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)

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 Horizon Quantum Mechanics is an approach that allows one to analyse the gravitational radius of spherically symmetric systems and compute the probability that a given quantum state is a black hole. We first review the formalism and show how it reproduces a gravitationally inspired GUP relation. This results leads to unacceptably large fluctuations in the horizon size of astrophysical black holes if one insists in describing them as central singularities. On the other hand, if they are extended systems, (...) like in the corpuscular models, no such issue arises and one can in fact extend the formalism to include asymptotic mass and angular momentum with the harmonic model of rotating corpuscular black holes. The Horizon Quantum Mechanics then shows that, in simple configurations, the appearance of the inner horizon is suppressed and extremal geometries seem disfavoured. (shrink)

We show that from a supercompact cardinal $\kappa$, there is a forcing extension $V[G]$ that has a symmetric inner model $N$ in which $\mathrm {ZF}+\lnot\mathrm {AC}$ holds, $\kappa$ and $\kappa^{+}$ are both singular, and the continuum function at $\kappa$ can be precisely controlled, in the sense that the final model contains a sequence of distinct subsets of $\kappa$ of length equal to any predetermined ordinal. We also show that the above situation can be collapsed to obtain (...) a model of $\mathrm {ZF}+\lnot\mathrm {AC}_{\omega}$ in which either $\aleph_{1}$ and $\aleph_{2}$ are both singular and the continuum function at $\aleph_{1}$ can be precisely controlled, or $\aleph_{\omega}$ and $\aleph_{\omega+1}$ are both singular and the continuum function at $\aleph_{\omega}$ can be precisely controlled. Additionally, we discuss a result in which we separate the lengths of sequences of distinct subsets of consecutive singular cardinals $\kappa$ and $\kappa^{+}$ in a model of $\mathrm {ZF}$. Some open questions concerning the continuum function in models of $\mathrm {ZF}$ with consecutive singular cardinals are posed. (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 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)

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)

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)

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)

This paper is a sequel to the joint publication of Scott and Krauss in which the first aspects of a mathematical theory are developed which might be called "First Order Probability Logic". No attempt will be made to present this additional material in a self-contained form. We will use the same notation and terminology as introduced and explained in Scott and Krauss, and we will frequently refer to the theorems stated and proved in the preceding paper. The main objective of (...) this study is to show that the probability of symmetric probability systems may be represented as a "weighted average" of what might be called "product probabilities". We then discuss some applications of our results to Carnap's "Principle of instantial relevance", which plays an important role in his system of inductive logic. (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)

§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)

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 determine exact consistency strengths for various failures of the Singular Cardinals Hypothesis (SCH) in the setting of the Zermelo-Fraenkel axiom system ZF without the Axiom of Choice (AC). By the new notion of parallel Prikry forcing that we introduce, we obtain surjective failures of SCH using only one measurable cardinal, including a surjective failure of Shelah's pcf theorem about the size of the power set of $\aleph _{\omega}$ . Using symmetric collapses to $\aleph _{\omega}$ , $\aleph _{\omega _{1}}$ (...) , or $\aleph _{\omega _{2}}$ , we show that injective failures at $\aleph _{\omega}$ , $\aleph _{\omega _{1}}$ , or $\aleph _{\omega _{2}}$ can have relatively mild consistency strengths in terms of Mitchell orders of measurable cardinals. Injective failures of both the aforementioned theorem of Shelah and Silver's theorem that GCH cannot first fail at a singular strong limit cardinal of uncountable cofinality are also obtained. Lower bounds are shown by core model techniques and methods due to Gitik and Mitchell. (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.

We examine combinatorial aspects and consistency strength properties of almost Ramsey cardinals. Without the Axiom of Choice, successor cardinals may be almost Ramsey. From fairly mild supercompactness assumptions, we construct a model of ZF + ${\neg {\rm AC}_\omega}$ in which every infinite cardinal is almost Ramsey. Core model arguments show that strong assumptions are necessary. Without successors of singular cardinals, we can weaken this to an equiconsistency of the following theories: “ZFC + There is a proper class of (...) regular almost Ramsey cardinals”, and “ZF + DC + All infinite cardinals except possibly successors of singular cardinals are almost Ramsey”. (shrink)

It has been recently argued that by Leifer and Pusey, and Price, that time-symmetric quantum mechanics must entail retrocausality. Adlam responds that such theories might also entail ‘spooky action at a distance’. This paper proposes a third alternative: time-symmetric quantum mechanics might entail temporal global correlations. Unlike the traditional analysis of time symmetries in quantum mechanics, which consider linear and unitary interpretations, this paper considers the time-symmetric collapse models advanced by Bedingham and Maroney. These models are specially (...) interesting since it has been widely believed that collapse theories cannot be time-reversal invariant. (shrink)

A question of Woodin asks if κ is strongly compact and GCH holds below κ, then must GCH hold everywhere? One variant of this question asks if κ is strongly compact and GCH fails at every regular cardinal δ < κ, then must GCH fail at some regular cardinal δ ≥ κ? Another variant asks if it is possible for GCH to fail at every limit cardinal less than or equal to a strongly compact cardinal κ. We get a negative (...) answer to the first of these questions and positive answers to the second of these questions for a supercompact cardinal κ in the context of the absence of the full Axiom of Choice. (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)