The ultrafilter and almost disjointness numbers (Q2039555): Difference between revisions

Recall also that \(\mathfrak{b}\), \(\mathfrak{d}\), \(\mathfrak{s}\), \(\mathfrak{u}\), \(\mathfrak{a}\) denote the bounding number, the dominating number, the splitting number, the ultrafilter number, and the almost disjointness number, respectively. The consistency of \(\mathfrak{a}<\mathfrak{u}\) is easy to prove but the consistency of \(\mathfrak{u}<\mathfrak{a}\) is much harder (in fact, by theorems of \textit{J. T. Moore} et al. [Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 356, No. 6, 2281--2306 (2004; Zbl 1053.03027)] \(\mathfrak{u}<\mathfrak{a}\) cannot be obtained by countable support iteration of Borel partial orders). \textit{S. Shelah} [Acta Math. 192, No. 2, 187--223 (2004; Zbl 1106.03044)] proved that if \(\kappa\) is a measurable cardinal and \(\mu<\lambda\) are regular cardinals bigger than \(\kappa\), then there is a c.c.c.\ forcing extension of \(V\) in which \(\mu=\mathfrak{b}=\mathfrak{d}=\mathfrak{u}\) and \(\lambda=\mathfrak{a}=\mathfrak{c}\). It was an open question of Shelah whether consistency of \(\mathfrak{u}<\mathfrak{a}\) follows from the consistency of ZFC and it was a question of Brendle whether \(\omega_1=\mathfrak{u}<\mathfrak{a}\) is consistent. In the paper under the review, the authors prove that the inequalities \(\omega_1=\mathfrak{u}<\mathfrak{a}\) are consitent relatively to ZFC. They present also a simple proof of a result of \textit{A. Blass} and \textit{S. Shelah} [Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 33, 213--243 (1987; Zbl 0634.03047)] that the inequality \(\mathfrak{u}<\mathfrak{s}\) is consistent.