Abstract.Since the gene splicing debates of the 1980s, the public has been exposed to an ongoing sequence of genetic and reproductive technologies. Many issue areas have outcomes that lose track of people's inner values or engender opposing religious viewpoints defying final resolution. This essay relocates the discussion of what is an acceptable application from the individual to the societal level, examining technologies that stand to address large numbers of people and thus call for policy resolution, rather than individual fiat, (...) in their application. A major source of guidance is the “Genetic Frontiers” series of professional dialogues and conferences held by the National Conference for Community and Justice from 2002 to 2004. Genetic testing, human gene therapy, genetic engineering of plants and animals, and stem cell technology are examined. While differences in perspective on the beginning of life persist, a stepwise approach to the examination of genetic testing reveals areas of general agreement. Stewardship of life, human co‐creativity with the divine, and social justice help define the bounds of application of genetic engineering and therapy; compassionate care plays a major role in establishing stem cell policy. Active, sustained dialogue is a useful resource for enabling sharing of religious values and crystallization of policies. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to outline some recent progress in descriptive inner model theory, a branch of set theory which studies descriptive set theoretic and inner model theoretic objects using tools from both areas. There are several interlaced problems that lie on the border of these two areas of set theory, but one that has been rather central for almost two decades is the conjecture known as the Mouse Set Conjecture. One particular motivation for (...) resolving MSC is that it provides grounds for solving the inner model problem which dates back to 1960s. There have been some new partial results on MSC and the methods used to prove the new instances suggest a general program for solving the full conjecture. It is then our goal to communicate the ideas of this program to the community at large. (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)

If we replace first-order logic by second-order logic in the original definition of Gödel’s inner model L, we obtain the inner model of hereditarily ordinal definable sets [33]. In this paper...

One of the standard ways of proving the consistency of additional hypotheses with the basic axioms of an axiom system is by the construction of what may be described as ‘inner models.’ By starting with a domain of individuals assumed to satisfy the basic axioms an inner model is constructed whose domain of individuals is a certain subset of the original individual domain. If such an inner model can be constructed which satisfies not only the (...) basic axioms but also the particular additional hypothesis under consideration, then this affords a proof that if the basic axiom system is consistent then so is the system obtained by adding to this system the new hypothesis. This method has been applied to axiom systems for set theory by many authors, including v. Neumann, Mostowski, and more recently Gödel, who has shown by this method that if the basic axioms of a certain axiomatic system of set theory are consistent then so is the system obtained by adding to these axioms a strong form of the axiom of choice and the generalised continuum hypothesis. Having been shown in this striking way the power of this method it is natural to inquire whether it has any limitations or whether by the construction of a sufficiently ingenious inner model one might hope to decide other outstanding consistency questions, such as the consistency of the negations of the axiom of choice and continuum hypothesis. In this and two following papers we prove some general theorems concerning inner models for a certain axiomatic system of set theory which lead to the result that as far as a fairly large family of inner models are concerned this method of proving consistency has been exhausted, that no essentially new consistency results can be obtained by the use of this kind of model. (shrink)

In this paper we continue the study of inner models of the type studied inInner models for set theory—Part I.The present paper is concerned exclusively with a particular kind of model, the ‘super-complete models’ defined in section 2.4 of I. The condition of 2.4 and the completeness condition 1.42 imply that such a model is uniquely determined when its universal class Vmis given. Writing condition and the completeness conditions 1.41, 1.42 in terms of Vm, we may state (...) the definition in the form:3.1. Dfn.A classVmis said to determine a super-complete model if the model whose basic notions are defined by,satisfies axiomsA, B, C.N. B. This definition is not necessarily metamathematical in nature. If desired, it could be written out quite formally as the definition of a notion ‘SCM’ thus:whereψ is the propositional function expressing in terms ofUthe fact that the model determined byUaccording to 3.1 satisfies the relativization of axioms A, B, C. E.g. corresponding to axiom A1m, i.e.,,ψ contains the equivalent term. All the relativized axioms can be similarly expressed in this way by first writing out the relativized form and then replacing ‘ϕ bywhich is in turn replaced by, and similarly replacing ‘ϕ’ by ‘ϕ’ by ‘), andThusψ is obtained in primitive notation. (shrink)

We extend the theory of “Fine structure and iteration trees” to models having more than one Woodin cardinal.

