Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:32:36.544Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

AD and the supercompactness of ℵ1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Howard Becker
Howard Becker*
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles, California 90024
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since the discovery of forcing in the early sixties, it has been clear that many natural and interesting mathematical questions are not decidable from the classical axioms of set theory, ZFC. Therefore some mathematicians have been studying the consequences of stronger set theoretic assumptions. Two new types of axioms that have been the subject of much research are large cardinal axioms and axioms asserting the determinacy of definable games. The two appear at first glance to be unrelated; one of the most surprising discoveries of recent research is that this is not the case.

In this paper we will be assuming the axiom of determinacy (AD) plus the axiom of dependent choice (DC). AD is false, since it contradicts the axiom of choice. However every set in L[R] is ordinal definable from a real. Our axiom that definable games are determined implies that every game in L[R] is determined (in V), and since a strategy is a real, it is determined in L[R]. That is, L[R] ⊨ AD. The axiom of choice implies L[R] ⊨ DC. So by embedding ourselves in L[R], we can assume AD + DC and begin proving theorems. These theorems true in L[R] imply corresponding theorems in V, by e.g. changing “every set” to “every set in L[R]”. For more information on AD as an axiom, and on some of the points touched on here, the reader should consult [14], particularly §§7D and 8I. In this paper L[R] will no longer even be mentioned. We just assume AD for the rest of the paper.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 46 , Issue 4 , December 1981 , pp. 822 - 842
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1981

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]Becker, H., Thin collections of sets of projective ordinals and analogs of L, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 19 (1980), pp. 205–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Bull, E. L. Jr., Successive large cardinals, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 15 (1978), pp. 161–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Di Prisco, C. A. and Henle, J., On the compactness of ℵ1 and ℵ2, this Journal, vol. 43 (1978), pp. 394–401.Google Scholar
[4]Harrington, L., AD(ω) implies a version of AD(ℵω), circulated note, 12 1976.Google Scholar
[5]Harrington, L. A. and Kechris, A. S., On the determinacy of games on ordinals (to appear).Google Scholar
[6]Jech, T. J., Set theory, Academic Press, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
[7]Jech, T. J., Some combinatorial problems concerning uncountable cardinals, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 5 (1973), pp. 165–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Kechris, A. S., AD and projective ordinals, Cabal Seminar 76–77 (Kechris, A.S. and Moschovakis, Y. N., Editors), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 689, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1978, pp. 91–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Kechris, A. S., Measure and category in effective descriptive set theory, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 5 (1973), pp. 337–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Kunen, K., Some singular cardinals, circulated note, 09 1971.Google Scholar
[11]Martin, D. A., The axiom of determinateness and reduction principles in the analytical hierarchy, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 74 (1968), pp. 687–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Menas, T. K., A combinatorial property of Pκλ κ, this Journal, vol. 41 (1976), pp. 225–234.Google Scholar
[13]Mignone, R. J., Ultrafilters resulting from the axiom of determinateness, Ph.D. Thesis, Pennsylvania State University, 1979.Google Scholar
[14]Moschovakis, Y. N., Descriptive set theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1980.Google Scholar
[15]Moschovakis, Y. N., Determinacy and prewellorderings of the continuum, Mathematical logic and foundations of set theory (Bar-Hillel, Y., Editor), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1970, pp. 24–62.Google Scholar
[16]Moschovakis, Y. N., Inductive scales on inductive sets, Cabal Seminar 76–77 (Kechris, A. S. and Moschovakis, Y. N., Editors), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 689, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1978, pp. 185–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17]Moschovakis, Y. N., Ordinal games and playful models, Cabal Seminar 77–79 (Kechris, A. S., Martin, D. A., and Moschovakis, Y. N., Editors), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York (to appear).Google Scholar
[18]Solovay, R. M., The independence of DC from AD, Cabal Seminar 76–77, (Kechris, A. S. and Moschovakis, Y. N., Editors), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 689, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1978, pp. 171–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19]Solovay, R. M., Strongly compact cardinals and the GCH, Proceedings of the Tarski Symposium, Berkeley, 1971 Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. XXV, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1974. pp. 365–372.Google Scholar
[20]Solovay, R. M., Reinhardt, W. N. and Kanamori, A., Strong axioms of infinity and elementary embeddings, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 13 (1978), pp. 73–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[21]Steel, J. R. and van Wesep, R., Two consequences of determinacy consistent with choice (to appear).Google Scholar