SETS OF GOOD INDISCERNIBLES AND CHANG CONJECTURES WITHOUT CHOICE


 Jasper Carpenter
 2 years ago
 Views:
Transcription
1 SETS OF GOOD INDISCERNIBLES AND CHANG CONJECTURES WITHOUT CHOICE IOANNA M. DIMITRIOU Abstract. With the help of sets of good indiscernibles above a certain height, we show that Chang conjectures involving four, finitely many, or an ωsequence of cardinals have a much lower consistency strength with ZF than they do with ZFC. We will prove equiconsistency results for any finitely long Chang conjecture that starts with the successor of a regular cardinal. In particular, any Chang conjecture of the form (κ n,..., κ 0 ) (λ n,..., λ 0 ), where κ n is the successor of a regular cardinal, in a model of ZF, is equiconsistent to the existence of (n 1)many Erdős cardinals in a model of ZFC. For ωlong Chang conjectures we will see that ZF+ κ n = λ n + κ n > λ n for at least one n ω + (..., κ n,..., κ 0 ) (..., λ n,..., λ 0 ), is equiconsistent to the theory ZFC+ a measurable cardinal exists. We will use symmetric forcing to create models of ZF from models of ZFC and the DoddJensen core model for the other way around. All theorems in this paper are theorems of ZFC, unless otherwise stated. Since Rowbottom s PhD thesis in 1964, where he connects large cardinal properties with model theoretic transfer properties, there has been extensive research on the connection between these two fields of mathematical logic. The property that lies in the centre of these investigations is that of good indiscernibility. Definition 0.1. For a structure A = A,..., where A is a set of ordinals, a set I A is called a set of indiscernibles if for every n ω, every nary formula φ in the language for A, and every α 1,..., α n, α 1,..., α n in I, if α 1 < < α n and α 1 < < α n then A = φ(α 1,..., α n ) iff A = φ(α 1,..., α n). The set I is called a set of good indiscernibles iff it is as above and moreover we allow parameters that lie below min{α 1,..., α n, α 1,..., α n}, i.e., if moreover for every x 1,..., x m A such that x 1,..., x m min{α 1,..., α n, α 1,..., α n}, and every (n + m)ary formula φ, A = φ(x 1,..., x m, α 1,..., α n ) iff A = φ(x 1,..., x m, α 1,..., α n). The existence of sets of good indiscernibles for first order structures ensures Chang conjectures. Definition 0.2. For infinite cardinals κ 0 < κ 1 < < κ n and λ 0 < λ 1 < < λ n, a Chang conjecture is the statement (κ n,..., κ 0 ) (λ n,..., λ 0 ), This paper is a revised part of the third chapter in my PhD thesis [Dim11]. My PhD project with Peter Koepke was partially supported by DFGNWO collaboration grant KO /1, DN between the University of Amsterdam and the University of Bonn. I am grateful to Peter Koepke for the long discussions and his guidance, especially on the core model arguments. 1
2 2 IOANNA M. DIMITRIOU which we define to mean that for every first order structure A = κ n,... with a countable language there is an elementary substructure B A of cardinality λ n such that for every i n, B κ i = λ i. Since the structures we will consider will always be wellorderable, we will implicitly assume that the have complete sets of Skolem functions. Thus we will always be able to take Skolem hulls, even when the axiom of choice (AC) is not available. According to Vaught [Vau63], the model theoretic relation (ω 2, ω 1 ) (ω 1, ω) was first considered by Chang, and it is referred to as the original Chang conjecture. Under AC there has been extensive research in the connection between Chang conjectures and Erdős cardinals. Definition 0.3. For ordinals α, β, γ, the partition relation β (α) <ω γ means that for any partition f : [β] <ω γ of the set of finite subsets of β into γ many sets, there exists an X [β] α, i.e., a subset of β with ordertype α, that is homogeneous for f [β] n for each n ω, i.e., for every n ω, f [X] n = 1. For an infinite ordinal α, the αerdős cardinal κ(α) is the least κ such that κ (α) <ω When there is an infinite ordinal α such that κ = κ(α) we may call κ an Erdős cardinal. As we see in [LMS90, 1.8(1)], Silver proved in unpublished work that if the ω 1  Erdős cardinal exists then we can force the original Chang conjecture to be true. Kunen in [Kun78] showed that for every n ω, n 1, the consistency of the Chang conjecture (ω n+2, ω n+1 ) (ω n+1, ω n ) follows from the consistency of the existence of a huge 1 cardinal. Donder, Jensen, and Koppelberg in [DJK79] showed that if the original Chang conjecture is true, then the ω 1 Erdős cardinal exists in an inner model. According to [LMS90], the same proof shows that for any infinite cardinals κ, λ, the Chang conjecture (κ +, κ) (λ +, λ) implies that there is an inner model in which the µerdős cardinal exists, where µ = (λ + ) V. According to the same source, for many other regular cardinals κ, a Chang conjecture of the form (κ +, κ) (ω 1, ω) is equiconsistent with the existence of the ω 1 Erdős cardinal [LMS90, 1.10]. Chang conjectures involving higher successors on the right hand side have consistency strength stronger than an Erdős cardinal. Donder and Koepke showed in [DK83] that for κ ω 1, (κ ++, κ + ) (κ +, κ), then 0 exists, which implies that there is an inner model with a measurable cardinal. A year later Levinski published [Lev84] in which the existence of 0 is derived from each of the following Chang conjectures: for any infinite κ and any λ ω 1, the Chang conjecture (κ +, κ) (λ +, λ) for any natural number m > 1 and any infinite κ, λ the Chang conjecture (κ +m, κ) (λ +m, λ), and 1 The definition of a huge cardinal can be found in [Kan03, page 331].
3 SETS OF GOOD INDISCERNIBLES AND CHANG CONJECTURES WITHOUT CHOICE 3 for any singular cardinal κ, the Chang conjecture (κ +, κ) (ω 1, ω). In 1988, Koepke improved on some of these results by deriving the existence of inner models with sequences of measurable cardinals [Koe88] from Chang conjectures of the form (κ ++, κ + ) (κ +, κ) for κ ω 1. Since then, much stronger large cardinal lower bounds have been found for Chang conjectures of this form under AC. Schindler showed in [Sch97] that an inner model with a strong cardinal 2 exists, if one assumes the Chang conjecture (ω n+2, ω n+1 ) (ω n+1, ω n ) plus 2 ωn 1 = ω n, for any 1 < n < ω, and Cox in [Cox11] got an inner model with a weak repeat measure 3 from the Chang conjecture (ω 3, ω 2 ) (ω 2, ω 1 ). Finally, under the axiom of choice we may also get inconsistency from certain Chang conjectures. As we see in [LMS90, 1.6], finite gaps cannot be increased, e.g., is inconsistent. (ω 5, ω 4 ) (ω 3, ω 1 ) If we remove AC from our assumptions this picture changes drastically. In this paper we will get successors of regular cardinals with Erdőslike properties using symmetric forcing, thereby all sorts of Chang conjectures will become accessible. The connection between Erdős cardinals and Chang conjectures lies in the existence of sets of good indiscernibles. Koepke, strengthening a result of Silver ([Kan03, Theorem 9.3]), proved in [AK08, Proposition 8] that for limit ordinals α, κ (α) <ω 2 is equivalent to the existence of a set X [κ] α of good indiscernibles for any first order structure M = M,... with a countable language and M κ. This result has been used in connection with core model arguments, and there the ordertype of the set of good indiscernibles is important. For our proofs here it is helpful to also specify at which height does the set of good indiscernibles lie. Definition 0.4. For a cardinal κ an ordinal α κ and an ordinal θ < κ we define the partition property κ θ (α) <ω 2 to mean that for every first order structure A = κ,... with a countable language, there is a set I [κ\θ] α of good indiscernibles for A. We call such a κ an Erdőslike cardinal with respect to θ, α, or just an Erdőslike cardinal, if there are such θ, α. We used this notation and called these cardinals Erdőslike, due to the strong connection between Erdős and Erdőslike cardinals. Lemma 0.5 (ZF). Let κ, θ be infinite cardinals such that κ > θ and let α κ be a limit ordinal. The following are equivalent: (a) κ θ (α) <ω 2 (b) For any partition f : [κ] <ω 2 there is a homogeneous set I [κ \ θ] α. Consequently, κ θ (α) <ω 2 implies that the Erdős cardinal κ(α) exists. Moreover, the existence of κ(α) implies that for every θ < κ(α), κ(α) θ (α) <ω Proof. Assume (a) and let f : [κ] <ω 2 be arbitrary. Consider the structure A = κ, f [κ] n n ω, where each f [κ] n is considered as a relation. Clearly, any set I [κ \ θ] α of good indiscernibles for A is also a homogeneous set for f, so (b) holds. Now assume that (b) holds and let A = κ,... be an arbitrary first order structure with a countable language. Using the same proof as [AK08, Proposition 8] we get a set of good indiscernibles X [κ \ θ] α for A. Therefore (a) holds. 2 For a definition of a strong cardinal see e.g. [Kan03, Page 358]. 3 A definition of a weak repeat measure can be found in [Cox11, Definition 11] and in [Git95].
4 4 IOANNA M. DIMITRIOU Now assume that the αerdős cardinal κ(α) =: µ exists. Let θ < µ be arbitrary and let g : [θ ] <ω 2 be a partition without any homogeneous sets. Let A = κ,... be an arbitrary first order structure with a countable language and consider the structure Ā := A θ, g [θ ] n n ω, where θ and each g [θ ] n are considered as relations. By [AK08, Proposition 8] there is a set I [µ] α of good indiscernibles for Ā. There must be at least one x I \θ otherwise I would be a homogeneous set for g. By indiscernibility, every element of I is above θ. Therefore µ θ (α) <ω qed The existence of an Erdőslike cardinal implies all sorts of four cardinal Chang conjectures. Lemma 0.6 (ZF). If κ θ, λ are cardinals such that κ θ and κ θ (λ) <ω 2 then for all infinite ρ λ θ, the Chang conjecture (κ, θ) (λ, ρ) holds. Proof. Let A = κ,... be an arbitrary first order structure with a countable language. Since κ is Erdőslike with respect to θ, λ, there is a set I [κ \ θ] λ of good indiscernibles for A. Let ρ λ θ be arbitrary and let Hull(I ρ) be the ASkolem hull of I ρ. By [Hod97, 1.2.3] we have that Hull(I ρ) I ρ + L = λ. But λ = I ρ Hull(I ρ), thus Hull(I ρ) has cardinality λ. Because all the indiscernibles lie above θ and because they are good indiscernibles, they are indiscernibles with respect to parameters below θ. So ρ Hull(I ρ) θ ω ρ = ρ. So the elementary substructure Hull(I ρ) A is as we wanted and (κ, θ) (λ, ρ) holds. qed At this point we should note that Chang conjectures do not imply that some cardinal is Erdős (or Erdőslike), and therefore justify our consistency strength investigation. For this we ll need that Chang conjectures are preserved under c.c.c. forcing. This is a well known fact but we could not find a reference for it, so we attach a proof here. We assume basic knowledge of forcing as presented, e.g., in [Kun80] or [Jec03, Chapter 14]. Proposition 0.7. Let V be a model of ZFC in which for the cardinals κ, θ, λ, ρ, the Chang conjecture (κ, λ) (λ, ρ) holds. Assume also that P is a c.c.c.forcing. If G is a P generic filter, then (κ, λ) (λ, ρ) holds in V [G] as well. Proof. Let A = κ, f i, R j, c k i,j,k ω V [G] be arbitrary. Since the language of A is countable, let { xφ n (x) ; n ω} enumerate the existential formulas of A s language in a way such that for every n ω, the arity ar(φ n ) = k n of φ n is less than n. For every n ω let g n be the Skolem function that corresponds to φ n, and let ġ n be a nice name for g n as a subset of κ kn. Since ġ n is a nice name, it is of the form ġ n := {{ˇx} A x ; x κ kn }. Where each A x is an antichain of P and since P has the c.c.c., each A x is countable. For each x κ kn, let A x := {p x,0, p x,1, p x,2,... }. In V define for each n ω a function g n : κ kn 1 ω κ as follows: { β if p{α1,...,α g n (α 1,..., α kn 1, l) := kn 1,β},l ġ n (ˇα 1,..., ˇα kn 1) = ˇβ 0 otherwise. In V consider the structure C := κ, g n n ω. Using the Chang conjecture in V take a Chang substructure B, g n n ω C. But then in V [G] we have that B := B, f i, R j, c k i,j,k ω A is the elementary substructure we were looking for. qed
5 SETS OF GOOD INDISCERNIBLES AND CHANG CONJECTURES WITHOUT CHOICE 5 Lemma 0.8. Let κ, θ, λ, ρ be infinite cardinals in a model V of ZFC, such that κ λ, κ > θ, and λ θ ρ, and assume that (κ, θ) (λ, ρ). Then there is a generic extension where (κ, θ) (λ, ρ) holds and κ is not the λerdős. Proof. If κ is not the λerdős in V then we are done. So assume that κ = κ(λ) in V. Let µ κ and consider the partial order P := {p : µ ω 2 ; p < ω}, where denotes a partial function. This partial order adds µ many Cohen reals and has the c.c.c. so all cardinals are preserved by this forcing. By Proposition 0.7, the Chang conjecture is preserved as well. Now let G be a P generic filter. We have that (2 ω ) V [G] µ > κ. We will show that in V [G], κ (ω 1 ) 2 2 so κ is not ξerdős for any ξ ω 1. Let R denote the set of reals and let g : κ R be injective. Define F : [κ] 2 2 by { 1 if g(α) <R g(β) F ({α, β}) := 0 otherwise If there was an ω 1 sized homogeneous set for F then R would have an ω 1 long strictly monotonous < R chain which is a contradiction. qed This connection between an Erdőslike cardinal and four cardinal Chang conjectures extends also to longer Chang conjectures. Lemma 0.9 (ZF). Assume that λ 0 < λ 1 < < λ n and κ 0 < κ 1 < < κ n are cardinals such that κ i κi 1 (λ i ) <ω Then the Chang conjecture (κ n,..., κ 0 ) (λ n,..., λ 0 ) holds. Proof. Let A = κ n,... be an arbitrary first order structure in a countable language, and let {f j ; j ω} be a complete set of Skolem functions for A. Since κ n κn 1 (λ n ) <ω 2 holds, let I n [κ n \ κ n 1 ] λn be a set of good indiscernibles for A. To take the next set of indiscernibles I n 1 we must make sure that it is, in a sense, compatible with I n. That is, the Skolem hull of I n I n 1 must not contain more than λ n 2 many elements below κ n To do this we will enrich the structure A with functions, e.g., f j (e 1, e 2, x 1, x 2 ), for some f j with arity ar(f j ) = 4 and some e 1, e 2 I n. Since f j takes ordered tuples as arguments we must consider separately the cases f j (e 1, x 1, e 2, x 2 ), f j (e 1, x 1, x 2, e 2 ), etc.. Formally, let Īn := {e 1, e 2,... } be the first ωmany elements of I n. For every s < ω let {g s,t ; t < s!} be an enumeration of all the permutations of s, and for every t s! let h s,t (x 1,..., x s ) := (x gs,t(1),..., x gs,t (s)). For every j < ω, every k < ar(f j ), and every l ar(f j )! define a function f j;k;l : ar(f j) κ n κ n by f j;k;l (x 1,..., x ar(fj) k) := f j (h ar(fj),l(x 1,..., x ar(fj) k, e 1,..., e k )). Consider the structure A n 1 := A f i;c;t j<ω,k<ar(fj),l<ar(f j)!. Since κ n 1 κn 2 (λ n 1 ) <ω 2, let I n 1 [κ n 1 \ κ n 2 ] λn 1 be a set of good indiscernibles for A n 1. Claim 1. For any infinite set Z κ n 2 of size λ n 2, Hull A (I n I n 1 Z) κ n 2 = λ n
6 6 IOANNA M. DIMITRIOU Proof of Claim. Let Īn 1 := {e 1, e 2,... } be the first ωmany elements of I n 1. The domain of the ASkolem Hull Hull A (I n I n 1 Z) is the set X := {f j (α 1,..., α ar(fj)) ; j < ω and α 1,..., α ar(fj) I n I n 1 Z}. If for some x = f j (α 1,..., α ar(fj)) X κ n 2 there are elements of I n among α 1,..., α ar(fj) then since I n is a set of indiscernibles for A and α 1,..., α ar(fj) are finitely many, we can find α 1,..., α ar(f j) Īn I n 1 Z such that x = f j (α 1,..., α ar(fj)) = f j (α 1,..., α ar(f j) ). We rewrite the tuple (α 1,..., α ar(f j) ) so that the elements of Īn (if any) appear in ascending order at the end: {α 1,..., α n} = {β 1,..., β ar(fj) k, e 1,..., e k }. Let (β 1,..., β ar(fj) k, e 1,..., e k ) be a permutation of (α 1,..., α ar(f j) ), so for some l < ar(f j )!, But then Therefore, (α 1,..., α ar(f j) ) = h ar(f j),l(β 1,..., β ar(fj) k, e 1,..., e k ). x = f j (α 1,..., α ar(f j) ) = f j (h ar(fj),l(β 1,..., β ar(fj) k, e 1,..., e k ) = f j,k,l (β 1,..., β ar(fj) k). X κ n 2 = {f j,k,l (β 1,..., β ar(fj) k) <κ n 2 ; j < ω, k < ar(f j ), l ar(f j )!, and β 1,..., β ar(fj) k I n 1 Z}. But I n 1 is a set of good indiscernibles for A n 1, i.e., it is a set of indiscernibles for formulas with parameters below min I n 1 > κ n 2, therefore a set of indiscernibles for formulas with parameters from Z as well. Thus in the equation above we may replace I n 1 with Īn 1. It s easy to see then that the set X κ n 2 has size λ n qed claim Continuing like this we get for each i = 1,..., n a set I i [κ i \ κ i 1 ] λi of good indiscernibles for A with the property that for every infinite Z κ i 1, of size λ i 1, Hull A (I n I i Z) κ i 1 = λ i 1. So let I := i=1,...,n I i and take B := Hull A (I λ 0 ). By [Hod97, 1.2.3], we have that λ n = I λ 0 Hull A (I λ 0 ) I ρ + ω = λ n. Because for each i = 1,..., n we have that I i [κ i \ κ i 1 ] λi defined the I i, we have that and by the way we Hull(I λ 0 ) κ i = λ i. So the substructure Hull(I λ 0 ) A is such as we wanted for our Chang conjecture to hold. qed
7 SETS OF GOOD INDISCERNIBLES AND CHANG CONJECTURES WITHOUT CHOICE Countable coherent sequences of sets of good indiscernibles. In the proof of Lemma 0.9 we had to construct our sets of good indiscernibles in a way that they are compatible. When we have countably many such sets and the axiom of choice is not available, we need that these sets of good indiscernibles are, in a way, coherent. Definition Let κ i ; i < ω and λ i ; 0 < i < ω be strictly increasing sequences of cardinals, let κ := i<ω κ i, and let A = κ,... be a first order structure with a countable language. A λ i ; 0 < i < ω coherent sequence of good indiscernibles for A with respect to κ i ; i < ω is a sequence A i ; 0 < i < ω such that (1) for every 0 < i < ω, A i [κ i \ κ i 1 ] λi, and (2) if x, y [κ] <ω are such that x = {x 1,..., x n }, y = {y 1,..., y n }, x, y 0<i<ω A i, and for every 0 < i < ω x A i = y A i then for every (n + l)ary formula φ in the language of A and every z 1,..., z l < min{x 1,..., x n, y 1,..., y n }, A = φ(z 1,..., z l, x 1,..., x n ) A = φ(z 1,..., z l, y 1,..., y n ). We say that the sequence κ i ; i < ω is a coherent sequence of the Erdőslike cardinals κ i+1 κi (λ i+1 ) <ω 2 iff for every structure A = κ,... with a countable language, there is a λ i ; 0 < i < ω coherent sequence of good indiscernibles for A with respect to κ i ; i < ω. Similarly to coherent sequences of Erdőslike cardinals, we have coherent sequences of Erdős cardinals. Definition Let λ 1 < < λ i <... and κ 0 < < κ i <... be cardinals and let κ := i<ω κ i. We say that the sequence κ i ; i < ω is a coherent sequence of Erdős cardinals with respect to λ i ; 0 < i < ω if for every γ < κ 1 and every f : [κ] <ω γ there is a sequence A i ; 0 < i < ω such that (1) for every 0 < i < ω, A i [κ i \ κ i 1 ] λi, and (2) if x, y [κ] <ω are such that x, y i<ω A i and for every 0 < i < ω x A i = y A i then f(x) = f(y). Such a sequence A i ; 0 < i < ω is called a λ i ; 0 < i < ω coherent sequence of homogeneous sets for f with respect to κ i ; i < ω. Note that the 0th element of a coherent sequence of Erdős cardinals need not be an Erdős cardinal, and indeed, none of the κ n need satisfy the minimality requirement of the usual Erdős cardinals. Coherent sequences of Ramsey cardinals are such sequences. In [AK06, Theorem 3] a coherent sequence of Ramsey cardinals in ZF is forced from a model of ZFC with one measurable cardinal. Similarly to Lemma 0.5 we get that coherent sequences of Erdős and Erdőslike cardinals are equivalent. Lemma 0.12 (ZF). Let λ 1 < < λ i <... and κ 0 < < κ i <... be infinite cardinals. The following are equivalent: (a) The sequence κ i ; i < ω is a coherent sequence of the Erdőslike cardinals κ i+1 κi (λ i+1 ) <ω (b) The sequence κ i ; i < ω is a coherent sequence of Erdős cardinals with respect to λ i ; 0 < i < ω. To show that when i ω κ i = i ω λ i, then such a coherent sequence of Erdős or Erdőslike cardinals in a model of ZF is equiconsistent with a measurable cardinal in a model of ZFC, we will use results that involve the infinitary Chang conjecture.
8 8 IOANNA M. DIMITRIOU Definition For cardinals κ 0 < < κ n <... and λ 0 < < λ n <..., with κ n λ n for all n, define the infinitary Chang conjecture (κ n ) n ω (λ n ) n ω to mean that for every first order structure A = n ω κ n, f i, R j, c k i,j,k ω there is an elementary substructure B A with domain B such that for all n ω, B κ n = λ n. Sometimes, when this uniform notation is not convenient, we will write the infinitary Chang conjecture as (..., κ n,..., κ 0 ) (..., λ n,..., λ 0 ). The infinitary Chang conjecture is connected to Jónsson cardinals. Definition A cardinal κ is called Jónsson if for every first order structure with domain κ and a countable language, there is a proper elementary substructure of cardinality κ. In [For10, 12 (4)] we read: Assuming that 2 ℵ0 < ℵ ω, Silver showed that the cardinal ℵ ω is Jónsson iff there is an infinite subsequence κ n ; n ω of the ℵ n s such that the infinitary Chang conjecture of the form (..., κ n, κ n 1,..., κ 1 ) (..., κ n 1, κ n 2,..., κ 0 ) holds. It is not known how to get such a sequence of length 4. Clearly, if κ = n ω κ n = n ω λ n and for some n ω κ n λ n, then (κ n ) n ω (λ n ) n ω implies that κ is a singular Jónsson cardinal of cofinality ω. We can get an infinitary Chang conjecture from a coherent sequence of Erdőslike cardinals as in Lemma 0.9, but without having to take care of the compatibility of the sets of indiscernibles, since here they are coherent. Lemma (ZF) Let κ n ; n < ω and λ n ; 0 < n < ω be increasing sequences of cardinals, and let κ = n<ω κ n. If κ i ; i < ω is a coherent sequence of cardinals with the property κ n+1 κn (λ n+1 ) <ω 2 then the Chang conjecture holds. (κ n ) n ω (λ n ) n ω 1. Forcing good sets of indiscernibles to lie between regular cardinals and their sucessors. Here we assume knowledge of symmetric forcing as presented in [Dim11, Sections 2 and 3 of Chapter 2]. This technique is used to produce models of ZF+ AC, called symmetric models, starting from a model of ZFC. In particular, we will use the generalised Jech model V (G) and its property of satisfying the approximation lemma, i.e., that all sets of ordinals in V (G) are included in some initial ZFC model. One may think of this symmetric model as being the closed under set theoretic operations union of generic extensions (the aforementioned initial ZFC models) that are made with the Lévy collapses E α := {p : η α ; p < η} for α < κ and η a fixed regular cardinal. This union does not contain a generic object for the entire Lévy collapse P := {p : η κ ; p < η}, so that κ becomes the sucessor of η in the symmetric model V (G).
9 SETS OF GOOD INDISCERNIBLES AND CHANG CONJECTURES WITHOUT CHOICE Finitely many sets of good indiscernibles. First, let us take a look at the case of just one set of good indiscernibles being forced to lie between a regular cardinal θ and its successor θ +. One approach would be to take a cardinal κ with the property κ θ (α) <ω 2 and, using the generalised Jech model, symmetrically collapse κ to become θ +. But to use the theorems for this model and preserve the property κ θ (α) <ω 2, κ would have to satisfy certain large cardinal properties, e.g., inaccessibility. Erdőslike cardinals such as κ are far from inaccessible. In fact, for every κ κ, κ θ (α) <ω 2 holds. So we construct a model of ZF + AC by starting with an Erdős cardinal. This is not too bad since, by Lemma 0.5, Erdős cardinals and Erdőslike cardinals are mutually existent. First we will show that an Erdős cardinal is Erdőslike after small forcing. Lemma 1.1. If V is a model of ZFC+ κ = κ(α) exists for some limit ordinal α, if P is a partial order such that P < κ, and G is a generic filter, then in V [G], for any θ < κ the property κ θ (α) <ω 2 holds. Proof. Let A = κ,... V [G] be an arbitrary structure in a countable language and θ < κ be arbitrary. Let g : [θ] <ω 2 be a function in the ground model that has no homogeneous sets (in the ground model) of ordertype λ, and consider the structure Ā = A θ, g [θ] n n ω, where θ, and each g [θ] n is considered as a relation. Let {φ n ; n < ω} enumerate the formulas of the language of Ā so that each φ n has k(n) < n many free variables. Define f : [κ] <ω 2 by f(ξ 1,..., ξ n ) = 1 iff A = φ n (ξ 1,..., ξ k(n) ) and f(ξ 1,..., ξ n ) = 0 otherwise. We call this f the function that describes truth in A. Let f be a Pname for f. Since κ is inaccessible in V, P(P) < κ in V. In V define the function h : [κ] <ω P(P) by h(x) := {p P ; p f(ˇx) = 0}. By [Kan03, Proposition 7.15] let A [κ] λ be homogeneous for h. Note that since we have attached g to A, A κ \ θ. We will show that A is homogeneous for f in V [G], and therefore a set of good indiscernibles for A. Let n ω and x [A] n be arbitrary. If h(x) = then for all p P, p f(ˇx) = ˇ0. So for some p G E γ, p f(ˇx) = ˇ1 and so the colour of [A] n is 1. If h(x) and h(x) G then the colour of [A] n is 0. If h(x) and h(x) G = then assume for a contradiction that for some y [A] n, f(x) f(y). Without loss of generality say f(y) = 0. But then there is p G such that p f(ˇy) = ˇ0 so h(y) G = h(x) G, contradiction. So in V [G], κ θ (λ) <ω 2 holds. qed We can use this to get the following. Lemma 1.2. If V is a model of ZFC+ κ = κ(λ) exists, then for any regular cardinal η < κ, there is a symmetric model V (G) of ZF in which for every θ < κ, η + θ (λ) <ω 2 holds. Proof. Let η < κ be a regular cardinal, and construct the generalised Jech model V (G) (see [Dim11, Section 3 of Chapter 1] and the beginning of this section) that makes κ = η +. The approximation lemma holds in this model. Let θ < κ be arbitrary. Let A = κ,... be an arbitrary first order structure with a countable
10 10 IOANNA M. DIMITRIOU language and let A HS be a name for A with support E γ for some η < γ < κ. By the approximation lemma A V [G E γ ]. Note that E γ < κ therefore by Lemma 1.1, for every θ < κ the property κ θ (λ) <ω 2 holds in V (G). Therefore the structure A has a set of indiscernibles A [κ \ θ] λ and A V [G E γ ] V (G). qed By Corollary 0.6 we get the following. Corollary 1.3. If V is a model of ZFC with a cardinal κ that is the λerdős cardinal then for any η < κ regular cardinal there is a symmetric model V (G) in which for every θ < κ with θ η, and ρ λ θ (η +, θ) (λ, ρ) holds. Note that as with many of our forcing constructions here, this η could be any predefined regular ordinal of V. So we get an infinity of consistency strength results, some of them looking very strange for someone accustomed to the theory ZFC, such as the following. Corollary 1.4. If V = ZFC+ κ(ω 12 ) exists then there is a symmetric model V (G) = ZF + (ω 13, ω 12 ) (ω 12, ω 5 ). Or even stranger: Corollary 1.5. If V = ZFC+ κ(ω ω ) exists then there is a symmetric model V (G) = ZF + (ω ω+3, ω ω ) (ω ω, ω 2 ). To get Chang conjectures that involve more than four cardinals we will have to collapse the Erdős cardinals simultaneously. We will give an example in which the Chang conjecture (ω 4, ω 2, ω 1 ) (ω 3, ω 1, ω) is forced from a model of ZFC with two Erdős cardinals. Before we do that let us see a very useful proposition. Proposition 1.6. Assume that V = ZFC+ κ = κ(λ) exists, P is a partial order such that P < κ, and Q is a partial order that doesn t add subsets to κ. If G is P Qgeneric then for every θ < κ, V [G] = κ θ (λ) <ω Proof. Let A = κ,... V [G] be an arbitrary structure with a countable language. By [Kun80, Chapter VII, Lemma 1.3], G = G 1 G 2 for some G 1 Pgeneric and some G 2 Qgeneric. Since Q does not add subsets to κ, we have that A V [G 1 ]. By Lemma 1.1 we get that κ θ (λ) <ω 2 in V [G 1 ] V [G] and from that we get a set H [κ \ θ] λ of indiscernibles for A with respect to parameters below θ, and H V [G],. Therefore V [G] = κ θ (λ) <ω qed To get the desired Chang conjecture we will construct a symmetric model that can also be used to create a model of ZF with sucessive alternating measurable and nonmeasurable cardinals (see [Dim11, Section 4 of Chapter 1] for ρ = 2). Lemma 1.7. (ZFC) Assume that κ 1 = κ(ω 1 ), and κ 2 = κ(κ + 1 ) exist. Then there is a symmetric extension of V in which ZF + ω 4 ω2 (ω 3 ) <ω 2 + ω 2 ω1 (ω 1 ) <ω Consequently, (ω 4, ω 2, ω 1 ) (ω 3, ω 1, ω) holds in V as well.
