Inner models from extended logics

Similar documents
Inner Models from Extended Logics

Successive cardinals with the tree property

Forcing Axioms and Inner Models of Set Theory

VARIATIONS FOR SEPARATING CLUB GUESSING PRINCIPLES

A variant of Namba Forcing

An inner model from Ω-logic. Daisuke Ikegami

Cardinal Preserving Elementary Embeddings

Diamond, non-saturation, and weak square principles

FRAGILITY AND INDESTRUCTIBILITY II

The choice of ω 1 and combinatorics at ℵ ω

Handbook of Set Theory. Foreman, Kanamori, and Magidor (eds.)

Forcing axioms and inner models

FORCING AXIOMS AND THE CONTINUUM HYPOTHESIS, PART II: TRANSCENDING ω 1 -SEQUENCES OF REAL NUMBERS

SET MAPPING REFLECTION

A Sharp for the Chang Model

THE PRECIPITOUSNESS OF TAIL CLUB GUESSING IDEALS

Introduction to Model Theory

Diamond on successors of singulars

Six lectures on the stationary tower

A Sharp for the Chang Model

A simple maximality principle

VAUGHT S THEOREM: THE FINITE SPECTRUM OF COMPLETE THEORIES IN ℵ 0. Contents

Forcing notions in inner models

Large Cardinals and Higher Degree Theory

The Vaught Conjecture Do uncountable models count?

Generalizing Gödel s Constructible Universe:

ITERATING ALONG A PRIKRY SEQUENCE

Increasing δ 1 2 and Namba-style forcing

Statue of Aristotle at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

BOUNDING THE CONSISTENCY STRENGTH OF A FIVE ELEMENT LINEAR BASIS

Unsolvable problems, the Continuum Hypothesis, and the nature of infinity

Bounding by canonical functions, with CH

The Ultrapower Axiom implies GCH above a supercompact cardinal

INTRODUCTION TO CARDINAL NUMBERS

Projective well-orderings of the reals and forcing axioms

Singular Failures of GCH and Level by Level Equivalence

COLLAPSING FUNCTIONS

Set Theory and the Foundation of Mathematics. June 19, 2018

March 3, The large and small in model theory: What are the amalgamation spectra of. infinitary classes? John T. Baldwin

GREGORY TREES, THE CONTINUUM, AND MARTIN S AXIOM

AMS regional meeting Bloomington, IN April 1, 2017

CLUB GUESSING SEQUENCES NATURAL STRUCTURES IN SET THEORY

Morley s Proof. Winnipeg June 3, 2007

October 12, Complexity and Absoluteness in L ω1,ω. John T. Baldwin. Measuring complexity. Complexity of. concepts. to first order.

Generic Absoluteness. Joan Bagaria and Sy D. Friedman. Abstract. However, this is not true for 1 3 predicates. Indeed, if we add a Cohen real

What is the right type-space? Humboldt University. July 5, John T. Baldwin. Which Stone Space? July 5, Tameness.

20 Ordinals. Definition A set α is an ordinal iff: (i) α is transitive; and. (ii) α is linearly ordered by. Example 20.2.

THE STRONG TREE PROPERTY AND THE FAILURE OF SCH

Annals of Pure and Applied Logic

arxiv: v1 [math.lo] 7 Dec 2017

Diagonalize This. Iian Smythe. Department of Mathematics Cornell University. Olivetti Club November 26, 2013

Tallness and Level by Level Equivalence and Inequivalence

More Model Theory Notes

Set Theory and Models of Arithmetic ALI ENAYAT. First European Set Theory Meeting

Outer Model Satisfiability. M.C. (Mack) Stanley San Jose State

Tutorial 1.3: Combinatorial Set Theory. Jean A. Larson (University of Florida) ESSLLI in Ljubljana, Slovenia, August 4, 2011

The Absoluteness of Constructibility

Chain Conditions of Horn and Tarski

THE TREE PROPERTY AT ℵ ω+1 DIMA SINAPOVA

SINGULAR COFINALITY CONJECTURE AND A QUESTION OF GORELIC. 1. introduction

A NOTE ON THE EIGHTFOLD WAY

arxiv: v2 [math.lo] 16 Oct 2015

CCC Forcing and Splitting Reals

Introduction to Model Theory

Model Theory MARIA MANZANO. University of Salamanca, Spain. Translated by RUY J. G. B. DE QUEIROZ

GROUPS WITH UNBOUNDED POTENTIAL AUTOMORPHISM TOWER HEIGHTS

Appalachian Set Theory Workshop, May 31, 2008 Lectures by Justin Tatch Moore Notes taken by David Milovich

NAM TRANG TREVOR WILSON. September 16, 2016

MARTIN S MAXIMUM AND DEFINABILITY IN H(ℵ 2 ) Keywords: Forcing Axioms; Definability; Large Cardinals. 1. Introduction

Aronszajn Trees and the SCH

Scales, topological reflections, and large cardinal issues by Peter Nyikos

ITERATIONS WITH MIXED SUPPORT

Reasonable ultrafilters

Extending Baire measures to Borel measures

PCF THEORY AND CARDINAL INVARIANTS OF THE REALS

MATHEMATICS: CONCEPTS, AND FOUNDATIONS Vol. II - Model Theory - H. Jerome Keisler

THE TREE PROPERTY AND THE FAILURE OF THE SINGULAR CARDINAL HYPOTHESIS AT ℵ ω 2

UNIVERSALLY BAIRE SETS AND GENERIC ABSOLUTENESS TREVOR M. WILSON

Löwenheim-Skolem Theorems, Countable Approximations, and L ω. David W. Kueker (Lecture Notes, Fall 2007)

1. Introduction Definition 1.1. For an L ω1,ω-sentence φ, the spectrum of φ is the set

M ath. Res. Lett. 15 (2008), no. 00, NN c International Press 2008 A UNIVERSAL ARONSZAJN LINE. Justin Tatch Moore. 1.

Independence in tame abstract elementary classes

A NEW LINDELOF SPACE WITH POINTS G δ

Ultrafilters and Set Theory. Andreas Blass University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI

Almost Galois ω-stable classes

EQUICONSISTENCIES AT SUBCOMPACT CARDINALS

Gödel s Programm and Ultimate L

SOME COMBINATORIAL PRINCIPLES DEFINED IN TERMS OF ELEMENTARY SUBMODELS. 1. Introduction

DENSELY k-separable COMPACTA ARE DENSELY SEPARABLE

Suslin Cardinals and Scales From AD

GAMES ON BOOLEAN ALGEBRAS

Cardinal preserving elementary embeddings

ANDRÉS EDUARDO CAICEDO, PAUL LARSON, GRIGOR SARGSYAN, RALF SCHINDLER, JOHN STEEL, AND MARTIN ZEMAN

THE FAILURE OF DIAMOND ON A REFLECTING STATIONARY SET

IDEAL PROJECTIONS AND FORCING PROJECTIONS

TRANSFERING SATURATION, THE FINITE COVER PROPERTY, AND STABILITY

Set Theory and Indiscernibles. Ali Enayat. IPM Logic Conference

NAMBA FORCING, WEAK APPROXIMATION, AND GUESSING

Borel cardinals and Ramsey ultrafilters (draft of Sections 1-3)

Transcription:

1 / 43 Inner models from extended logics Joint work with Juliette Kennedy and Menachem Magidor Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Helsinki ILLC, University of Amsterdam January 2017

2 / 43 Constructible hierarchy generalized L 0 = L α+1 = Def L (L α) L ν = α<ν L α for limit ν We use C(L ) to denote the class α L α.

3 / 43 Thus a typical set in L α+1 has the form X = {a L α : (L α, ) = ϕ(a, b)}

4 / 43

5 / 43 Examples C(L ωω ) = L C(L ω1 ω) = L(R) C(L ω1 ω 1 ) = Chang model C(L 2 ) = HOD

6 / 43 Possible attributes of inner models Forcing absolute. Support large cardinals. Satisfy Axiom of Choice. Arise naturally". Decide questions such as CH.

7 / 43 Inner models we have L: Forcing-absolute but no large cardinals (above WC) HOD: Has large cardinals but forcing-fragile L(R): Forcing-absolute, has large cardinals, but no AC Extender models

8 / 43 Shelah s cofinality quantifier Definition The cofinality quantifier Q cf ω is defined as follows: M = Qω cf xyϕ(x, y, a) {(c, d) : M = ϕ(c, d, a)} is a linear order of cofinality ω. Axiomatizable Fully compact Downward Löwenheim-Skolem down to ℵ 1

9 / 43 The cof-model" C Definition C = def C(Q cf ω ) Example: {α < β : cf V (α) > ω} C

10 / 43 Theorem If 0 exists, then 0 C. Proof. Let X = {ξ < ℵ ω : ξ is a regular cardinal in L and cf(ξ) > ω} Now X C and 0 = { ϕ(x 1,..., x n ) : L ℵω = ϕ(γ 1,..., γ n ) for some γ 1 <... < γ n in X}.

11 / 43 Theorem The Dodd-Jensen Core model is contained in C. Theorem Suppose L µ exists. Then some L ν is contained in C.