In this third and last paper on inner models we consider some of the inherent limitations of the method of using inner models of the type defined in 1.2 for the proof of consistency results for the particular system of set theory under consideration. Roughly speaking this limitation may be described by saying that practically no further consistency results can be obtained by the construction of models satisfying the conditions of theorem 1.5, i.e., conditions 1.31, 1.32, 1.33, 1.51, (...) viz.:This applies in particular to the ‘complete models’ defined in 1.4. Before going on to a precise statement of these limitations we shall consider now the theorem on which they depend. This is concerned with a particular type of complete model examples of which we call “proper complete models”; they are those complete models which are essentially interior to the universe, those whose classes are sets of the universe constituting a class thereof, i.e., those for which the following proposition is true:The main theorem of this paper is that the statement that there are no models of this kind can be expressed formally in the same way as the axioms A, B, C and furthermore it can be proved that if the axiom system A, B, C is consistent then so is the system consisting of axioms A, B, C, plus this new hypothesis that there exist no proper complete models. When combined with the axiom ‘V = L’ introduced by Gödel in this new hypothesis yields a system in which any normal complete model which exists has for its universal class V, the universal class of the original system. (shrink)

We introduce and consider the inner-model reflection principle, which asserts that whenever a statement \varphi(a) in the first-order language of set theory is true in the set-theoretic universe V, then it is also true in a proper inner model W \subset A. A stronger principle, the ground-model reflection principle, asserts that any such \varphi(a) true in V is also true in some non-trivial ground model of the universe with respect to set forcing. These principles (...) each express a form of width reflection in contrast to the usual height reflection of the Lévy–Montague reflection theorem. They are each equiconsistent with ZFC and indeed \Pi_2-conservative over ZFC, being forceable by class forcing while preserving any desired rank-initial segment of the universe. Furthermore, the inner-model reflection principle is a consequence of the existence of sufficient large cardinals, and lightface formulations of the reflection principles follow from the maximality principle MP and from the inner-model hypothesis IMH. We also consider some questions concerning the expressibility of the principles. (shrink)

Assuming $V=L+AD$, using methods from inner model theory, we give a new proof of the strong partition property for ${\sim}{ \delta }^{2}_{1}$. The result was originally proved by Kechris et al.

An inner model operator is a function M such that given a Turing degree d, M is a countable set of reals, d M, and M has certain closure properties. The notion was introduced by Steel. In the context of AD, we study inner model operators M such that for a.e. d, there is a wellorder of M in L). This is related to the study of mice which are below the minimal inner model (...) with ω Woodin cardinals. As a technical tool, we show that the alternative fine structure theory developed by Mitchell and Steel for mice with Woodin cardinals is equivalent to the traditional fine structure theory developed by Jensen for L. (shrink)

In this paper, we sketch the development of two important themes of modern set theory, both of which can be regarded as growing out of work of Kurt Gödel. We begin with a review of some basic concepts and conventions of set theory.§0. The ordinal numbers were Georg Cantor's deepest contribution to mathematics. After the natural numbers 0, 1, …, n, … comes the first infinite ordinal number ω, followed by ω + 1, ω + 2, …, ω + ω, (...) … and so forth. ω is the first limit ordinal as it is neither 0 nor a successor ordinal. We follow the von Neumann convention, according to which each ordinal number α is identified with the set {ν ∣ ν α} of its predecessors. The ∈ relation on ordinals thus coincides with <. We have 0 = ∅ and α + 1 = α ∪ {α}. According to the usual set-theoretic conventions, ω is identified with the first infinite cardinal ℵ0, similarly for the first uncountable ordinal number ω1 and the first uncountable cardinal number ℵ1, etc. We thus arrive at the following picture:The von Neumann hierarchy divides the class V of all sets into a hierarchy of sets Vα indexed by the ordinal numbers. The recursive definition reads: ;Vλ = ∪v<λVv for limit ordinals λ. We can represent this hierarchy by the following picture. (shrink)

We extend the construction of Mitchell and Steel to produce iterable fine structure models which may contain Woodin limits of Woodin cardinals, and more. The precise level reached is that of a cardinal which is both a Woodin cardinal and a limit of cardinals strong past it.