11 SETS OF GOOD INDISCERNIBLES AND CHANG CONJECTURES WITHOUT CHOICE 11 Proof. Let κ 1 = (κ + 1 )V and define P := {p : ω 1 κ 1 ; p < ω 1 } {p : κ 1 κ 2 ; p < κ 1}. Let G 1 be the full permutation group of κ 1 and G 2 the full permutation group of κ We define an automorphism group G of P by letting a G iff for some a 1 G 1 and a 2 G 2, a((p 1, p 2 )) := ({(ξ 1, a 1 (β 1 )) ; (ξ 1, β 1 ) p 1 }, {(ξ 2, a 2 (β 2 )) ; (ξ 2, β 2 ) p 2 }). Let I be the symmetry generator that is induced by the ordinals in the product of intervals (ω 1, κ 1 ) (κ 1, κ 2 ), i.e., where I := {E α,β ; α (ω 1, κ 1 ) and β (κ 1, κ 2 )}, E α,β := {(p 1 (ω 1 α), p 2 (κ 1 β)) ; (p 1, p 2 ) P}. This I is a projectable symmetry generator with projections (p 1, p 2 ) E α,β = (p 1 (ω 1 α), p 2 (κ 1 β)). Take the symmetric model V (G) = V (G) F I. It s easy to see that the approximation lemma holds for this model. This construction can be illustrated as below. In V In V (G) κ(κ + 1 ) = κ 2 ω 4 ω2 (ω 3 ) <ω 2 κ + ω 1 3 κ(ω 1 ) = κ 1 ω 2 ω1 (ω 1 ) <ω 2 ω 1 ω With the standard arguments we can show that in V (G) we have that κ 1 = ω 2 and κ 2 = ω 4. We want to show that moreover κ 2 κ1 (κ 1) <ω 2 and κ 1 ω1 (ω 1 ) <ω For the first partition property let A = κ 2,... be an arbitrary structure in a countable language and let A HS be a name for A with support E α,β. By the approximation lemma we have that A V [G E α,β ]. Since E α,β < κ 2, by Lemma 1.1 we have that V [G E α,β ] = κ 2 κ1 (κ 1) <ω 2 therefore there is a set A [κ 2 \ κ 1 ] κ 1 of indiscernibles for A with respect to parameters below κ1, and A V [G E α,β ] V (G). For the second partition property let B = κ 1,... be and arbitrary structure in a countable language and let B HS be a name for B with support E γ,δ. We have that E γ,δ = {p : ω 1 γ ; p < ω 1 } {p : κ 1 δ ; p < κ 1}, {p : ω 1 γ ; p < ω 1 } < κ 1, and {p : κ 1 δ ; p < κ 1} does not add subsets to κ 1. Therefore by Proposition 1.6 we get that V [G E γ,δ ] = κ 1 ω1 (ω 1 ) <ω 2 so there is a set B [κ 1 \ ω 1 ] ω1 of indiscernibles for B with respect to parameters below ω 1, and B V [G E γ,δ ] V (G). So in V (G) we have that ω 4 ω2 (ω 3 ) <ω 2 and ω 2 ω1 (ω 1 ) <ω 2 thus by Lemma 0.9 we have that in V (G) the Chang conjecture (ω 4, ω 2, ω 1 ) (ω 3, ω 1, ω) holds. qed
12 12 IOANNA M. DIMITRIOU Note that, the gap in these cardinals is necessary for this method to work. Collapsing further would destroy their partition properties. Keeping this in mind it is easy to see how to modify this proof to get any desired Chang conjecture (κ n,..., κ 0 ) (λ n,..., λ 0 ) with the κ i and the λ i being any predefined successor cardinals, as long as we mind the gaps Coherent sequences of sets of good indiscernibles. We can do the above for the infinitary version as well, using a finite support product forcing of such collapses, for a coherent sequence of Erdős cardinals κ n ; n ω with respect to κ + n ; n < ω, and with κ 0 = ω 1. In that case we will end up with a model of ZF + AC ω + (ω 2n+1 ) n<ω (ω 2n ) n<ω. Lemma 1.8. Let κ n ; n < ω and λ n ; 0 < n < ω be increasing sequences of cardinals such that κ n ; n < ω is a coherent sequence of Erdős cardinals with respect to λ n ; n < ω. If P is a partial order of cardinality < κ 1 and G is P generic then in V [G], κ n ; n < ω is a coherent sequence of cardinals with the property κ n+1 κn (λ n+1 ) <ω Proof. Let κ = n ω and let A = κ,... V [G] be an arbitrary structure in a countable language. Let {φ n ; n < ω} enumerate the formulas of the language of A so that each φ n has k(n) < n many free variables. Define f : [κ] <ω 2 by f(ξ 1,..., ξ n ) = 1 iff A = φ n (ξ 1,..., ξ k(n) ) and f(ξ 1,..., ξ n ) = 0 otherwise. Let f be a Pname for f. In V define a function g : [κ] <ω P(P) by g(x) = {p P ; p f(ˇx) = ˇ0}. Since P < κ 1 and κ 1 is inaccessible in V, P(P) < κ 1. So there is a λ n ; 0 < n < ω coherent sequence of homogeneous sets for g with respect to κ n ; n ω. The standard arguments show that this is a λ n ; 0 < n < ω coherent sequence of homogeneous sets for f with respect to κ n ; n ω, therefore a λ n ; 0 < n < ω  coherent sequence of indiscernibles for A with respect to κ n ; n ω. qed The model used for this following proof is again the model of [Dim11, Section 4 of Chapter 1], this time for ρ = ω. Lemma 1.9. (ZFC) Let κ n ; n ω be a coherent sequence of Erdős cardinals with respect to λ n ; 0 < n ω, where κ 0 = ω 1. Then there is a symmetric model V (G) in which ω 2n ; n ω is a coherent sequence of cardinals with the property ω 2n+2 ω2n (ω 2n+1 ) <ω Consequently, in V (G) (..., ω 2n,..., ω 4, ω 2, ω 1 ) (..., ω 2n 1,..., ω 3, ω 1, ω) holds as well, and ℵ ω is a Jónsson cardinal. Proof. Let κ = 0<n<ω κ n, for every 0 < n < ω let κ n = κ + n, and let κ 0 = ω 1. For every 0 < n < ω let P n := {p : κ n 1 κ n ; p < κ n 1}, and take the finite support product of these forcings P := fin 0<n<ω P n.
13 SETS OF GOOD INDISCERNIBLES AND CHANG CONJECTURES WITHOUT CHOICE 13 For each 0 < n < ω let G n be the full permutation group of κ n and define an automorphism group G of P by a G iff for every n ω there exists a n G n such that a( p n ; n ω ) := {(ξ, a n (β)) ; (ξ, β) p n } ; n ω. For every finite sequence of ordinals e = α 1,..., α m such that for every i = 1,..., m there is a distinct 0 < n i < ω such that α i (κ n i 1, κ ni ), define E e := { p ni (κ n i 1, α i ) ; α i e ; p ni ; i = 1,..., m P}, and take the symmetry generator I := {E e ; e fin 0<n<ω (κ n 1, κ n )}. This is a projectable symmetry generator with projections p j ; 0 < j < ω E e = p ni (κ n i 1, α i ) ; α i e. Take the symmetric model V (G) = V (G) F I. The approximation lemma holds for V (G). As usual we can show that in V (G), for each 0 < n < ω we have that κ n = κ + n 1, i.e., for every 0 < n < ω, κ n = ω 2n and κ n = ω 2n+1. It remains to show that κ i ; i ω is a coherent sequence of cardinals with the property κ n+1 κn (λ n+1 ) <ω Let A = κ,... be an arbitrary structure in a countable language and let the function f : [κ] <ω 2 describe the truth in A, as in the proofs of Lemma 1.1 and Lemma 1.8. Let f HS be a name for f with support E e. Let e = {α 1,..., α m } and for each i = 1,..., m let n i be such that α (κ n i 1, κ ni ). By the approximation lemma, f V [G E e ], i.e., f is forced via P = m i=1 {p : κ n i 1 κ ni ; p < κ n i 1}. α 1 α 2 α 3 κ l Let l := max{n i ; α i e}. We re in a situation as in the image above, which is an example for m = 3. Since P < κ l, by Lemma 1.8 there is a λ n ; l n < ω  coherent sequence of indiscernibles for A with respect to κ n ; l 1 n ω, i.e., a sequence A n ; l n < ω such that for every l n < ω, A n κ n \ κ n 1 is of ordertype λ n, and if x, y [κ] <ω are such that x = {x 1,..., x m }, y = {y 1,..., y m }, x, y l n<ω A n, and for every l n < ω, x A n = y A n, then for every m + kary formula φ in the language of A, and every z 1,..., z k less than min l n<ω A n, A = φ(z 1,..., z k, x 1,..., x m ) A = φ(z 1,..., z k, y 1,..., y m ) Now we will get sets of indiscernibles from the remaining cardinals κ 1,..., κ l 1 step by step, making them coherent as we go along. Before we get the rest of the A n, note that by Proposition 1.6 we have that for every 0 < n < l, V [G E e ] = κ n κn 1 (λ n ) <ω
