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)

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)

In this paper I shall present a method for proving determinacy from large cardinals which, in many cases, seems to yield optimal results. One of the main applications extends theorems of Martin, Steel and Woodin about determinacy within the projective hierarchy. The method can also be used to give a new proof of Woodin's theorem about determinacy in L.The reason we look for optimal determinacy proofs is not only vanity. Such proofs serve to tighten the connection between large cardinals and (...) descriptive set theory, letting us bring our knowledge of one subject to bear on the other, and thus increasing our understanding of both. A classic example of this is the Harrington-Martin proof that -determinacy implies -determinacy. This is an example of a transfer theorem, which assumes a certain determinacy hypothesis and proves a stronger one. While the statement of the theorem makes no mention of large cardinals, its proof goes through 0#, first proving that-determinacy ⇒ 0# exists,and then that0# exists ⇒ -determinacyMore recent examples of the connection between large cardinals and descriptive set theory include Steel's proof thatADL ⇒ HODL ⊨ GCH,see [9], and several results of Woodin about models of AD+, a strengthening of the axiom of determinacy AD which Woodin has introduced. These proofs not only use large cardinals, but also reveal a deep, structural connection between descriptive set theoretic notions and notions related to large cardinals. (shrink)

We present a general lemma which allows proving determinacy from Woodin cardinals. The lemma can be used in many different settings. As a particular application we prove the determinacy of sets in [Formula: see text], n ≥ 1. The assumption we use to prove [Formula: see text] determinacy is optimal in the base theory of [Formula: see text] determinacy.