We analyze the hereditarily ordinal definable sets $\operatorname {HOD} $ in $M_n[g]$ for a Turing cone of reals x, where $M_n$ is the canonical inner model with n Woodin cardinals build over x and g is generic over $M_n$ for the Lévy collapse up to its bottom inaccessible cardinal. We prove that assuming $\boldsymbol \Pi ^1_{n+2}$ -determinacy, for a Turing cone of reals x, $\operatorname {HOD} ^{M_n[g]} = M_n,$ where $\mathcal {M}_{\infty }$ is a direct limit of iterates (...) of $M_{n+1}$, $\delta _{\infty }$ is the least Woodin cardinal in $\mathcal {M}_{\infty }$, $\kappa _{\infty }$ is the least inaccessible cardinal in $\mathcal {M}_{\infty }$ above $\delta _{\infty }$, and $\Lambda $ is a partial iteration strategy for $\mathcal {M}_{\infty }$. It will also be shown that under the same hypothesis $\operatorname {HOD}^{M_n[g]} $ satisfies $\operatorname {GCH} $. (shrink)

In this paper it is shown that the global statement that the dominating number for k is less than $2^k $ for all regular k, is internally consistent, given the existence of $0^\# $ . The possible range of values for the dominating number for k and $2^k $ which may be simultaneously true in an inner model is also explored.

We re-prove Becker’s theorem from Becker :229–234, 1981) by showing that \}\) implies that \\vDash ``\omega _2\) is -supercompact”. Our proof uses inner model theoretic tools instead of Baire category. We also show that \ is \-strongly compact.

We present a characterization of supercompactness measures for ω1 in L(R), and of countable products of such measures, using inner models. We give two applications of this characterization, the first obtaining the consistency of $\delta_3^1 = \omega_2$ with $ZFC+AD^{L(R)}$ , and the second proving the uniqueness of the supercompactness measure over ${\cal P}_{\omega_1} (\lambda)$ in L(R) for $\lambda > \delta_1^2$.

The Martin-Steel coarse inner model theory is employed in obtaining new results in descriptive set theory. $\underset{\sim}{\Pi}$ determinacy implies that for every thin Σ 1 2 equivalence relation there is a Δ 1 3 real, N, over which every equivalence class is generic--and hence there is a good Δ 1 2 (N ♯ ) wellordering of the equivalence classes. Analogous results are obtained for Π 1 2 and Δ 1 2 quasilinear orderings and $\underset{\sim}{\Pi}^1_2$ determinacy is shown to (...) imply that every Π 1 2 prewellorder has rank less than $\underset{\sim}{\delta}^1_2$. (shrink)

§0. Preface. There has been an expectation that the endgame of the more tenacious problems raised by the Los Angeles ‘cabal’ school of descriptive set theory in the 1970's should ultimately be played out with the use of inner model theory. Questions phrased in the language of descriptive set theory, where both the conclusions and the assumptions are couched in terms that only mention simply definable sets of reals, and which have proved resistant to purely descriptive set theoretic (...) arguments, may at last find their solution through the connection between determinacy and large cardinals.Perhaps the most striking example was given by [24], where the core model theory was used to analyze the structure of HOD and then show that all regular cardinals below ΘL are measurable. John Steel's analysis also settled a number of structural questions regarding HODL, such as GCH.Another illustration is provided by [21]. There an application of large cardinals and inner model theory is used to generalize the Harrington-Martin theorem that determinacy implies )determinacy.However, it is harder to find examples of theorems regarding the structure of the projective sets whose only known proof from determinacy assumptions uses the link between determinacy and large cardinals. We may equivalently ask whether there are second order statements of number theory that cannot be proved under PD–the axiom of projective determinacy–without appealing to the large cardinal consequences of the PD, such as the existence of certain kinds of inner models that contain given types of large cardinals. (shrink)

