Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:49:16.116Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Boolean extensions which efface the Mahlo property1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

William Boos*
Affiliation:
Suny at Buffalo, Amherst, New York 14226

Extract

The results that follow are intended to be understood as informal counterparts to formal theorems of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with choice. Basic notation not explained here can usually be found in [5]. It will also be necessary to assume a knowledge of the fundamentals of boolean and generic extensions, in the style of Jech's monograph [3]. Consistency results will be stated as assertions about the existence of certain complete boolean algebras, B, C , etc., either outright or in the sense of a countable standard transitive model M of ZFC augmented by hypotheses about the existence of various large cardinals. Proofs will usually be phrased in terms of the forcing relation ⊩ over such an M, especially when they make heavy use of genericity. They are then assertions about Shoenfield-style P -generic extensions M(G), in which the ‘names’ are required without loss of generality to be elements of M B = (V B )M, B is the boolean completion of P in M (cf. [3, p. 50]: the notation there is RO(P)), the generic G is named by ĜM B such that (⟦pĜ B = p and (cf. [11, p. 361] and [3, pp. 58–59]), and for pP and c 1, …, cn M B , p ⊩ φ(c 1, …, cn ) iff ⟦φ(c 1, …, cn )⟧B p (cf. [3, pp. 61–62]).

Some prior acquaintance with large cardinal theory is also needed. At this writing no comprehensive introductory survey is yet in print, though [1], [10], [12]and [13] provide partial coverage. The scheme of definitions which follows is intended to fix notation and serve as a glossary for reference, and it is followed in turn by a description of the results of the paper. We adopt the convention that κ, λ, μ, ν, ρ and σ vary over infinite cardinals, and all other lower case Greek letters (except χ, φ, ψ, ϵ) over arbitrary ordinals.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1974

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.)

Footnotes

1

This paper is a revision of the first half of the author's Ph.D. thesis, written under the supervision of Professor Kenneth Kunen, and submitted to the University of Wisconsin in August, 1971. I would like to thank Professor Kunen for his persistent encouragement and quietly infallible guidance in teaching me set theory. I would also like to thank Professor Karel Prikry for introducing me to techniques of Jensen and Mitchell that are basic to the results of this paper.

References

REFERENCES

[1] Chang, C. C. and Keisler, H. J., Model theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1974.Google Scholar
[2] Chang, C. C. et al., Mimeographed Lecture Notes on Set Theory, University of California, Los Angeles, 19671968.Google Scholar
[3] Jech, T., Lectures in set theory, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1971.Google Scholar
[4] Jensen, R. B. and Solovay, R. M., Some applications of almost disjoint sets, Mathematical logic and foundations of set theory (Bar-Hillel, Y., Editor), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1970.Google Scholar
[5] Krivine, J.-L., Introduction to axiomatic set theory, Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, and Humanities Press, New York, 1971.Google Scholar
[6] Kunen, K., Some applications of iterated ultrapowers in set theory, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 1 (1970), pp. 179227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6a] Kunen, K., Saturated models (to appear).Google Scholar
[7] Kunen, K. and Paris, J. B., Boolean extensions and measurable cardinals, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 2 (1970/1971), pp. 359377.Google Scholar
[8] Mitchell, W., Aronszajn trees and the independence of the transfer property, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 5 (1972), pp. 2146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9] Prikry, K., Changing measurable into accessible cardinals, Rozprawy Matematyczne, Warszawa, 1970.Google Scholar
[10] Rowbottom, F. and Bacsich, P. D., Classical theory of large cardinals, Typewritten Lecture Notes, University of California, Los Angeles, 1967.Google Scholar
[11[ Shoenfield, J. R., Unramified forcing, Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 13, part I (Scott, Dana, Editor), American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1971.Google Scholar
[12] Shoenfield, J. R., Measurable cardinals, Logic Colloquium '69 (Gandy, R. O. and Yates, C. M. E., Editors) North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1971.Google Scholar
[13] Silver, J., Some applications of model theory in set theory, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 3 (1971), pp. 45110.Google Scholar
[14] Solovay, R., Real-valued measurable cardinals, Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 13, part I (Scott, Dana, Editor), American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1971.Google Scholar