Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T02:12:15.984Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kurepa trees and Namba forcing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Bernhard König  and
Yasuo Yoshinobu
Bernhard König
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Information Science, Nagoya University, Furocho, Chikusa-Ku, Nagoya 464-8601, Japan, E-mail: [email protected]
Yasuo Yoshinobu
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Information Science, Nagoya University, Furocho, Chikusa-Ku, Nagoya 464-8601, Japan, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We show that strongly compact cardinals and MM are sensitive to λ-closed forcings for arbitrarily large λ. This is done by adding ‘regressive’ λ-Kurepa trees in either case. We argue that the destruction of regressive Kurepa trees requires a non-standard application of MM. As a corollary, we find a consistent example of an ω2-closed poset that is not forcing equivalent to any ω2-directed-closed poset.

Keywords

Kurepa treescompact cardinalsMartin's Maximum
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 77 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 1281 - 1290
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, Applications of the Proper Forcing Axiom, Handbook of set-theoretic topology (Kunen, K. and Vaughan, J.E., editors), North-Holland, 1984, pp. 913–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Burgess, John P., Forcing, Handbook of mathematical logic (Barwise, J., editor), North-Holland, 1977, pp. 403–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Foreman, Matthew, Magidor, Menachem, and Shelah, Saharon, Martin's Maximum, saturated ideals, and nonregular ultrafilters I, Annals of Mathematics, vol. 127 (1988), pp. 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Gitik, Moti and Shelah, Saharon, On certain indestructibility of strong cardinals and a question of Hajnal, Archive for Mathematical Logic, vol. 28 (1989), pp. 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Jech, Thomas, Set Theory, Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Springer-Verlag, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Jensen, Ronald B., Some combinatorial properties of L and V, Handwritten notes, available at http://www.mathematik.hu-berlin.de/-raesch/org/jensen.html, 1969.Google Scholar
[7]Kanamori, Akihiro, The Higher Infinite, Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Springer-Verlag, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]König, Bernhard, Local Coherence, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 124 (2003), pp. 107–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]König, Bernhard and Yoshinobu, Yasuo, Fragments of Martins Maximum in generic extensions, Mathematical Logic Quarterly, vol. 50 (2004), pp. 297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Larson, Paul, Separating stationary reflection principles, this Journal, vol. 65 (2000), pp. 247–258.Google Scholar
[11]Larson, Paul, The size of T̴, Archive for Mathematical Logic, vol. 39 (2000), pp. 541–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Laver, Richard, Making the supercompactness of K indestructible under K-directed closedforcing, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 29 (1978), pp. 385–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Stewart, D.H., The consistency of the Kurepa hypothesis with the axioms of set theory. Master's thesis, University of Bristol, 1966.Google Scholar
[14]Woodin, W. Hugh, The Axiom of Determinacy, Forcing Axioms, and the Nonstationary Ideal. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar