Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T02:02:47.761Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Approachability at the second successor of a singular cardinal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Moti Gitik  and
John Krueger
Moti Gitik
Affiliation:
School of Mathematical Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel, E-mail: [email protected] URL: http://www.math.tau.ac.il/~gitik
John Krueger
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, Ca 94720, USA, E-mail: [email protected] URL: http://www.math.berkeley.edu/~jkrueger
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We prove that if μ is a regular cardinal and ℙ is a μ-centered forcing poset, then ℙ forces that (I[μ++[)V generates I[μ++] modulo clubs. Using this result, we construct models in which the approachability property fails at the successor of a singular cardinal. We also construct models in which the properties of being internally club and internally approachable are distinct for sets of size the successor of a singular cardinal.

Keywords

approachability idealinternally approachable
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 74 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 1211 - 1224
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2009

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, J., Iterated forcing, Surveys in set theory, Cambridge University Press, 1983, pp. 159.Google Scholar
[2]Cummings, J., Notes on singular cardinal combinatorics, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 46 (2005), no. 3, pp. 251–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Foreman, M. and Todorčević, S., A new Löwenheim–Skolem theorem. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 357 (2005), pp. 1693–1715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Foreman, M. and Woodin, H., The G.C.H. can fail everywhere, Annals of Mathematics, vol. 133 (1991), pp. 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Jech, T., Set theory, second ed., Springer, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Krueger, J., Internally club and approachable, Advances in Mathematics, vol. 213 (2007), no. 2, pp. 734–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Krueger, J., A general Mitchell style iteration, Mathematical Logic Quarterly, vol. 54 (2008), no. 6, pp. 641–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Krueger, J., Internally club and approachable for larger structures, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 201 (2008), pp. 115–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Krueger, J., Some applications of mixed support iterations, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, (to appear).Google Scholar
[10]Laver, R., Making the supercompactness of κ indestructible under κ-directed closed forcing, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 29 (1978), no. 4, pp. 385–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Magidor, M., On the singular cardinals problem I, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 28 (1977), pp. 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Magidor, M., Changing cofinality of cardinals, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 99 (1978), pp. 61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Mitchell, W., Aronszajn trees and the independence of the transfer property. Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 5 (1972/1973), pp. 21–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]Radin, L.B., Adding closed cofinal sequences to large cardinals, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 22 (1982), pp. 243–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15]Shelah, S., On successors of singular cardinals, Logic colloquium 78 (Boffa, M., van Dalen, D., and McAloon, K., editors), North Holland Publishing Company, 1979, pp. 357–380.Google Scholar
[16]Shelah, S., Reflecting stationary sets and successors of singular cardinals, Archive for Mathematical Logic, vol. 31 (1991), no. 1, pp. 25–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar