Part of the ambiguity lies in the various points of view from which this question might be considered. The crudest di erence lies between the point of view of the working mathematician and that of the logician concerned with the foundations of mathematics. Now some of my fellow mathematical logicians might protest this distinction, since they consider themselves to be just more of those \working mathematicians". Certainly, modern logic has established itself as a very respectable branch of mathematics, and there (...) are quite a few highly technical journals in logic, such as The Journal of Sym-. (shrink)

We show in ZFC that if there is no proper class inner model with a Woodin cardinal, then there is an absolutely definablecore modelthat is close toVin various ways.

We show that either of the following hypotheses imply that there is an inner model with a proper class of strong cardinals and a proper class of Woodin cardinals. 1) There is a countably closed cardinal k ≥ N₃ such that □k and □(k) fail. 2) There is a cardinal k such that k is weakly compact in the generic extension by Col(k, k⁺). Of special interest is 1) with k = N₃ since it follows from PFA by theorems of (...) Todorcevic and Velickovic. Our main new technical result, which is due to the first author, is a weak covering theorem for the model obtained by stacking mice over $K^c ||k.$. (shrink)

Let L[E] be an iterable tame extender model. We analyze to which extent L[E] knows fragments of its own iteration strategy. Specifically, we prove that inside L[E], for every cardinal K which is not a limit of Woodin cardinals there is some cutpoint t K > a>ω1 are cardinals, then ◊$_{K.\lambda }^* $ holds true, and if in addition λ is regular, then ◊$_{K.\lambda }^* $ holds true.

In this paper we shall answer some questions in the set theory of L, the universe of all sets constructible from the reals. In order to do so, we shall assume ADL, the hypothesis that all 2-person games of perfect information on ω whose payoff set is in L are determined. This is by now standard practice. ZFC itself decides few questions in the set theory of L, and for reasons we cannot discuss here, ZFC + ADL yields the most (...) interesting “completion” of the ZFC-theory of L.ADL implies that L satisfies “every wellordered set of reals is countable”, so that the axiom of choice fails in L. Nevertheless, there is a natural inner model of L, namely HODL, which satisfies ZFC.. The superscript “L” indicates, here and below, that the notion in question is to be interpreted in L.) HODL is reasonably close to the full L, in ways we shall make precise in § 1. The most important of the questions we shall answer concern HODL: what is its first order theory, and in particular, does it satisfy GCH?These questions first drew attention in the 70's and early 80's. (shrink)

We present equiconsistency results at the level of subcompact cardinals. Assuming SBHδ, a special case of the Strategic Branches Hypothesis, we prove that if δ is a Woodin cardinal and both □ and □δ fail, then δ is subcompact in a class inner model. If in addition □ fails, we prove that δ is Π12\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\Pi_1^2}$$\end{document} subcompact in a class inner model. These results are optimal, and lead to equiconsistencies. As a corollary (...) we also see that assuming the existence of a Woodin cardinal δ so that SBHδ holds, the Proper Forcing Axiom implies the existence of a class inner model with a Π12\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\Pi_1^2}$$\end{document} subcompact cardinal. Our methods generalize to higher levels of the large cardinal hierarchy, that involve long extenders, and large cardinal axioms up to δ is δ+ supercompact for all n < ω. We state some results at this level, and indicate how they are proved. (shrink)

We show that every sufficiently iterable countable mouse has a unique iteration strategy whose associated iteration maps are lexicographically minimal. This enables us to extend the results of [3] on the good behavior of the standard parameter from tame mice to arbitrary mice.

Posner [6] has shown, by a nonuniform proof, that every ▵ 0 2 degree has a complement below 0'. We show that a 1-generic complement for each ▵ 0 2 set of degree between 0 and 0' can be found uniformly. Moreover, the methods just as easily can be used to produce a complement whose jump has the degree of any real recursively enumerable in and above $\varnothing'$ . In the second half of the paper, we show that the complementation (...) of the degrees below 0' does not extend to all recursively enumerable degrees. Namely, there is a pair of recursively enumerable degrees a above b such that no degree strictly below a joins b above a. (This result is independently due to S. B. Cooper.) We end with some open problems. (shrink)

In this paper we shall answer some questions in the set theory of L, the universe of all sets constructible from the reals. In order to do so, we shall assume ADL, the hypothesis that all 2-person games of perfect information on ω whose payoff set is in L are determined. This is by now standard practice. ZFC itself decides few questions in the set theory of L, and for reasons we cannot discuss here, ZFC + ADL yields the most (...) interesting “completion” of the ZFC-theory of L.ADL implies that L satisfies “every wellordered set of reals is countable”, so that the axiom of choice fails in L. Nevertheless, there is a natural inner model of L, namely HODL, which satisfies ZFC.. The superscript “L” indicates, here and below, that the notion in question is to be interpreted in L.) HODL is reasonably close to the full L, in ways we shall make precise in § 1. The most important of the questions we shall answer concern HODL: what is its first order theory, and in particular, does it satisfy GCH?These questions first drew attention in the 70's and early 80's. (shrink)

We introduce two new iteration games: the game , which is a strengthening of the weak iteration game, and the game , which is somewhat stronger than but weaker than the full iteration game of length ω1. For a countable M elementarily embeddable in some Vη, with two players I and II, we can show that II wins and that I does not win.

We produce counterexamples to the unique and cofinal branches hypotheses, assuming (slightly less than) the existence of a cardinal which is strong past a Woodin cardinal.