Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T01:28:04.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The tree property and the failure of the Singular Cardinal Hypothesis at ℵω2

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 April 2017

Dima Sinapova
Dima Sinapova*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697-3875, USA, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We show that given ω many supercompact cardinals, there is a generic extension in which the tree property holds at ℵω2+ 1 and the SCH fails at ℵω2.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 77 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 934 - 946
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Baumgartner, James, Foreman, Matthew, and Spinas, Otmar, The spectrum of the Λ-invariant of a bilinear space, Journal of Algebra, vol. 189 (1997), no. 2, pp. 406–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Cummings, James and Foreman, Matthew, Diagonal Prikry extensions, this Journal, vol. 75 (2010), no. 4, pp. 1383–1402.Google Scholar
[3]Cummings, James, Foreman, Matthew, and Magidor, Menachem, Squares, scales and stationary reflection, Journal of Mathematical Logic, vol. 1 (2001), pp. 35–98.Google Scholar
[4]Cummings, James, Foreman, Matthew, and Magidor, Menachem, Canonical structure in the universe of set theory 1, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 129 (2004), no. 1–3, pp. 211–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Cummings, James, Foreman, Matthew, and Magidor, Menachem, Canonical structure in the universe of set theory II, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 142 (2006), no. 1–3, pp. 55–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Gitik, Moti and Sharon, Assaf, On SCH and the approachability property, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 136 (2008), pp. 311–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Jech, Thomas, Set theory, Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, 2003.Google Scholar
[8]Magidor, Menachem, Reflecting stationary sets, this Journal, vol. 47 (1982), no. 4, pp. 755–771.Google Scholar
[9]Magidor, Menachem and Shelah, Saharon, The tree property at successors of singular cardinals, Archive for Mathematical Logic, vol. 35 (1996), no. 5-6, pp. 385–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Neeman, Itay, Aronszajn trees and the failure of the singular cardinal hypothesis, Journal of Mathematical Logic, vol. 9 (2009), pp. 139–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Shelah, Saharon, Cardinal arithmetic, Oxford Logic Guides, vol. 29, Oxford University Press, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Solovay, Robert M., Strongly compact cardinals and the GCH, Proceedings of the Tarski Symposium (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Univ. California, Berkeley, Calif., 1971), American Mathematical Society, 1974, pp. 365–372.Google Scholar
[13] Spencer Unger, preprint.Google Scholar