14 14 IOANNA M. DIMITRIOU Let s see how to get A l 1. For every l n < ω, let Ān be the first ωmany elements of A n. There are only countably many x [κ] <ω such that x l n<ω Ān. For every i, j ω, and every x [κ] <ω such that x = {x 1,..., x m } l n<ω Ān and m < i, j, let Consider the structure f i,x (v 1,..., v i m ) :=f i (v 1,..., v i m, x 1,..., x m ), and R j,x (v 1,..., v j m ) :=R j (v 1,..., v j m, x 1,..., x m ). A := A f i,x, R j,x i,j<ω,x [κ] <ω,x={x 1,...,x m} l n<ω Ān,m<i,j. Since κ l 1 κ l 2 (λ l 1 ) <ω 2, there is a set A l 1 [κ l 1 \ κ l 2 ] λ l 1 of indiscernibles for A with respect to parameters below κ l By the way we defined A, the sequence A n ; l 1 n < ω is a λ n ; l 1 n < ω coherent sequence of indiscernibles for A with respect to κ n ; l 2 n < ω. Continuing in this manner we get a sequence A n ; 0 < n < ω that is a λ n ; 0 < n < ω coherent sequence of indiscernibles for A with respect to κ n ; n < ω, and such that A n ; 0 < n < ω V [G E e ] V (G). Therefore we have that in V (G), ω 2n ; n ω is a coherent sequence of cardinals with the property ω 2n+2 ω2n (ω 2n+1 ) <ω By Corollary 0.15 we have that in V (G) (..., ω 2n,..., ω 4, ω 2, ω 1 ) (..., ω 2n 1,..., ω 3, ω 1, ω) holds. Consequently, ℵ ω is a Jónsson cardinal. Note that in this model the axiom of choice fails badly. In particular, by [Dim11, Lemma 1.37] AC ω2 (P(ω 1 )) is false. As mentioned after the proof of that lemma, one can get the infinitary Chang conjecture plus the axiom of dependent choice with the construction in the proof of [AK06, Theorem 5]. With that we get the following. Lemma Let V 0 = ZFC+ there exists a measurable cardinal κ. Let n < ω be fixed but arbitrary. There is a generic extension V of V 0, a forcing notion P, and a symmetric model N such that N = ZF + DC + (ω n ) 0<n<ω (ω n ) n<ω + ℵ ω is Jónsson 2. Getting good sets of indiscernibles from Chang conjectures for successors of regular cardinals in ZF In this section we will work with the DoddJensen core model K DJ to get strength from the principles we are looking at. We will start from a model of ZF with a Chang conjecture, and we will get an Erdős cardinal in K DJ. To be able to use the known theorems about K DJ, which involve AC, we will build K DJ inside HOD. We will then use the Chang conjecture to get a certain elementary substructure K HOD. With a clever manoeuvre, found in [AK06, Proposition 8], which says (K DJ ) HOD = (K DJ ) HOD[K ] we can get this structure into (K DJ ) HOD and use the core model s structured nature to get a set of good indiscernibles. We assume basic knowledge of this core model, as presented in [DJK79], [DJ81], and [DK83], or in the short collection of the relevant results from these papers found in [Dim11, Section 2 of Chapter 3]. We will start by looking at four cardinal Chang conjectures. Theorem 2.1. Assume ZF and let η be a regular cardinal. If for some infinite cardinals θ, λ, and ρ such that η + > θ, λ > ρ and cfλ > ω the Chang conjecture (η +, θ) (λ, ρ) holds, then κ(λ) exists in the DoddJensen core model (K DJ ) HOD, and (K DJ ) HOD = (η + ) V (λ) <ω qed
15 SETS OF GOOD INDISCERNIBLES AND CHANG CONJECTURES WITHOUT CHOICE 15 Proof. Let κ = (η + ) V and in K DJ let g : [κ] <ω 2 be arbitrary and consider the structure Kκ DJ,, D Kκ DJ, g, where D is a class 4 such that K DJ = L[D]. This is included in our structure in order to use the results in [DJ81] and [DJK79]. We want to find a set of indiscernibles for this structure in K DJ. Using our Chang conjecture in V we get an elementary substructure K = K,, D K, g K DJ κ,... such that K = λ and K θ = ρ. Since K is wellorderable it can be seen as a set of ordinals. We attach K to HOD, getting HOD[K ]. By [AK06, Proposition 8], (K DJ ) HOD = (K DJ ) HOD[K ]. V HOD K DJ HOD[K ] κ = (η + ) V λ K DJ κ K We are now, and for the rest of this proof, working in HOD[K ]. Let K,, A be the Mostowski collapse of K, with π : K K elementary embedding. We distinguish two cases. being an Case 1. If K = K DJ λ for some λ. Then the map π : K DJ λ KDJ κ is elementary. κ π(λ) K λ π(α) K DJ κ K DJ π K DJ K = K DJ λ α = critπ 4 For details see [DJ81, Definition 6.3].
16 16 IOANNA M. DIMITRIOU Since λ ω 1, by [DK83, Lemma 2.9], there is a non trivial elementary embedding of K DJ to K DJ with critical point α. By [DK83, 1.5] this means that there is an inner model with a measurable cardinal β, such that if α < ω 1 then β ω 1 and if α ω 1 then β < α +. Because α = critπ and K = λ, α < λ +. Let s take a closer look at this inner model. Let U be a normal measure for β in the inner model M, define Ū := U L[U] and build L[Ū]. It is known that then L[Ū] = Ū is a normal ultrafilter over β (see [Kan03, Exercise 20.1]). We also have that L[Ū] = ZFC which by [Kan03, Lemma 20.5] means that L[Ū],, Ū is iterable. Recall that such a structure L[Ū],, Ū is called a βmodel and that for a regular cardinal ν, C ν is the club filter over ν. According to [Kan03, Corollary 20.7], if there is a βmodel, if ν is a regular cardinal above β +, and if C ν = C ν L[C ν ], then L[ C ν ] is a νmodel. Now, we have that if α < ω then β ω 1, so β λ. If α ω 1 then β < α + λ +, so again β λ. If β = λ then L[Ū] = λ is Ramsey. By [DK83, 1.6], P(λ) L[Ū] = P(λ) KDJ. So λ is Ramsey in K and we re done. So assume that β < λ. Then β + < κ. We need a regular cardinal ν > β + such that λ ν κ. If κ is regular, let ν = κ. If κ is singular then κ is a limit cardinal so there is such a regular cardinal ν (e.g., ν = λ ++ ). Then by [DK83, 1.6] we have that L[ C ν ] = ν is Ramsey. Because [DK83, 1.6] says that P(ν) L[ C ν ] = P(ν) K DJ, this ν is Ramsey in K DJ. But this implies that in K DJ, κ (λ) <ω Case 2. If K K DJ λ for any λ. By [DK83, Lemma 2.1] Kκ DJ = V = K DJ. Since K is elementary with Kκ DJ, K = V = K DJ. This is because being the lower part of a premouse is a property describable by a formula. Let x K. Since K = V = K DJ, there must be some M such that K = M is an iterable premouse and x lp(m). So Kκ DJ = M is an iterable premouse and by [DK83, Lemma 1.16], π(m) is an iterable premouse in HOD[K ]. Since π M π(m) is elementary and π(m) is an iterable premouse, by [DK83, Lemma 1.17], M is an iterable premouse in HOD[K ]. Thus x K DJ, so K K DJ. But then, since Kλ DJ K for any λ, and K has cardinality λ, there must be an iterable premouse M K and a z Kλ DJ \ K such that lp(m) (K λ \ K), z lp(m), and M Kλ DJ. Fix M. Claim 1. If δ > λ is a regular cardinal then for every iterable premouse N K, N δ M δ. Proof of Claim. Since M K λ and K = λ by [DK83, Lemma 1.13] we have that for every regular cardinal δ > λ and every iterable premouse N K, N δ and M δ are comparable. Assume for a contradiction that for some N K, M δ N δ. Then z lp(n δ ) and since z Kλ DJ, for some ξ < λ, z lp(n ξ). But since N ξ K, z N ξ K which is transitive so z K, contradiction. qed claim We want such a δ κ. As before, if κ is regular then take δ = κ, and if κ is singular then take δ = λ +. Look at M δ. By Claim 1 we have that K M δ. So g M δ. Let M i, π ij, γ i, U i i j<δ be the δiteration of M. By [DK83, Lemma 1.14] there is some x M and ρ <ω {γ i ; i < δ} such that g = π 0,δ (x)( ρ). Let C = {γ i ; i < λ}. By the same lemma there is a sequence k n ; n < ω ω 2 such that for every n < ω, g [C] n = {k n }.
17 SETS OF GOOD INDISCERNIBLES AND CHANG CONJECTURES WITHOUT CHOICE 17 κ π C K DJ κ K K DJ π K C K DJ M δ K DJ λ M By elementarity, π C is a homogeneous set for g in HOD[K ] and π C is a good set of indiscernibles for Kκ DJ,, D Kκ DJ, g of ordertype cfλ ω 1. By Jensen s indiscernibility lemma [DJK79, Lemma 1.3] there is a homogeneous set for g of ordertype λ in K DJ. qed Therefore we have the following. Theorem 2.2. The theory ZF + (κ, θ) (λ, ρ)+ cfλ > ω is equiconsistent with the theory ZFC+ κ(λ) exists. In the proof of Lemma 0.9 we see how to combine finitely many sets of indiscernibles to make them coherent. Using this we get the following. Lemma 2.3. Assume ZF and let κ n > > κ 0, λ n > > λ 0 be regular cardinals, such that the Chang conjecture (κ n,..., κ 0 ) (λ n,..., λ 0 ) holds, then for each i = 1,..., n, κ(λ i ) exists in the DoddJensen core model (K DJ ) HOD and (K DJ ) HOD = i = 1,..., n(κ i (λ i ) <ω 2 ). Theorem 2.4. For every finite n, the theory ZF+ (κ n,..., κ 0 ) (λ n,..., λ 0 ) is equiconsistent with the theory ZFC+ κ(λ +(n 1) n ) exists., where λ 0 is the last cardinal appearing on the Chang conjecture The infinitary case. For the infinitary version, recall that if n ω κ n = n ω λ n and κ n > λ n for at least one n ω then (κ n ) n<ω (λ n ) n<ω implies that κ := n ω κ n is a singular Jónsson cardinal. In [AK06, Theorem 6] it is proved that if κ is a singular Jónsson cardinal in a model of ZF then κ is measurable in some inner model. As a corollary to that we get the following. Corollary 2.5. If κ n ; n ω and λ n ; n ω are increasing sequences of cardinals such that n ω κ n = n ω λ n and κ n > λ n for at least one n ω, then the infinitary Chang conjecture (κ n ) n<ω (λ n ) n<ω implies that there is an inner model in which κ = n ω κ n is measurable. Since we can force such a coherent sequence of Erdős cardinals by starting with a measurable cardinal (see [AK06, Theorem 3]) we have the following. Theorem 2.6. The theory ZF+ an infinitary Chang conjecture holds with the supremum of the left hand side cardinals being the same as the supremum of the right hand side cardinals is equiconsistent with the theory ZFC+ a measurable cardinal exists.
18 18 IOANNA M. DIMITRIOU We conjecture that if the supremum of the κ n is strictly bigger than the supremum of the λ n then the consistency strength of such an infinitary Chang conjecture in ZF is weaker. To prove lower bounds for the consistency strength of the existence of a set of good indiscernibles between a singular cardinal and its successor, more complex core models, for stronger large cardinal axioms, must be employed. Some results on this direction can be found in the authors PhD thesis [Dim11, Section 4 of Chapter 3], and a paper on the subject is under preparation. References [AK06] Arthur W. Apter and Peter Koepke. The consistency strength of ℵ ω and ℵ ω1 being Rowbottom cardinals without the axiom of choice. Archive for Mathematical Logic, 45: , [AK08] Arthur Apter and Peter Koepke. Making all cardinals almost Ramsey. Archive for Mathematical Logic, 47: , [Cox11] Sean D. Cox. Consistency strength of higher Chang s conjecture, without CH. Archive for Mathematical Logic, 50: , [Dim11] Ioanna M. Dimitriou. Symmetric Models, Singular Cardinal Patterns, and Indiscernibles. Phd thesis, Rheinische FriedrichWilhelmsUniversität Bonn, Advisor: Peter Koepke. [DJ81] Anthony Dodd and Ronald B. Jensen. The core model. Annals of Mathematical Logic, 20:43 75, [DJK79] Hans D. Donder, Ronald B. Jensen, and Bernd Koppelberg. Some applications of the core model. In Ronald B. Jensen, editor, Set theory and model theory, volume 872 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, pages Springer, [DK83] Hans D. Donder and Peter Koepke. On the consistency strength of accessible Jónsson cardinals and of the weak Chang conjecture. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 25: , [For10] Matthew Foreman. Chapter 13: Ideals and generic elementary embeddings. In Matthew Foreman and Akihiro Kanamori, editors, Handbook of set theory, pages Springer, [Git95] Moti Gitik. Some results on the nonstationary ideal. Israel Journal of Mathematics, 92:61 112, [Hod97] Wilfrid Hodges. A shorter model theory. Cambridge university press, [Jec03] Thomas J. Jech. Set theory. The third millenium edition, revised and expanded. Springer, [Kan03] Akihiro Kanamori. The higher infinite. Springer, 2nd edition, [Koe88] Peter Koepke. Some applications of short core models. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 37(2): , [Kun78] Kenneth Kunen. Saturated ideals. Journal of symbolic logic, 43:65 76, [Kun80] Kenneth Kunen. Set theory: an introduction to independence proofs. Elsevier, [Lev84] Jean Pierre Levinski. Instances of the conjecture of Chang. Israel journal of mathematics, 48(2 3): , [LMS90] Jean Pierre Levinski, Menachem Magidor, and Saharon Shelah. Chang s conjecture for ℵ ω. Israel journal of mathematics, 69(2): , [Sch97] RalfDieter Schindler. On a Chang conjecture. Israel Journal of Mathematics, 99: , [Vau63] Robert L. Vaught. Models of complete theories. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 69: , 1963.
x < y iff x < y, or x and y are incomparable and x χ(x,y) < y χ(x,y).
12. Large cardinals The study, or use, of large cardinals is one of the most active areas of research in set theory currently. There are many provably different kinds of large cardinals whose descriptions
More informationContinuous treelike scales
Carnegie Mellon University Research Showcase @ CMU Department of Mathematical Sciences Mellon College of Science 42010 Continuous treelike scales James Cummings Carnegie Mellon University, jcumming@andrew.cmu.edu
More informationChang s Conjecture and weak square
Chang s Conjecture and weak square Hiroshi Sakai Graduate School of System Informatics, Kobe University hsakai@people.kobeu.ac.jp Abstract We investigate how weak square principles are denied by Chang
More informationCOFINAL MAXIMAL CHAINS IN THE TURING DEGREES
COFINA MAXIMA CHAINS IN THE TURING DEGREES WEI WANG, IUZHEN WU, AND IANG YU Abstract. Assuming ZF C, we prove that CH holds if and only if there exists a cofinal maximal chain of order type ω 1 in the
More informationThe Power Set Function
The Power Set Function Moti Gitik School of Mathematical Sciences Tel Aviv University Tel Aviv, Israel email: gitik@post.tau.ac.il Abstract We survey old and recent results on the problem of finding a
More informationTREES IN SET THEORY SPENCER UNGER
TREES IN SET THEORY SPENCER UNGER 1. Introduction Although I was unaware of it while writing the first two talks, my talks in the graduate student seminar have formed a coherent series. This talk can be
More informationExercise 1. Let E be a given set. Prove that the following statements are equivalent.
Real Variables, Fall 2014 Problem set 1 Solution suggestions Exercise 1. Let E be a given set. Prove that the following statements are equivalent. (i) E is measurable. (ii) Given ε > 0, there exists an
More informationGlobal Properties of the Turing Degrees and the Turing Jump
Global Properties of the Turing Degrees and the Turing Jump Theodore A. Slaman Department of Mathematics University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 947203840, USA slaman@math.berkeley.edu Abstract
More informationSMALL SKEW FIELDS CÉDRIC MILLIET
SMALL SKEW FIELDS CÉDRIC MILLIET Abstract A division ring of positive characteristic with countably many pure types is a field Wedderburn showed in 1905 that finite fields are commutative As for infinite
More informationTuring Degrees and Definability of the Jump. Theodore A. Slaman. University of California, Berkeley. CJuly, 2005
Turing Degrees and Definability of the Jump Theodore A. Slaman University of California, Berkeley CJuly, 2005 Outline Lecture 1 Forcing in arithmetic Coding and decoding theorems Automorphisms of countable
More informationMODELS OF SET THEORY
MODELS OF SET THEORY STEFAN GESCHKE Contents 1. First order logic and the axioms of set theory 2 1.1. Syntax 2 1.2. Semantics 2 1.3. Completeness, compactness and consistency 3 1.4. Foundations of mathematics
More informationResearch Statement. 1. Introduction. 2. Background Cardinal Characteristics. Dan Hathaway Department of Mathematics University of Michigan
Research Statement Dan Hathaway Department of Mathematics University of Michigan 1. Introduction My research is in set theory. The central theme of my work is to combine ideas from descriptive set theory
More informationEMBEDDING COUNTABLE PARTIAL ORDERINGS IN THE DEGREES
EMBEDDING COUNTABLE PARTIAL ORDERINGS IN THE ENUMERATION DEGREES AND THE ωenumeration DEGREES MARIYA I. SOSKOVA AND IVAN N. SOSKOV 1. Introduction One of the most basic measures of the complexity of a
More informationSETTHEORETIC CONSTRUCTIONS OF TWOPOINT SETS
SETTHEORETIC CONSTRUCTIONS OF TWOPOINT SETS BEN CHAD AND ROBIN KNIGHT AND ROLF SUABEDISSEN Abstract. A twopoint set is a subset of the plane which meets every line in exactly two points. By working
More informationProblem Set. Problem Set #2. Math 5322, Fall December 3, 2001 ANSWERS
Problem Set Problem Set #2 Math 5322, Fall 2001 December 3, 2001 ANSWERS i Problem 1. [Problem 18, page 32] Let A P(X) be an algebra, A σ the collection of countable unions of sets in A, and A σδ the collection
More informationA NEW CONDENSATION PRINCIPLE
A NEW CONDENSATION PRINCIPLE THORALF RÄSCH AND RALF SCHINDLER Abstract. We generalize (A), which was introduced in [Sch ], to larger cardinals. For a regular cardinal κ > ℵ 0 we denote by κ (A) the statement
More informationNONMEASURABLE ALGEBRAIC SUMS OF SETS OF REALS
NONMEASURABLE ALGEBRAIC SUMS OF SETS OF REALS MARCIN KYSIAK Abstract. We present a theorem which generalizes some known theorems on the existence of nonmeasurable (in various senses) sets of the form X+Y.
More information1 The closed unbounded filter... 3. 1.1 Closed unbounded sets... 3. 1.4 Stationary sets in generic extensions... 9
Contents I Stationary Sets 3 by Thomas Jech 1 The closed unbounded filter..................... 3 1.1 Closed unbounded sets................... 3 1.2 Splitting stationary sets................... 5 1.3 Generic
More informationContinuous firstorder model theory for metric structures Lecture 2 (of 3)
Continuous firstorder model theory for metric structures Lecture 2 (of 3) C. Ward Henson University of Illinois Visiting Scholar at UC Berkeley October 21, 2013 Hausdorff Institute for Mathematics, Bonn
More informationDegrees that are not degrees of categoricity
Degrees that are not degrees of categoricity Bernard A. Anderson Department of Mathematics and Physical Sciences Gordon State College banderson@gordonstate.edu www.gordonstate.edu/faculty/banderson Barbara
More informationThis chapter is all about cardinality of sets. At first this looks like a
CHAPTER Cardinality of Sets This chapter is all about cardinality of sets At first this looks like a very simple concept To find the cardinality of a set, just count its elements If A = { a, b, c, d },
More informationSection 3 Sequences and Limits
Section 3 Sequences and Limits Definition A sequence of real numbers is an infinite ordered list a, a 2, a 3, a 4,... where, for each n N, a n is a real number. We call a n the nth term of the sequence.
More informationFinite Sets. Theorem 5.1. Two nonempty finite sets have the same cardinality if and only if they are equivalent.
