PROBLEM. MSC 2000: 03E05, 03E20, 06A10 Keywords: Chain Conditions, Boolean Algebras.
A BOREL SOLUTION TO THE HORN-TARSKI PROBLEM STEVO TODORCEVIC Abstract. We describe a Borel poset satisfying the σ-finite chain condition but failing to satisfy the σ-bounded chain condition. MSC 2000:
More informationReverse Mathematics of Topology
Reverse Mathematics of Topology William Chan 1 Abstract. This paper develops the Reverse Mathematics of second countable topologies, where the elements of the topological space exist. The notion of topology,
More informationThe complexity of recursive constraint satisfaction problems.
The complexity of recursive constraint satisfaction problems. Victor W. Marek Department of Computer Science University of Kentucky Lexington, KY 40506, USA marek@cs.uky.edu Jeffrey B. Remmel Department
More informationPart V. 17 Introduction: What are measures and why measurable sets. Lebesgue Integration Theory
Part V 7 Introduction: What are measures and why measurable sets Lebesgue Integration Theory Definition 7. (Preliminary). A measure on a set is a function :2 [ ] such that. () = 2. If { } = is a finite
More informationCOUNTABLE COMPACTNESS, HEREDITARY π CHARACTER, AND THE CONTINUUM HYPOTHESIS
COUNTABLE COMPACTNESS, HEREDITARY π CHARACTER, AND THE CONTINUUM HYPOTHESIS TODD EISWORTH Abstract. We prove that the Continuum Hypothesis is consistent with the statement that countably compact regular
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 informationITERATING ALONG A PRIKRY SEQUENCE
ITERATING ALONG A PRIKRY SEQUENCE SPENCER UNGER Abstract. In this paper we introduce a new method which combines Prikry forcing with an iteration between the Prikry points. Using our method we prove from
More information20 Ordinals. Definition A set α is an ordinal iff: (i) α is transitive; and. (ii) α is linearly ordered by. Example 20.2.
20 Definition 20.1. A set α is an ordinal iff: (i) α is transitive; and (ii) α is linearly ordered by. Example 20.2. (a) Each natural number n is an ordinal. (b) ω is an ordinal. (a) ω {ω} is an ordinal.
More informationA NEW LINDELOF SPACE WITH POINTS G δ
A NEW LINDELOF SPACE WITH POINTS G δ ALAN DOW Abstract. We prove that implies there is a zero-dimensional Hausdorff Lindelöf space of cardinality 2 ℵ1 which has points G δ. In addition, this space has
More informationAnnals of Pure and Applied Logic
Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 161 (2010) 916 922 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Annals of Pure and Applied Logic journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apal Cardinal characteristics and
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 informationConnectedness. Proposition 2.2. The following are equivalent for a topological space (X, T ).
Connectedness 1 Motivation Connectedness is the sort of topological property that students love. Its definition is intuitive and easy to understand, and it is a powerful tool in proofs of well-known results.
More informationUniversal graphs and functions on ω 1
Universal graphs and functions on ω 1 Saharon Shelah a,1, Juris Steprāns b,2 a Department of Mathematics, Rutgers University, Hill Center, Piscataway, New Jersey, U.S.A. 08854-8019 and Institute of Mathematics,
More informationSequence convergence, the weak T-axioms, and first countability
Sequence convergence, the weak T-axioms, and first countability 1 Motivation Up to now we have been mentioning the notion of sequence convergence without actually defining it. So in this section we will
More informationNECESSARY USE OF Σ 1 1 INDUCTION IN A REVERSAL
NECESSARY USE OF Σ 1 1 INDUCTION IN A REVERSAL ITAY NEEMAN Abstract. Jullien s indecomposability theorem states that if a scattered countable linear order is indecomposable, then it is either indecomposable
More informationA CLASSIFICATION OF SEPARABLE ROSENTHAL COMPACTA AND ITS APPLICATIONS
A CLASSIFICATION OF SEPARABLE ROSENTHAL COMPACTA AND ITS APPLICATIONS SPIROS ARGYROS, PANDELIS DODOS AND VASSILIS KANELLOPOULOS Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Ramsey properties of perfect sets and of subtrees
More informationBanach-Mazur game played in partially ordered sets
Banach-Mazur game played in partially ordered sets arxiv:1505.01094v1 [math.lo] 5 May 2015 Wies law Kubiś Department of Mathematics Jan Kochanowski University in Kielce, Poland and Institute of Mathematics,
More informationMaths 212: Homework Solutions
Maths 212: Homework Solutions 1. The definition of A ensures that x π for all x A, so π is an upper bound of A. To show it is the least upper bound, suppose x < π and consider two cases. If x < 1, then
More informationComputability of Heyting algebras and. Distributive Lattices
Computability of Heyting algebras and Distributive Lattices Amy Turlington, Ph.D. University of Connecticut, 2010 Distributive lattices are studied from the viewpoint of effective algebra. In particular,
More informationThe topology of ultrafilters as subspaces of 2 ω
Many non-homeomorphic ultrafilters Basic properties Overview of the results Andrea Medini 1 David Milovich 2 1 Department of Mathematics University of Wisconsin - Madison 2 Department of Engineering, Mathematics,
More informationMAD FAMILIES AND THEIR NEIGHBORS
MAD FAMILIES AND THEIR NEIGHBORS ANDREAS BLASS, TAPANI HYTTINEN, AND YI ZHANG Abstract. We study several sorts of maximal almost disjoint families, both on a countable set and on uncountable, regular cardinals.