12 / 43 Theorem If there is a measurable cardinal κ, then V C. Proof. Suppose V = C and κ is a measurable cardinal. Let i : V M with critical point κ and M κ M. Now (C ) M = (C ) V = V, whence M = V. This contradicts Kunen s result that there cannot be a non-trivial i : V V.

13 / 43 Theorem If there is an infinite set E of measurable cardinals (in V ), then E / C. Moreover, then C HOD. Proof. As Kunen s result that if there are uncountably many measurable cardinals, then AC is false in the Chang model.

Stationary Tower Forcing Suppose λ is Woodin 1. There is a forcing Q such that in V [G] there is j : V M with V [G] = M ω M and j(ω 1 ) = λ. For all regular ω 1 < κ < λ there is a cofinality ω preserving forcing P such that in V [G] there is j : V M with V [G] = M ω M and j(κ) = λ. 1 f : λ λ κ < λ({f (β) β < κ} κ j : V M(j(κ) > κ j κ = id V j(f )(κ) M. 14 / 43

15 / 43 Theorem If there is a Woodin cardinal, then ω 1 is (strongly) Mahlo in C. Proof. Let Q, G and j : V M with M ω M and j(ω 1 ) = λ be as above. Now, (C ) M = C <λ V.

16 / 43 Theorem Suppose there is a Woodin cardinal λ. Then every regular cardinal κ such that ω 1 < κ < λ is weakly compact in C. Proof. Suppose λ is a Woodin cardinal, κ > ω 1 is regular and < λ. To prove that κ is strongly inaccessible in C we can use the second" stationary tower forcing P above. With this forcing, cofinality ω is not changed, whence (C ) M = C.

17 / 43 Theorem If V = L µ, then C is exactly the inner model M ω 2[E], where M ω 2 is the ω 2 th iterate of V and E = {κ ω n : n < ω}.

18 / 43 Theorem Suppose there is a proper class of Woodin cardinals. Suppose P is a forcing notion and G P is generic. Then Th((C ) V ) = Th((C ) V [G] ).

19 / 43 Proof. Let H 1 be generic for Q. Now j 1 : (C ) V (C ) M 1 = (C ) V [H 1] = (C <λ )V. Let H 2 be generic for Q over V [G]. Then j 2 : (C ) V [G] (C ) M 2 = (C ) V [H 2] = (C <λ )V [G] = (C <λ )V.

20 / 43 Theorem P(ω) C ℵ 2.

21 / 43 Theorem If there are infinitely many Woodin cardinals, then there is a cone of reals x such that C (x) satisfies CH.

22 / 43 If two reals x and y are Turing-equivalent, then C (x) = C (y). Hence the set {y ω : C (y) = CH} (1) is closed under Turing-equivalence. Need to show that (I) The set (1) is projective. (II) For every real x there is a real y such that x T y and y is in the set (1).

23 / 43 Lemma Suppose there is a Woodin cardinal and a measurable cardinal above it. The following conditions are equivalent: (i) C (y) = CH. (ii) There is a countable iterable structure M with a Woodin cardinal such that y M, M = α( L α(y) = CH ) and for all countable iterable structures N with a Woodin cardinal such that y N: P(ω) (C ) N P(ω) (C ) M.

24 / 43 Stationary logic Definition M = aasϕ(s) {A [M] ω : M = ϕ(a)} contains a club of countable subsets of M. (i.e. almost all countable subsets A of M satisfy ϕ(a).) We denote aas ϕ by statsϕ. C(aa) = C(L(aa)) C C(aa)

25 / 43 Definition 1. A first order structure M is club-determined if M = s x[aa tϕ( x, s, t) aa t ϕ( x, s, t)], where ϕ( x, s, t) is any formula of L(aa). 2. We say that the inner model C(aa) is club-determined if every level L α is.

26 / 43 Theorem If there are a proper class of measurable Woodin cardinals or MM ++ holds, then C(aa) is club-determined. Proof. Suppose L α is the least counter-example. W.l.o.g α < ω V 2. Let δ be measurable Woodin, or ω 2 in the case of MM ++. The hierarchies C(aa) M, C(aa) V [G], C(aa <δ ) V are all the same and the (potential) failure of club-determinateness occurs in all at the same level.

27 / 43 Theorem Suppose there are a proper class of measurable Woodin cardinals or MM ++. Then every regular κ ℵ 1 is measurable in C(aa).