MATH 337 Cardinality Dr. Neal, WKU We now shall prove that the rational numbers are a countable set while R is uncountable. This result shows that there are two different magnitudes of infinity. But we
More informationThere is no degree invariant halfjump
There is no degree invariant halfjump Rod Downey Mathematics Department Victoria University of Wellington P O Box 600 Wellington New Zealand Richard A. Shore Mathematics Department Cornell University
More informationChap2: The Real Number System (See Royden pp40)
Chap2: The Real Number System (See Royden pp40) 1 Open and Closed Sets of Real Numbers The simplest sets of real numbers are the intervals. We define the open interval (a, b) to be the set (a, b) = {x
More informationAn example of a computable
An example of a computable absolutely normal number Verónica Becher Santiago Figueira Abstract The first example of an absolutely normal number was given by Sierpinski in 96, twenty years before the concept
More informationChapter 1. Informal introdution to the axioms of ZF.
Chapter 1. Informal introdution to the axioms of ZF. 1.1. Extension. Our conception of sets comes from set of objects that we know well such as N, Q and R, and subsets we can form from these determined
More informationTransfer of the Ramsey Property between Classes
1 / 20 Transfer of the Ramsey Property between Classes Lynn Scow Vassar College BLAST 2015 @ UNT 2 / 20 Classes We consider classes of finite structures such as K < = {(V,
More informationAN INTRODUCTION TO SET THEORY. Professor William A. R. Weiss
AN INTRODUCTION TO SET THEORY Professor William A. R. Weiss October 2, 2008 2 Contents 0 Introduction 7 1 LOST 11 2 FOUND 19 3 The Axioms of Set Theory 23 4 The Natural Numbers 31 5 The Ordinal Numbers
More information1 if 1 x 0 1 if 0 x 1
Chapter 3 Continuity In this chapter we begin by defining the fundamental notion of continuity for real valued functions of a single real variable. When trying to decide whether a given function is or
More informationTutorial: Generic Elementary Embeddings. Lecture 1
Tutorial: Generic Elementary Embeddings Lecture 1 Matt Foreman University of California, Irvine 1 These lectures serve as a very brief introduction to the article Ideals and generic elementary embeddings,
More informationAn uncountably categorical theory whose only computably presentable model is saturated
An uncountably categorical theory whose only computably presentable model is saturated Denis R. Hirschfeldt Department of Mathematics University of Chicago, USA Bakhadyr Khoussainov Department of Computer
More informationWHAT ARE MATHEMATICAL PROOFS AND WHY THEY ARE IMPORTANT?
WHAT ARE MATHEMATICAL PROOFS AND WHY THEY ARE IMPORTANT? introduction Many students seem to have trouble with the notion of a mathematical proof. People that come to a course like Math 216, who certainly
More informationCHAPTER 7 GENERAL PROOF SYSTEMS
CHAPTER 7 GENERAL PROOF SYSTEMS 1 Introduction Proof systems are built to prove statements. They can be thought as an inference machine with special statements, called provable statements, or sometimes
More informationDEGREES OF CATEGORICITY AND THE HYPERARITHMETIC HIERARCHY
DEGREES OF CATEGORICITY AND THE HYPERARITHMETIC HIERARCHY BARBARA F. CSIMA, JOHANNA N. Y. FRANKLIN, AND RICHARD A. SHORE Abstract. We study arithmetic and hyperarithmetic degrees of categoricity. We extend
More informationMAT2400 Analysis I. A brief introduction to proofs, sets, and functions
MAT2400 Analysis I A brief introduction to proofs, sets, and functions In Analysis I there is a lot of manipulations with sets and functions. It is probably also the first course where you have to take
More informationEmbeddability and Decidability in the Turing Degrees
ASL Summer Meeting Logic Colloquium 06. Embeddability and Decidability in the Turing Degrees Antonio Montalbán. University of Chicago Nijmegen, Netherlands, 27 July 2 Aug. of 2006 1 Jump upper semilattice
More informationIntroducing Functions
Functions 1 Introducing Functions A function f from a set A to a set B, written f : A B, is a relation f A B such that every element of A is related to one element of B; in logical notation 1. (a, b 1
More informationDescriptive Set Theory
Martin Goldstern Institute of Discrete Mathematics and Geometry Vienna University of Technology Ljubljana, August 2011 Polish spaces Polish space = complete metric separable. Examples N = ω = {0, 1, 2,...}.
More informationDomain Theory: An Introduction
Domain Theory: An Introduction Robert Cartwright Rebecca Parsons Rice University This monograph is an unauthorized revision of Lectures On A Mathematical Theory of Computation by Dana Scott [3]. Scott
More informationINTRODUCTORY SET THEORY
M.Sc. program in mathematics INTRODUCTORY SET THEORY Katalin Károlyi Department of Applied Analysis, Eötvös Loránd University H1088 Budapest, Múzeum krt. 68. CONTENTS 1. SETS Set, equal sets, subset,
More informationThe Consistency of the Continuum Hypothesis Annals of Mathematical Studies, No. 3 Princeton University Press Princeton, N.J., 1940.
TWO COMPUTATIONAL IDEAS Computations with Sets Union, intersection: computable Powerset: not computable Basic operations Absoluteness of Formulas A formula in the language of set theory is absolute if
More informationDegrees of Truth: the formal logic of classical and quantum probabilities as well as fuzzy sets.
Degrees of Truth: the formal logic of classical and quantum probabilities as well as fuzzy sets. Logic is the study of reasoning. A language of propositions is fundamental to this study as well as true
More informationPartitioning edgecoloured complete graphs into monochromatic cycles and paths
arxiv:1205.5492v1 [math.co] 24 May 2012 Partitioning edgecoloured complete graphs into monochromatic cycles and paths Alexey Pokrovskiy Departement of Mathematics, London School of Economics and Political
More informationAn Innocent Investigation
An Innocent Investigation D. Joyce, Clark University January 2006 The beginning. Have you ever wondered why every number is either even or odd? I don t mean to ask if you ever wondered whether every number
More informationarxiv:math/0510680v3 [math.gn] 31 Oct 2010
arxiv:math/0510680v3 [math.gn] 31 Oct 2010 MENGER S COVERING PROPERTY AND GROUPWISE DENSITY BOAZ TSABAN AND LYUBOMYR ZDOMSKYY Abstract. We establish a surprising connection between Menger s classical covering
More informationExtending the Language of Set Theory
Dmytro Taranovsky April 20, 2005 Extending the Language of Set Theory Note (March 10, 2012): A followup paper on higher order theory is now available: "Reflective Cardinals", arxiv:1203.2270. Abstract:
More informationChapter ML:IV. IV. Statistical Learning. Probability Basics Bayes Classification Maximum aposteriori Hypotheses
Chapter ML:IV IV. Statistical Learning Probability Basics Bayes Classification Maximum aposteriori Hypotheses ML:IV1 Statistical Learning STEIN 20052015 Area Overview Mathematics Statistics...... Stochastics
More informationarxiv: v1 [math.lo] 5 Jan 2017
LDalgebras beyond I0 arxiv:1701.01343v1 [math.lo] 5 Jan 2017 Vincenzo Dimonte January 6, 2017 Abstract The algebra of embeddings at the I3 level has been deeply analyzed, but nothing is known algebrawise
More informationFirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees
FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees George Metcalfe Mathematics Institute University of Bern LATD 2014, Vienna Summer of Logic, 1519 July 2014 George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics
More information4. CLASSES OF RINGS 4.1. Classes of Rings class operator Aclosed Example 1: product Example 2:
4. CLASSES OF RINGS 4.1. Classes of Rings Normally we associate, with any property, a set of objects that satisfy that property. But problems can arise when we allow sets to be elements of larger sets
More informationSETS, RELATIONS, AND FUNCTIONS
September 27, 2009 and notations Common Universal Subset and Power Set Cardinality Operations A set is a collection or group of objects or elements or members (Cantor 1895). the collection of the four
More information11 Ideals. 11.1 Revisiting Z
11 Ideals The presentation here is somewhat different than the text. In particular, the sections do not match up. We have seen issues with the failure of unique factorization already, e.g., Z[ 5] = O Q(
More information5. Convergence of sequences of random variables
5. Convergence of sequences of random variables Throughout this chapter we assume that {X, X 2,...} is a sequence of r.v. and X is a r.v., and all of them are defined on the same probability space (Ω,
More informationChapter 1 LOGIC AND PROOF
Chapter 1 LOGIC AND PROOF To be able to understand mathematics and mathematical arguments, it is necessary to have a solid understanding of logic and the way in which known facts can be combined to prove
More informationBiinterpretability up to double jump in the degrees
Biinterpretability up to double jump in the degrees below 0 0 Richard A. Shore Department of Mathematics Cornell University Ithaca NY 14853 July 29, 2013 Abstract We prove that, for every z 0 0 with z
More informationTOPOLOGY: THE JOURNEY INTO SEPARATION AXIOMS
TOPOLOGY: THE JOURNEY INTO SEPARATION AXIOMS VIPUL NAIK Abstract. In this journey, we are going to explore the so called separation axioms in greater detail. We shall try to understand how these axioms
More information(LMCS, p. 317) V.1. First Order Logic. This is the most powerful, most expressive logic that we will examine.
(LMCS, p. 317) V.1 First Order Logic This is the most powerful, most expressive logic that we will examine. Our version of firstorder logic will use the following symbols: variables connectives (,,,,
More informationThe BanachTarski Paradox
University of Oslo MAT2 Project The BanachTarski Paradox Author: Fredrik Meyer Supervisor: Nadia S. Larsen Abstract In its weak form, the BanachTarski paradox states that for any ball in R, it is possible
More informationominimality and Uniformity in n 1 Graphs
ominimality and Uniformity in n 1 Graphs Reid Dale July 10, 2013 Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Languages and Structures 2 3 Definability and Tame Geometry 4 4 Applications to n 1 Graphs 6 5 Further Directions
More informationNOTES ON MEASURE THEORY. M. Papadimitrakis Department of Mathematics University of Crete. Autumn of 2004
NOTES ON MEASURE THEORY M. Papadimitrakis Department of Mathematics University of Crete Autumn of 2004 2 Contents 1 σalgebras 7 1.1 σalgebras............................... 7 1.2 Generated σalgebras.........................