There are two standard ways to establish consistency in set theory. One is to prove consistency using inner models, in the way that Gödel proved the consistency of GCH using the inner model L. The other is to prove consistency using outer models, in the way that Cohen proved the consistency of the negation of CH by enlarging L to a forcing extension L[G].But we can demand more from the outer model method, and we illustrate this (...) by examining Easton's strengthening of Cohen's result:Theorem 1. There is a forcing extensionL[G] of L in which GCH fails at every regular cardinal.Assume that the universe V of all sets is rich in the sense that it contains inner models with large cardinals. Then what is the relationship between Easton's model L[G] and V? In particular, are these models compatible, in the sense that they are inner models of a common third model? If not, then the failure of GCH at every regular cardinal is consistent only in a weak sense, as it can only hold in universes which are incompatible with the universe of all sets. Ideally, we would like L[G] to not only be compatible with V, but to be an inner model of V.We say that a statement is internally consistent iff it holds in some inner model, under the assumption that there are innermodels with large cardinals. (shrink)

The interaction between large cardinals, determinacy of two-person perfect information games, and inner model theory has been a singularly powerful driving force in modern set theory during the last three decades. For the outsider the intellectual excitement is often tempered by the somewhat daunting technicalities, and the seeming length of study needed to understand the flow of ideas. The purpose of this article is to try and give a short, albeit rather rough, guide to the broad lines of (...) development. (shrink)

Given an inner model and a regular cardinal κ, we consider two alternatives for adding a subset to κ by forcing: the Cohen poset Add(κ, 1), and the Cohen poset of the inner model. The forcing from W will be at least as strong as the forcing from V (in the sense that forcing with the former adds a generic for the latter) if and only if the two posets have the same cardinality. On the other (...) hand, a sufficient condition is established for the poset from V to fail to be as strong as that from W. The results are generalized to, and to iterations of Cohen forcing where the poset at each stage comes from an arbitrary intermediate inner model. (shrink)

We consider the possible complexity of the set of reals belonging to an inner model M of set theory. We show that if this set is analytic then either 1M is countable or else all reals are in M. We also show that if an inner model contains a superperfect set of reals as a subset then it contains all reals. On the other hand, it is possible to have an inner model M whose (...) reals are an uncountable Fσ set and which does not have all reals. A similar construction shows that there can be an inner model M which computes correctly 1, contains a perfect set of reals as a subset and yet not all reals are in M. These results were motivated by questions of H. Friedman and K. Prikry. (shrink)

§0. Preface. There has been an expectation that the endgame of the more tenacious problems raised by the Los Angeles ‘cabal’ school of descriptive set theory in the 1970's should ultimately be played out with the use of inner model theory. Questions phrased in the language of descriptive set theory, where both the conclusions and the assumptions are couched in terms that only mention simply definable sets of reals, and which have proved resistant to purely descriptive set theoretic (...) arguments, may at last find their solution through the connection between determinacy and large cardinals.Perhaps the most striking example was given by [24], where the core model theory was used to analyze the structure of HOD and then show that all regular cardinals below ΘL are measurable. John Steel's analysis also settled a number of structural questions regarding HODL, such as GCH.Another illustration is provided by [21]. There an application of large cardinals and inner model theory is used to generalize the Harrington-Martin theorem that determinacy implies )determinacy.However, it is harder to find examples of theorems regarding the structure of the projective sets whose only known proof from determinacy assumptions uses the link between determinacy and large cardinals. We may equivalently ask whether there are second order statements of number theory that cannot be proved under PD–the axiom of projective determinacy–without appealing to the large cardinal consequences of the PD, such as the existence of certain kinds of inner models that contain given types of large cardinals. (shrink)

Assume $(\exists\kappa) \lbrack\kappa \rightarrow (\kappa)^{ . Then a new inner model H exists and has the following properties: (1) H ≠ HOD; (2) Th(H) = Th(HOD); (3) there is j: H → H; (4) there is a c.u.b. class of indiscernibles for H.

