Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T17:02:59.119Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the consistency strength of the inner model hypothesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Sy-David Friedman ,
Philip Welch  and
W. Hugh Woodin
Sy-David Friedman
Affiliation:
Kurt Göedel Research Center, University of Vienna, Währinger Straße 25, A-1090 Vienna, Austria, E-mail: [email protected]
Philip Welch
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, The University of California, 721 Evans Hall # 3840, Berkeley, CA 94720-3840, USA, E-mail: [email protected]
W. Hugh Woodin
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TW., UK, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Inner Model Hypothesis (IMH) and the Strong Inner Model Hypothesis (SIMH) were introduced in [4]. In this article we establish some upper and lower bounds for their consistency strength.

We repeat the statement of the IMH, as presented in [4]. A sentence in the language of set theory is internally consistent iff it holds in some (not necessarily proper) inner model. The meaning of internal consistency depends on what inner models exist: If we enlarge the universe, it is possible that more statements become internally consistent. The Inner Model Hypothesis asserts that the universe has been maximised with respect to internal consistency:

The Inner Model Hypothesis (IMH): If a statement φ without parameters holds in an inner model of some outer model of V (i.e., in some model compatible with V), then it already holds in some inner model of V.

Equivalently: If φ is internally consistent in some outer model of V then it is already internally consistent in V. This is formalised as follows. Regard V as a countable model of Gödel-Bernays class theory, endowed with countably many sets and classes. Suppose that V* is another such model, with the same ordinals as V. Then V* is an outer model of V (V is an inner model of V*) iff the sets of V* include the sets of V and the classes of V* include the classes of V. V* is compatible with V iff V and V* have a common outer model.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 73 , Issue 2 , June 2008 , pp. 391 - 400
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2008

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]Beller, A., Jensen, R., and Welch, P., Coding the universe, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, vol. 47, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Friedman, S., New facts, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 127 (1999), pp. 3707–3709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Friedman, S., Fine structure and class forcing, de Gruyter Series in Logic and its Applications, vol. 3, Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Friedman, S., Internal consistency and the inner model hypothesis, The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, vol. 12 (2006), pp. 591–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Friedman, S., Stable axioms of set theory, Set Theory: Centre de Recerca Matemàtica, Barcelona, 2003–2004, Trends in Mathematics, Birkhäuser Verlag, 2006, pp. 275–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Mitchell, W., An introduction to inner models and large cardinals, Handbook of set theory, Springer Verlag, to appear.Google Scholar
[7]Moschovakis, Y., Descriptive set theory, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1980.Google Scholar
[8]Zeman, M., Inner models and large cardinals, de Gruyter Series in Logic and its Applications, Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar