Journal of Mathematical Logic, Volume 22, Issue 02, August 2022. We introduce bounded category forcing axioms for well-behaved classes [math]. These are strong forms of bounded forcing axioms which completely decide the theory of some initial segment of the universe [math] modulo forcing in [math], for some cardinal [math] naturally associated to [math]. These axioms naturally extend projective absoluteness for arbitrary set-forcing — in this situation [math] — to classes [math] (...) with [math]. Unlike projective absoluteness, these higher bounded category forcing axioms do not follow from large cardinal axioms but can be forced under mild large cardinal assumptions on [math]. We also show the existence of many classes [math] with [math] giving rise to pairwise incompatible theories for [math]. (shrink)

We show that in a σ‐closed forcing extension, the bounded forcing axiom for Namba forcing fails. This answers a question of J. T. Moore.

The bounded proper forcing axiom BPFA is the statement that for any family of ℵ 1 many maximal antichains of a proper forcing notion, each of size ℵ 1 , there is a directed set meeting all these antichains. A regular cardinal κ is called Σ 1 -reflecting, if for any regular cardinal χ, for all formulas $\varphi, "H(\chi) \models`\varphi'"$ implies " $\exists\delta . We investigate several algebraic consequences of BPFA, and we show that the consistency strength (...) of the bounded proper forcing axiom is exactly the existence of a Σ 1 -reflecting cardinal (which is less than the existence of a Mahlo cardinal). We also show that the question of the existence of isomorphisms between two structures can be reduced to the question of rigidity of a structure. (shrink)

We show that Bounded Forcing Axioms (for instance, Martin's Axiom, the Bounded Proper Forcing Axiom, or the Bounded Martin's Maximum) are equivalent to principles of generic absoluteness, that is, they assert that if a $\Sigma_1$ sentence of the language of set theory with parameters of small transitive size is forceable, then it is true. We also show that Bounded Forcing Axioms imply a strong form of generic absoluteness for projective sentences, namely, (...) if a $\Sigma^1_3$ sentence with parameters is forceable, then it is true. Further, if for every real x, $x^{\sharp}$ exists, and the second uniform indiscernible is less than $\omega_2$ , then the same holds for $\Sigma^1_4$ sentences. (shrink)

We show that bounded forcing axioms are consistent with the existence of -gaps and thus do not imply the Open Coloring Axiom. They are also consistent with Jensen's combinatorial principles for L at the level ω2, and therefore with the existence of an ω2-Suslin tree. We also show that the axiom we call BMM3 implies 21=2, as well as a stationary reflection principle which has many of the consequences of Martin's Maximum for objects of size 2. Finally, (...) we give an example of a so-called boldface bounded forcing axiom implying 20=2. (shrink)

If the Bounded Proper Forcing Axiom BPFA holds, then Mouse Reflection holds at N₂ with respect to all mouse operators up to the level of Woodin cardinals in the next ZFC-model. This yields that if Woodin's ℙ max axiom (*) holds, then BPFA implies that V is closed under the "Woodin-in-the-next-ZFC-model" operator. We also discuss stronger Mouse Reflection principles which we show to follow from strengthenings of BPFA, and we discuss the theory BPFA plus "NS ω1 is precipitous" (...) and strengthenings thereof. Along the way, we answer a question of Baumgartner and Taylor. [2, Question 6.11]. (shrink)

We introduce the Bounded Axiom A Forcing Axiom . It turns out that it is equiconsistent with the existence of a regular ∑2-correct cardinal and hence also equiconsistent with BPFA. Furthermore we show that, if consistent, it does not imply the Bounded Proper Forcing Axiom.

After presenting a general setting in which to look at forcing axioms, we give a hierarchy of generalized bounded forcing axioms that correspond level by level, in consistency strength, with the members of a natural hierarchy of large cardinals below a Mahlo. We give a general construction of models of generalized bounded forcing axioms. Then we consider the bounded forcing axiom for a class of partially ordered sets Γ 1 such (...) that, letting Γ 0 be the class of all stationary-set-preserving partially ordered sets, one can prove the following: (a) $\Gamma_0 \subseteq \Gamma_1$ , (b) Γ 0 = Γ 1 if and only if NS ω 1 is ℵ 1 -dense. (c) If P $\notin \Gamma_1$ , then BFA({P}) fails. We call the bounded forcing axiom for Γ 1 Maximal Bounded Forcing Axiom (MBFA). Finally we prove MBFA consistent relative to the consistency of an inaccessible Σ 2 -correct cardinal which is a limit of strongly compact cardinals. (shrink)

I investigate the relationships between three hierarchies of reflection principles for a forcing class $\Gamma $ : the hierarchy of bounded forcing axioms, of $\Sigma ^1_1$ -absoluteness, and of Aronszajn tree preservation principles. The latter principle at level $\kappa $ says that whenever T is a tree of height $\omega _1$ and width $\kappa $ that does not have a branch of order type $\omega _1$, and whenever ${\mathord {\mathbb P}}$ is a forcing notion in (...) $\Gamma $, then it is not the case that ${\mathord {\mathbb P}}$ forces that T has such a branch. $\Sigma ^1_1$ -absoluteness serves as an intermediary between these principles and the bounded forcing axioms. A special case of the main result is that for forcing classes that don’t add reals, the three principles at level $2^\omega $ are equivalent. Special attention is paid to certain subclasses of subcomplete forcing, since these are natural forcing classes that don’t add reals. (shrink)

In the absence of Woodin cardinals, fine structural inner models for mild large cardinal hypotheses admit forcing extensions where bounded forcing axioms hold and yet the reals are projectively well-ordered.

I analyze the hierarchies of the bounded and the weak bounded forcing axioms, with a focus on their versions for the class of subcomplete forcings, in terms of implications and consistency strengths. For the weak hierarchy, I provide level-by-level equiconsistencies with an appropriate hierarchy of partially remarkable cardinals. I also show that the subcomplete forcing axiom implies Larson’s ordinal reflection principle atω2, and that its effect on the failure of weak squares is very similar to (...) that of Martin’s Maximum. (shrink)

We prove new upper bound theorems on the consistency strengths of SPFA (θ), SPFA(θ-linked) and SPFA(θ⁺-cc). Our results are in terms of (θ, Γ)-subcompactness, which is a new large cardinal notion that combines the ideas behind subcompactness and Γ-indescribability. Our upper bound for SPFA(c-linked) has a corresponding lower bound, which is due to Neeman and appears in his follow-up to this paper. As a corollary, SPFA(c-linked) and PFA(c-linked) are each equiconsistent with the existence of a $\Sigma _{1}^{2}$ -indescribable cardinal. Our (...) upper bound for SPFA(c-c.c.) is a $\Sigma _{2}^{2}$ -indescribable cardinal, which is consistent with V = L. Our upper bound for SPFA(c⁺-linked) is a cardinal κ that is $(\kappa ^{+},\Sigma _{1}^{2})$ -subcompact, which is strictly weaker than κ⁺-supercompact. The axiom MM(c) is a consequence of SPFA(c⁺-linked) by a slight refinement of a theorem of Shelah. Our upper bound for SPFA(c⁺⁺-c.c.) is a cardinal κ that is $(\kappa ^{+},\Sigma _{2}^{2})$ -subcompact, which is also strictly weaker than κ⁺-supercompact. (shrink)

We show that L absoluteness for semi-proper forcings is equiconsistent with the existence of a remarkable cardinal, and hence by [6] with L absoluteness for proper forcings. By [7], L absoluteness for stationary set preserving forcings gives an inner model with a strong cardinal. By [3], the Bounded Semi-Proper Forcing Axiom is equiconsistent with the Bounded Proper Forcing Axiom , which in turn is equiconsistent with a reflecting cardinal. We show that Bounded Martin's Maximum is (...) much stronger than BSPFA in that if BMM holds, then for every X ∈ V , X# exists. (shrink)

We present an axiomatic approach for a class of finite, extensive form games of perfect information that makes use of notions like “rationality at a node” and “knowledge at a node.” We distinguish between the game theorist's and the players' own “theory of the game.” The latter is a theory that is sufficient for each player to infer a certain sequence of moves, whereas the former is intended as a justification of such a sequence of moves. While in general the (...) game theorist's theory of the game is not and need not be axiomatized, the players' theory must be an axiomatic one, since we model players as analogous to automatic theorem provers that play the game by inferring (or computing) a sequence of moves. We provide the players with an axiomatic theory sufficient to infer a solution for the game (in our case, the backwards induction equilibrium), and prove its consistency. We then inquire what happens when the theory of the game is augmented with information that a move outside the inferred solution has occurred. We show that a theory that is sufficient for the players to infer a solution and still remains consistent in the face of deviations must be modular. By this we mean that players have distributed knowledge of it. Finally, we show that whenever the theory of the game is group-knowledge (or common knowledge) among the players (i.e., it is the same at each node), a deviation from the solution gives rise to inconsistencies and therefore forces a revision of the theory at later nodes. On the contrary, whenever a theory of the game is modular, a deviation from equilibrium play does not induce a revision of the theory. (shrink)

We prove that a form of the $Erd\H{o}s$ property (consistent with $V = L\lbrack H_{\omega_2}\rbrack$ and strictly weaker than the Weak Chang's Conjecture at ω1), together with Bounded Martin's Maximum implies that Woodin's principle $\psi_{AC}$ holds, and therefore 2ℵ0 = ℵ2. We also prove that $\psi_{AC}$ implies that every function $f: \omega_1 \rightarrow \omega_1$ is bounded by some canonical function on a club and use this to produce a model of the Bounded Semiproper Forcing Axiom in (...) which Bounded Martin's Maximum fails. (shrink)

Moore introduced the Mapping Reflection Principle and proved that the Bounded Proper Forcing Axiom implies that the size of the continuum is ℵ2\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\aleph _2$$\end{document}. The Mapping Reflection Principle follows from the Proper Forcing Axiom. To show this, Moore utilized forcing notions whose conditions are countable objects. Chodounský–Zapletal introduced the Y-Proper Forcing Axiom that is a weak fragments of the Proper Forcing Axiom but implies some important (...) conclusions from the Proper Forcing Axiom, for example, the P-ideal Dichotomy. In this article, it is proved that the Y-Proper Forcing Axiom implies the Mapping Reflection Principle by introducing forcing notions whose conditions are finite objects. (shrink)

It is shown that the boldface maximality principle for subcomplete forcing,, together with the assumption that the universe has only set many grounds, implies the existence of a well‐ordering of definable without parameters. The same conclusion follows from, assuming there is no inner model with an inaccessible limit of measurable cardinals. Similarly, the bounded subcomplete forcing axiom, together with the assumption that does not exist, for some, implies the existence of a well‐ordering of which is Δ1‐definable without (...) parameters, and ‐definable using a subset of ω1 as a parameter. This well‐order is in. Enhanced versions of bounded forcing axioms are introduced that are strong enough to have the implications of mentioned above, and along the way, a bounded forcing axiom for countably closed forcing is proposed. (shrink)

In this paper I will communicate some new consequences of the Proper Forcing Axiom. First, the Bounded Proper Forcing Axiom implies that there is a well ordering of R which is Σ 1 -definable in (H(ω 2 ), ∈). Second, the Proper Forcing Axiom implies that the class of uncountable linear orders has a five element basis. The elements are X, ω 1 , ω 1 * , C, C * where X is any suborder of (...) the reals of size ω 1 and C is any Countryman line. Third, the Proper Forcing Axiom implies the Singular Cardinals Hypothesis at κ unless stationary subsets of S κ + ω reflect. The techniques are expected to be applicable to other open problems concerning the theory of H(ω 2 ). (shrink)

The resurrection axioms are forms of forcing axioms that were introduced recently by Hamkins and Johnstone, who developed on earlier ideas of Chalons and Veličković. In this note, we introduce a stronger form of resurrection and show that it gives rise to families of axioms which are consistent relative to extendible cardinals, and which imply the strongest known instances of forcing axioms, such as Martin’s Maximum++. In addition, we study the unbounded resurrection postulates in (...) terms of consistency lower bounds, obtaining, for example, failures of the weak square principle. (shrink)

I analyze the hierarchies of the bounded resurrection axioms and their “virtual” versions, the virtual bounded resurrection axioms, for several classes of forcings. I analyze these axioms in terms of implications and consistency strengths. For the virtual hierarchies, I provide level-by-level equiconsistencies with an appropriate hierarchy of virtual partially super-extendible cardinals. I show that the boldface resurrection axioms for subcomplete or countably closed forcing imply the failure of Todorčević’s square at the appropriate level. (...) I also establish connections between these hierarchies and the hierarchies of bounded and weak bounded forcing axioms. (shrink)

In 'On interpretations of arithmetic and set theory', Kaye and Wong proved the following result, which they considered to belong to the folklore of mathematical logic.

THEOREM 1 The first-order theories of Peano arithmetic and Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of infinity negated are bi-interpretable.

In this note, I describe a theory of sets that is bi-interpretable with the theory of bounded arithmetic IDelta0 + exp. Because of the weakness of this theory of sets, I cannot straightforwardly adapt Kaye and (...) Wong's interpretation of the arithmetic in the set theory. Instead, I am forced to produce a different interpretation. (shrink)

We construct a variety of inner models exhibiting features usually obtained by forcing over universes with large cardinals. For example, if there is a supercompact cardinal, then there is an inner model with a Laver indestructible supercompact cardinal. If there is a supercompact cardinal, then there is an inner model with a supercompact cardinal κ for which 2κ = κ+, another for which 2κ = κ++ and another in which the least strongly compact cardinal is supercompact. If there is (...) a strongly compact cardinal, then there is an inner model with a strongly compact cardinal, for which the measurable cardinals are bounded below it and another inner model W with a strongly compact cardinal κ, such that \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${H^{V}_{\kappa^+} \subseteq {\rm HOD}^W}$$\end{document}. Similar facts hold for supercompact, measurable and strongly Ramsey cardinals. If a cardinal is supercompact up to a weakly iterable cardinal, then there is an inner model of the Proper Forcing Axiom and another inner model with a supercompact cardinal in which GCH + V = HOD holds. Under the same hypothesis, there is an inner model with level by level equivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness, and indeed, another in which there is level by level inequivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness. If a cardinal is strongly compact up to a weakly iterable cardinal, then there is an inner model in which the least measurable cardinal is strongly compact. If there is a weakly iterable limit δ of <δ-supercompact cardinals, then there is an inner model with a proper class of Laver-indestructible supercompact cardinals. We describe three general proof methods, which can be used to prove many similar results. (shrink)

We construct creature forcings with strong Axiom A that specialize a given Aronszajn tree. We work with tree creature forcing. The creatures that live on the Aronszajn tree are normed and have the halving property. We show that our models fulfill ℵ1=d

Set Theory in Philosophy of Mathematics

Direct download (3 more)  

 

Export citation  

 

Bookmark   1 citation  

We present an exposition of Section VI.1 and most of Section VI.2 from Shelah’s book Proper and Improper Forcing. These sections offer proofs of the preservation under countable support iteration of proper forcing of various properties, including proofs that ωω\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\omega^\omega}$$\end{document} -bounding, the Sacks property, the Laver property, and the P-point property are preserved by countable support iteration of proper forcing.

We prove rigidity results for large classes of corona algebras, assuming the Proper Forcing Axiom. In particular, we prove that a conjecture of Coskey and Farah holds for all separable [Formula: see text]-algebras with the metric approximation property and an increasing approximate identity of projections.

We prove rigidity results for large classes of corona algebras, assuming the Proper Forcing Axiom. In particular, we prove that a conjecture of Coskey and Farah holds for all separable [Formula: see text]-algebras with the metric approximation property and an increasing approximate identity of projections.

We consider forcing axioms for suitable families of μ‐complete ‐c.c. forcing notions. We show that some form of the condition “ have a in ” is necessary. We also show some versions are really stronger than others.

We prove that MM (Martin maximum) is equivalent (in ZFC) to the older axiom SPFA (semiproper forcing axiom). We also prove that SPFA does not imply SPFA + or even PFA + (using the consistency of a large cardinal).

We prove a variety of theorems about stationary set reflection and concepts related to internal approachability. We prove that an implication of Fuchino–Usuba relating stationary reflection to a version of Strong Chang’s Conjecture cannot be reversed; strengthen and simplify some results of Krueger about forcing axioms and approachability; and prove that some other related results of Krueger are sharp. We also adapt some ideas of Woodin to simplify and unify many arguments in the literature involving preservation of (...) class='Hi'>forcing axioms. (shrink)

Suppose that T^∗ is an ω_1-Aronszajn tree with no stationary antichain. We introduce a forcing axiom PFA(T^∗) for proper forcings which preserve these properties of T^∗. We prove that PFA(T^∗) implies many of the strong consequences of PFA, such as the failure of very weak club guessing, that all of the cardinal characteristics of the continuum are greater than ω_1, and the P-ideal dichotomy. On the other hand, PFA(T^∗) implies some of the consequences of diamond principles, such as the (...) existence of Knaster forcings which are not stationarily Knaster. (shrink)

The purpose of this communication is to present some recent advances on the consequences that forcing axioms and large cardinals have on the combinatorics of singular cardinals. I will introduce a few examples of problems in singular cardinal combinatorics which can be fruitfully attacked using ideas and techniques coming from the theory of forcing axioms and then translate the results so obtained in suitable large cardinals properties.The first example I will treat is the proof that the (...) proper forcing axiom PFA implies the singular cardinal hypothesis SCH, this will easily lead to a new proof of Solovay's theorem that SCH holds above a strongly compact cardinal. I will also outline how some of the ideas involved in these proofs can be used as means to evaluate the “saturation” properties of models of strong forcing axioms like MM or PFA.The second example aims to show that the transfer principle ↠ fails assuming Martin's Maximum MM. Also in this case the result can be translated in a large cardinal property, however this requires a familiarity with a rather large fragment of Shelah's pcf-theory.Only sketchy arguments will be given, the reader is referred to the forthcoming [25] and [38] for a thorough analysis of these problems and for detailed proofs. (shrink)

We show that under $\mathsf {BMM}$ and “there exists a Woodin cardinal, $"$ the nonstationary ideal on $\omega _1$ cannot be defined by a $\Pi _1$ formula with parameter $A \subset \omega _1$. We show that the same conclusion holds under the assumption of Woodin’s $(\ast )$ -axiom. We further show that there are universes where $\mathsf {BPFA}$ holds and $\text {NS}_{\omega _1}$ is $\Pi _1(\{\omega _1\})$ -definable. Lastly we show that if the canonical inner model with one Woodin cardinal (...) $M_1$ exists, there is a generic extension of $M_1$ in which $\text {NS}_{\omega _1}$ is saturated and $\Pi _1(\{ \omega _1\} )$ -definable, and $\mathsf {MA_{\omega _1}}$ holds. (shrink)

In this paper, we study the forcing axiom for the class of proper forcing notions which do not add ω sequence of ordinals. We study the relationship between this forcing axiom and many cardinal invariants. We use typical iterated forcing with large cardinals and analyse certain property being preserved in this process. Lastly, we apply the results to distinguish several forcing axioms.

If the bounded proper forcing axiom BPFA holds and ω 1 = ${\mathrm{\omega }}_{1}^{\mathrm{L}}$ , then there is a lightface ${\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{3}^{1}$ well-ordering of the reals. The argument combines a well-ordering due to Caicedo-Veličković with an absoluteness result for models of MA in the spirit of "David's trick." We also present a general coding scheme that allows us to show that BPFA is equiconsistent with R being lightface ${\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{4}^{1}$ , for many "consistently locally certified" relations R on (...) $\mathrm{\mathbb{R}}$ . This is accomplished through a use of David's trick and a coding through the ∑ 2 stable ordinals of L. (shrink)

We show that the Proper Forcing Axiom implies the Singular Cardinal Hypothesis. The proof uses the reflection principle MRP introduced by Moore in [11].