More informationMAGIC Set theory. lecture 6
MAGIC Set theory lecture 6 David Asperó Delivered by Jonathan Kirby University of East Anglia 19 November 2014 Recall: We defined (V : 2 Ord) by recursion on Ord: V 0 = ; V +1 = P(V ) V = S {V : < } if
More informationA MODEL-THEORETIC PROOF OF HILBERT S NULLSTELLENSATZ
A MODEL-THEORETIC PROOF OF HILBERT S NULLSTELLENSATZ NICOLAS FORD Abstract. The goal of this paper is to present a proof of the Nullstellensatz using tools from a branch of logic called model theory. In
More informationCORES OF ALEXANDROFF SPACES
CORES OF ALEXANDROFF SPACES XI CHEN Abstract. Following Kukie la, we show how to generalize some results from May s book [4] concerning cores of finite spaces to cores of Alexandroff spaces. It turns out
More informationPETER A. CHOLAK, PETER GERDES, AND KAREN LANGE
D-MAXIMAL SETS PETER A. CHOLAK, PETER GERDES, AND KAREN LANGE Abstract. Soare [23] proved that the maximal sets form an orbit in E. We consider here D-maximal sets, generalizations of maximal sets introduced
More informationISOLATING CARDINAL INVARIANTS
Journal of Mathematical Logic, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2003) 143 162 c World Scientific Publishing Company & Singapore University Press ISOLATING CARDINAL INVARIANTS JINDŘICH ZAPLETAL Department of Mathematics,
More informationProjective well-orderings of the reals and forcing axioms
Projective well-orderings of the reals and forcing axioms Andrés Eduardo Department of Mathematics Boise State University 2011 North American Annual Meeting UC Berkeley, March 24 27, 2011 This is joint
More informationMore forcing notions imply diamond
More forcing notions imply diamond Andrzej Ros lanowski Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Science Bar-Ilan University 52900 Ramat-Gan, Israel and Mathematical Institute of Wroclaw University 50384 Wroclaw,
More informationHomework 1 (revised) Solutions
Homework 1 (revised) Solutions 1. Textbook, 1.1.1, # 1.1.2 (p. 24) Let S be an ordered set. Let A be a non-empty finite subset. Then A is bounded and sup A, inf A A Solution. The hint was: Use induction,
More informationThe Skorokhod reflection problem for functions with discontinuities (contractive case)
The Skorokhod reflection problem for functions with discontinuities (contractive case) TAKIS KONSTANTOPOULOS Univ. of Texas at Austin Revised March 1999 Abstract Basic properties of the Skorokhod reflection
More informationk-protected VERTICES IN BINARY SEARCH TREES
k-protected VERTICES IN BINARY SEARCH TREES MIKLÓS BÓNA Abstract. We show that for every k, the probability that a randomly selected vertex of a random binary search tree on n nodes is at distance k from
More informationPreliminary draft only: please check for final version
ARE211, Fall2012 ANALYSIS6: TUE, SEP 11, 2012 PRINTED: AUGUST 22, 2012 (LEC# 6) Contents 1. Analysis (cont) 1 1.9. Continuous Functions 1 1.9.1. Weierstrass (extreme value) theorem 3 1.10. An inverse image
More informationMORE ABOUT SPACES WITH A SMALL DIAGONAL
MORE ABOUT SPACES WITH A SMALL DIAGONAL ALAN DOW AND OLEG PAVLOV Abstract. Hušek defines a space X to have a small diagonal if each uncountable subset of X 2 disjoint from the diagonal, has an uncountable
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 information1 The Local-to-Global Lemma
Point-Set Topology Connectedness: Lecture 2 1 The Local-to-Global Lemma In the world of advanced mathematics, we are often interested in comparing the local properties of a space to its global properties.
More informationAbstract Measure Theory
2 Abstract Measure Theory Lebesgue measure is one of the premier examples of a measure on R d, but it is not the only measure and certainly not the only important measure on R d. Further, R d is not the
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 informationQuick Tour of the Topology of R. Steven Hurder, Dave Marker, & John Wood 1
Quick Tour of the Topology of R Steven Hurder, Dave Marker, & John Wood 1 1 Department of Mathematics, University of Illinois at Chicago April 17, 2003 Preface i Chapter 1. The Topology of R 1 1. Open
More informationFORCING AXIOMS AND THE CONTINUUM HYPOTHESIS, PART II: TRANSCENDING ω 1 -SEQUENCES OF REAL NUMBERS
FORCING AXIOMS AND THE CONTINUUM HYPOTHESIS, PART II: TRANSCENDING ω 1 -SEQUENCES OF REAL NUMBERS JUSTIN TATCH MOORE Abstract. The purpose of this article is to prove that the forcing axiom for completely
More informationHypergraphs and proper forcing
Hypergraphs and proper forcing Jindřich Zapletal University of Florida November 23, 2017 Abstract Given a Polish space X and a countable collection of analytic hypergraphs on X, I consider the σ-ideal
More informationOn minimal models of the Region Connection Calculus
Fundamenta Informaticae 69 (2006) 1 20 1 IOS Press On minimal models of the Region Connection Calculus Lirong Xia State Key Laboratory of Intelligent Technology and Systems Department of Computer Science
More informationForcing notions in inner models
Forcing notions in inner models David Asperó Abstract There is a partial order P preserving stationary subsets of! 1 and forcing that every partial order in the ground model V that collapses asu ciently
More informationAn Algebraic View of the Relation between Largest Common Subtrees and Smallest Common Supertrees
An Algebraic View of the Relation between Largest Common Subtrees and Smallest Common Supertrees Francesc Rosselló 1, Gabriel Valiente 2 1 Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Research Institute
More information