There is a partial order ${\mathbb{P}}$ preserving stationary subsets of ω 1 and forcing that every partial order in the ground model V that collapses a sufficiently large ordinal to ω 1 over V also collapses ω 1 over ${V^{\mathbb{P}}}$ . The proof of this uses a coding of reals into ordinals by proper forcing discovered by Justin Moore and a symmetric extension of the universe in which the Axiom of Choice fails. Also, using one feature of the proof (...) of the above result together with an argument involving the stationary tower it is shown that sometimes, after adding one Cohen real c, there are, for every real a in V[c], sets A and B such that c is Cohen generic over both L[A] and L[B] but a is constructible from A together with B. (shrink)

We consider the following question of Kunen: Does Con(ZFC + ∃M a transitive inner model and a non-trivial elementary embedding j: M $\longrightarrow$ V) imply Con (ZFC + ∃ a measurable cardinal)? We use core model theory to investigate consequences of the existence of such a j: M → V. We prove, amongst other things, the existence of such an embedding implies that the core model K is a model of "there exists a proper class (...) of almost Ramsey cardinals". Conversely, if On is Ramsey, then such a j, M are definable. We construe this as a negative answer to the question above. We consider further the consequences of strengthening the closure assumption on j to having various classes of fixed points. (shrink)

Let κ be a cardinal, and let H κ be the class of sets of hereditary cardinality less than κ ; let τ (κ) > κ be the height of the smallest transitive admissible set containing every element of {κ}∪H κ . We show that a ZFC-definable notion of long unfoldability, a generalisation of weak compactness, implies in the core model K, that the mouse order restricted to H κ is as long as τ. (It is known that some (...) weak large cardinal property is necessary for the latter to hold.) In other terms we delimit its strength as follows: Theorem Con(ZFC+ω2-Π 1 1-Determinacy) ⇒ ⇒Con(ZFC+V=K+∃ a long unfoldable cardinal ⇒ ⇒Con(ZFC+∀X(X # exists) + ‘‘ $\forall D \subseteq \omega_1 D$ is universally Baire ⇔ ∃r∈R(D∈L(r)))’’, and this is set-generically absolute). We isolate a notion of ω-closed cardinal which is weaker than an ω1-Erd\ os cardinal, and show that this bounds the first long unfoldable: Theorem Let κ be ω -closed. Then there is a long unfoldable ł<κ. (shrink)

We introduce a natural principleStrong Chang Reflectionstrengthening the classical Chang Conjectures. This principle is between a huge and a two huge cardinal in consistency strength. In this note we prove that it implies the existence of an inner model with a huge cardinal. The technique we explore for building inner models with huge cardinals adapts to show thatdecisiveideals imply the existence of inner models with supercompact cardinals. Proofs for all of these claims can be found in (...) [10].1,2. (shrink)

We discuss some of the relationships between the notion of "mutual stationarity" of Foreman and Magidor and measurability in inner models. The general thrust of these is that very general mutual stationarity properties on small cardinals, such as the ℵns, is a large cardinal property. A number of open problems, theorems, and conjectures are stated.

We show that the predicate “x is the power set of y” is ‐definable, if V = L[E] is an extender model constructed from a coherent sequences of extenders, provided that there is no inner model with a Woodin cardinal. Here is a predicate true of just the infinite cardinals. From this we conclude: the validities of second order logic are reducible to, the set of validities of the Härtig quantifier logic. Further we show that if no (...) L[E] model has a cardinal strong up to one of its ℵ‐fixed points, and, the Löwenheim number of this logic, is less than the least weakly inaccessible δ, then (i) is a limit of measurable cardinals of K, and (ii) the Weak Covering Lemma holds at δ. (shrink)