Theorem Suppose there are a proper class of measurable Woodin cardinals. Then the theory of C(aa) is (set) forcing absolute. Proof. Suppose P is a forcing notion and δ is a Woodin cardinal > P. Let j : V M be the associated elementary embedding. Now C(aa) (C(aa)) M = (C(aa <δ )) V. On the other hand, let H P be generic over V. Then δ is still Woodin, so we have the associated elementary embedding j : V [H] M. Again (C(aa)) V [H] (C(aa)) M = (C(aa <δ )) V [H]. Finally, we may observe that (C(aa <δ )) V [H] = (C(aa <δ )) V. Hence (C(aa)) V [H] (C(aa)) V. 28 / 43

29 / 43 Definition C(aa ) is the extension of C(aa) obtained by allowing implicit" definitions. C C(aa) C(aa ). The previous results about C(aa) hold also for C(aa ).

30 / 43 Definition f : P ω1 (L α) L α is definable in the aa-model if f (p) is uniformly definable in L α, for p P ω1 (L α) i.e. there is a formula τ(p, x, a) in L(aa), with possibly a parameter a from L α, such that for a club of p P ω1 (L α) there is exactly one x satisfying τ(p, x, a) in (L α, p). We (misuse notation and) denote this unique x by τ(p), and call the function p τ(p) a definable function.

31 / 43 Definition 1. Define for a fixed α and a, b L α, τ(p, x, a) α σ(p, x, b) if L α = aap x(τ(p, x, a) σ(p, x, b)). The equivalence classes are denoted [(α, τ, a)]. 2. Suppose we have τ(p, x, a) on L α defining f, and τ (P, x, b) on L β, α < β, defining f. We say that f is a lifting of f if for a club of q in P ω1 (L β ), f (q) = f (q L α). 3. Define [(α, τ, a)]e[(β, τ, b)] if α < β and L β = aap(τ (P) τ (P)), where τ is the lifting of τ to L β. 4. Fix α. Let D α be the class of all [(α, τ, a)].

32 / 43 Assume MM ++. Lemma j(ω 1 ) = ω 2. Lemma L α = aapϕ(p) M = ϕ(j α).

33 / 43 Theorem (MM ++ ) C(aa) = CH (even better: ).

34 / 43 Shelah s stationary logic Definition M = Q St xyzϕ(x, a)ψ(y, z, a) if and only if (M 0, R 0 ), where and M 0 = {b M : M = ϕ(b, a)} R 0 = {(b, c) M : M = ψ(b, c, a)}, is an ℵ 1 -like linear order and the set I of initial segments of (M 0, R 0 ) with an R 0 -supremum in M 0 is stationary in the set D of all (countable) initial segments of M 0 in the following sense: If J D is unbounded in D and σ-closed in D, then J I.

35 / 43 The logic L(Q St ), a sublogic of L(aa), is recursively axiomatizable and ℵ 0 -compact. We call this logic Shelah s stationary logic, and denote C(L(Q St )) by C(aa ). We can say in the logic L(Q St ) that a formula ϕ(x) defines a stationary (in V ) subset of ω 1 in a transitive model M containing ω 1 as an element as follows: M = x(ϕ(x) x ω 1 ) Q St xyzϕ(x)(ϕ(y) ϕ(z) y z). Hence C(aa ) NS ω1 C(aa ).

36 / 43 Theorem If there is a Woodin cardinal or MM holds, then the filter D = C(aa ) NS ω1 is an ultrafilter in C(aa ) and C(aa ) = L[D].

37 / 43 Theorem If there is a proper class of Woodin cardinals, then for all set forcings P and generic sets G P Th(C(aa ) V ) = Th(C(aa ) V [G] ).

We write HOD 1 = df C(Σ 1 1 ). Note: {α < β : cf V (α) = ω} HOD 1 {(α, β) γ 2 : α V β V } HOD 1 {α < β : α cardinal in V } HOD 1 {(α 0, α 1 ) β 2 : α 0 V (2 α1 ) V } HOD 1 {α < β : (2 α ) V = ( α + ) V } HOD 1 38 / 43

39 / 43 Lemma 1. C HOD 1. 2. C(Q MM,<ω 1 ) HOD 1 3. If 0 exists, then 0 HOD 1

40 / 43 Theorem It is consistent, relative to the consistency of infinitely many weakly compact cardinals that for some λ: {κ < λ : κ weakly compact (in V )} / HOD 1, and, moreover, HOD 1 = L HOD.

41 / 43 Open questions C has small large cardinals, is forcing absolute (assuming PCW). OPEN: Can C have a measurable cardinal? C has some elements of GCH OPEN: Does C satisfy CH if large cardinals are present? C(aa) has measurable cardinals. OPEN: Bigger cardinals in C(aa)?

42 / 43 Thank you!