More informationUltraproducts and Applications I
Ultraproducts and Applications I Brent Cody Virginia Commonwealth University September 2, 2013 Outline Background of the Hyperreals Filters and Ultrafilters Construction of the Hyperreals The Transfer
More informationSOME USES OF SET THEORY IN ALGEBRA. Stanford Logic Seminar February 10, 2009
SOME USES OF SET THEORY IN ALGEBRA Stanford Logic Seminar February 10, 2009 Plan I. The Whitehead Problem early history II. Compactness and Incompactness III. Deconstruction P. Eklof and A. Mekler, Almost
More informationMath 317 HW #7 Solutions
Math 17 HW #7 Solutions 1. Exercise..5. Decide which of the following sets are compact. For those that are not compact, show how Definition..1 breaks down. In other words, give an example of a sequence
More informationIdeal Class Group and Units
Chapter 4 Ideal Class Group and Units We are now interested in understanding two aspects of ring of integers of number fields: how principal they are (that is, what is the proportion of principal ideals
More informationThis chapter describes set theory, a mathematical theory that underlies all of modern mathematics.
Appendix A Set Theory This chapter describes set theory, a mathematical theory that underlies all of modern mathematics. A.1 Basic Definitions Definition A.1.1. A set is an unordered collection of elements.
More informationGENTLY KILLING S SPACES TODD EISWORTH, PETER NYIKOS, AND SAHARON SHELAH
GENTLY KILLING S SPACES TODD EISWORTH, PETER NYIKOS, AND SAHARON SHELAH Abstract. We produce a model of ZFC in which there are no locally compact first countable S spaces, and in which 2 ℵ 0 < 2 ℵ 1. A
More informationDiscrete Mathematics
Slides for Part IA CST 2014/15 Discrete Mathematics Prof Marcelo Fiore Marcelo.Fiore@cl.cam.ac.uk What are we up to? Learn to read and write, and also work with, mathematical
More informationREAL ANALYSIS I HOMEWORK 2
REAL ANALYSIS I HOMEWORK 2 CİHAN BAHRAN The questions are from Stein and Shakarchi s text, Chapter 1. 1. Prove that the Cantor set C constructed in the text is totally disconnected and perfect. In other
More informationMA651 Topology. Lecture 6. Separation Axioms.
MA651 Topology. Lecture 6. Separation Axioms. This text is based on the following books: Fundamental concepts of topology by Peter O Neil Elements of Mathematics: General Topology by Nicolas Bourbaki Counterexamples
More informationOn the Union of Arithmetic Progressions
On the Union of Arithmetic Progressions Shoni Gilboa Rom Pinchasi August, 04 Abstract We show that for any integer n and real ɛ > 0, the union of n arithmetic progressions with pairwise distinct differences,
More informationReference: Introduction to Partial Differential Equations by G. Folland, 1995, Chap. 3.
5 Potential Theory Reference: Introduction to Partial Differential Equations by G. Folland, 995, Chap. 3. 5. Problems of Interest. In what follows, we consider Ω an open, bounded subset of R n with C 2
More informationStructure of Measurable Sets
Structure of Measurable Sets In these notes we discuss the structure of Lebesgue measurable subsets of R from several different points of view. Along the way, we will see several alternative characterizations
More informationThe Foundations: Logic and Proofs. Chapter 1, Part III: Proofs
The Foundations: Logic and Proofs Chapter 1, Part III: Proofs Rules of Inference Section 1.6 Section Summary Valid Arguments Inference Rules for Propositional Logic Using Rules of Inference to Build Arguments
More informationBasic Concepts of Point Set Topology Notes for OU course Math 4853 Spring 2011
Basic Concepts of Point Set Topology Notes for OU course Math 4853 Spring 2011 A. Miller 1. Introduction. The definitions of metric space and topological space were developed in the early 1900 s, largely
More informationMathematics for Computer Science/Software Engineering. Notes for the course MSM1F3 Dr. R. A. Wilson
Mathematics for Computer Science/Software Engineering Notes for the course MSM1F3 Dr. R. A. Wilson October 1996 Chapter 1 Logic Lecture no. 1. We introduce the concept of a proposition, which is a statement
More informationG 0 dichotomies for Borel sets
Andrés Eduardo Department of Mathematics Boise State University XI Atelier International de théorie des ensembles CIRM, Luminy, October 48, 2010 This is joint work with Richard Ketchersid. I want to thank
More information1. R In this and the next section we are going to study the properties of sequences of real numbers.
+a 1. R In this and the next section we are going to study the properties of sequences of real numbers. Definition 1.1. (Sequence) A sequence is a function with domain N. Example 1.2. A sequence of real
More informationRow Ideals and Fibers of Morphisms
Michigan Math. J. 57 (2008) Row Ideals and Fibers of Morphisms David Eisenbud & Bernd Ulrich Affectionately dedicated to Mel Hochster, who has been an inspiration to us for many years, on the occasion
More informationSection 3. Compactness Theorem
Section 3 Compactness Theorem 1 / 24 Compactness Theorem The most important result in model theory is: Compactness Theorem Let T be a theory in language L. If every finite subset of T has a model, then
More informationA Beginner s Guide to Modern Set Theory
A Beginner s Guide to Modern Set Theory Martin Dowd Product of Hyperon Software PO Box 4161 Costa Mesa, CA 92628 www.hyperonsoft.com Copyright c 2010 by Martin Dowd 1. Introduction..... 1 2. Formal logic......
More informationSets, Relations and Functions
Sets, Relations and Functions Eric Pacuit Department of Philosophy University of Maryland, College Park pacuit.org epacuit@umd.edu ugust 26, 2014 These notes provide a very brief background in discrete
More informationDiscernibility Thresholds and Approximate Dependency in Analysis of Decision Tables
Discernibility Thresholds and Approximate Dependency in Analysis of Decision Tables YuRu Syau¹, EnBing Lin²*, Lixing Jia³ ¹Department of Information Management, National Formosa University, Yunlin, 63201,
More informationReview for Final Exam
Review for Final Exam Note: Warning, this is probably not exhaustive and probably does contain typos (which I d like to hear about), but represents a review of most of the material covered in Chapters
More informationChapter 1. SigmaAlgebras. 1.1 Definition
Chapter 1 SigmaAlgebras 1.1 Definition Consider a set X. A σ algebra F of subsets of X is a collection F of subsets of X satisfying the following conditions: (a) F (b) if B F then its complement B c is
More informationIn mathematics you don t understand things. You just get used to them. (Attributed to John von Neumann)
Chapter 1 Sets and Functions We understand a set to be any collection M of certain distinct objects of our thought or intuition (called the elements of M) into a whole. (Georg Cantor, 1895) In mathematics
More information13 Infinite Sets. 13.1 Injections, Surjections, and Bijections. mcsftl 2010/9/8 0:40 page 379 #385
mcsftl 2010/9/8 0:40 page 379 #385 13 Infinite Sets So you might be wondering how much is there to say about an infinite set other than, well, it has an infinite number of elements. Of course, an infinite
More informationRecursion Theory in Set Theory
Contemporary Mathematics Recursion Theory in Set Theory Theodore A. Slaman 1. Introduction Our goal is to convince the reader that recursion theoretic knowledge and experience can be successfully applied
More informationIncompleteness and Artificial Intelligence
Incompleteness and Artificial Intelligence Shane Legg Dalle Molle Institute for Artificial Intelligence Galleria 2, MannoLugano 6928, Switzerland shane@idsia.ch 1 Introduction The implications of Gödel
More informationSOLUTIONS TO ASSIGNMENT 1 MATH 576
SOLUTIONS TO ASSIGNMENT 1 MATH 576 SOLUTIONS BY OLIVIER MARTIN 13 #5. Let T be the topology generated by A on X. We want to show T = J B J where B is the set of all topologies J on X with A J. This amounts
More informationThis asserts two sets are equal iff they have the same elements, that is, a set is determined by its elements.
3. Axioms of Set theory Before presenting the axioms of set theory, we first make a few basic comments about the relevant first order logic. We will give a somewhat more detailed discussion later, but
More informationUndergraduate Notes in Mathematics. Arkansas Tech University Department of Mathematics
Undergraduate Notes in Mathematics Arkansas Tech University Department of Mathematics An Introductory Single Variable Real Analysis: A Learning Approach through Problem Solving Marcel B. Finan c All Rights
More informationON FUNCTIONAL SYMBOLFREE LOGIC PROGRAMS
PROCEEDINGS OF THE YEREVAN STATE UNIVERSITY Physical and Mathematical Sciences 2012 1 p. 43 48 ON FUNCTIONAL SYMBOLFREE LOGIC PROGRAMS I nf or m at i cs L. A. HAYKAZYAN * Chair of Programming and Information
More informationDEFINABLE TYPES IN PRESBURGER ARITHMETIC
DEFINABLE TYPES IN PRESBURGER ARITHMETIC GABRIEL CONANT Abstract. We consider the first order theory of (Z, +,
More informationCategoricity transfer in Simple Finitary Abstract Elementary Classes
Categoricity transfer in Simple Finitary Abstract Elementary Classes Tapani Hyttinen and Meeri Kesälä August 15, 2008 Abstract We continue to study nitary abstract elementary classes, dened in [7]. We
More informationI. GROUPS: BASIC DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES
I GROUPS: BASIC DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES Definition 1: An operation on a set G is a function : G G G Definition 2: A group is a set G which is equipped with an operation and a special element e G, called
More informationA Primer on Infinitary Logic
A Primer on Infinitary Logic Fall 2007 These lectures are a brief survey of some elements of the model theory of the infinitary logics L,ω and L ω1,ω. It is intended to serve as an introduction to Baldwin
More informationF. ABTAHI and M. ZARRIN. (Communicated by J. Goldstein)
Journal of Algerian Mathematical Society Vol. 1, pp. 1 6 1 CONCERNING THE l p CONJECTURE FOR DISCRETE SEMIGROUPS F. ABTAHI and M. ZARRIN (Communicated by J. Goldstein) Abstract. For 2 < p
More informationMathematics for Econometrics, Fourth Edition
Mathematics for Econometrics, Fourth Edition Phoebus J. Dhrymes 1 July 2012 1 c Phoebus J. Dhrymes, 2012. Preliminary material; not to be cited or disseminated without the author s permission. 2 Contents
More informationDiscrete Mathematics, Chapter 5: Induction and Recursion
Discrete Mathematics, Chapter 5: Induction and Recursion Richard Mayr University of Edinburgh, UK Richard Mayr (University of Edinburgh, UK) Discrete Mathematics. Chapter 5 1 / 20 Outline 1 Wellfounded
More information