The paper discusses various relationships between the concepts mentioned in the title. In Section 1 Todorcevic functions are shown to arise from both morasses and square. In Section 2 the theme is of supplements to morasses which have some of the flavour of square. Distinctions are drawn between differing concepts. In Section 3 forcing axioms related to the ideas in Section 2 are discussed.

The purpose of this paper is to present some results which suggest that the Singular Cardinals Hypothesis follows from the Proper Forcing Axiom. What will be proved is that a form of simultaneous reflection follows from the Set Mapping Reflection Principle, a consequence of PFA. While the results fall short of showing that MRP implies SCH, it will be shown that MRP implies that if SCH fails first at κ then every stationary subset of reflects. It will also be (...) demonstrated that MRP always fails in a generic extension by Prikry forcing. (shrink)

A $\Sigma _{1}^{2}$ truth for λ is a pair 〈Q, ψ〉 so that Q ⊆ Hλ, ψ is a first order formula with one free variable, and there exists B ⊆ Hλ+ such that (Hλ+; ε, B) $(H_{\lambda +};\in ,B)\vDash \psi [Q]$ . A cardinal λ is $\Sigma _{1}^{2}$ indescribable just in case that for every $\Sigma _{1}^{2}$ truth 〈Q, ψ〉 for λ, there exists $\overline{\lambda}<\lambda $ so that $\overline{\lambda}$ is a cardinal and $\langle Q\cap H_{\overline{\lambda}},\psi \rangle $ is a (...) $\Sigma _{1}^{2}$ truth for $\overline{\lambda}$ . More generally, an interval of cardinals [κ, λ] with κ ≤ λ is $\Sigma _{1}^{2}$ indescribable if for every $\Sigma _{1}^{2}$ truth 〈Q, ψ〉 for λ, there exists $??\leq \overline{\lambda}<\kappa,??\subseteq H_{\overline{\lambda}}$ , and π: $H_{\overline{\lambda}}\rightarrow H_{\lambda}$ so that $??$ is a cardinal, $\langle ??,\psi \rangle $ is a $\Sigma _{1}^{2}$ truth for $??$ , and π is elementary from $(H_{\overline{\lambda}};\in,??,??)$ with $\pi \,|\,??={\rm id}$ . We prove that the restriction of the proper forcing axiom to c-linked posets requires a $\Sigma _{1}^{2}$ indescribable cardinal in L, and that the restriction of the proper forcing axiom to c⁺-linked posets, in a proper forcing extension of a fine structural model, requires a $\Sigma _{1}^{2}$ indescribable 1-gap [κ, κ⁺]. These results show that the respective forward directions obtained in " Hierarchies of Forcing Axioms I" by Neeman and Schimmerling are optimal. (shrink)

We prove that a number of axioms, each a consequence of PFA (the Proper Forcing Axiom) are equivalent. In particular we show that TOP (the Thinning-out Principle as introduced by Baumgartner in the Handbook of set-theoretic topology), is equivalent to the following statement: If I is an ideal on ω 1 with ω 1 generators, then there exists an uncountable $X \subseteq \omega_1$ , such that either [ X] ω ∩ I = ⊘ or $\lbrack X\rbrack^\omega \subseteq I$.

In this paper we show that the Proper Forcing Axiom is preserved under forcing over any poset PP with the following property: In the generalized Banach–Mazur game over PP of length , Player II has a winning strategy which depends only on the current position and the ordinal indicating the number of moves made so far. By the current position we mean: The move just made by Player I for a successor stage, or the infimum of all the (...) moves made so far for a limit stage. As a consequence of this theorem, we introduce a weak form of the square principle and show that it is consistent with PFA. (shrink)