More game-theoretic properties of Boolean algebras (Q760425): Difference between revisions

This paper investigates the relationships among various games on complete Boolean algebras and their distributivity properties. (A complete Boolean algebra B is [weakly] (\(\kappa\),\(\lambda)\)-distributive iff every f:\(\kappa\) \(\to \lambda\) in \(V^ B\) is also in V [dominated by a function in V].) The games are all played in \(\omega\) many moves. The first game is cut-and-choose (\({\mathcal G}_{c\&c}):\) White picks an element a of B and splits it into two pieces; Black picks one of the pieces; White splits a again; Black picks one of the pieces; and so on. White wins iff Black's choices have no non-zero lower bound. The main result is that (\(\omega\),2)-distributivity is equivalent to White winning this game. In Prikry forcing, Black wins \({\mathcal G}_{c\&c}\); in Suslin algebras, nobody wins. The next game, denoted \({\mathcal G}_ 1(\kappa)\), is as before, except White's partitions may have any size \(\leq \kappa\). In \({\mathcal G}_{fin}(\kappa)\) [\({\mathcal G}_{\omega}(\kappa)]\) Black may now pick the sum of finitely many [countably many] pieces of White's partition. The games \({\mathcal G}_ 1\), \({\mathcal G}_{fin}\), and \({\mathcal G}_{\omega}\) are as above, without any restrictions on the size of White's partitions. Some results: (\(\omega\),\(\kappa)\)-distributivity is equivalent to White not having a winning strategy in \({\mathcal G}_ 1(\kappa)\); weak (\(\omega\),\(\kappa)\)-distributivity is implied by White not having a winning strategy in \({\mathcal G}_{fin}(\kappa)\); axiom A forcing implies that Black has a winning strategy in \({\mathcal G}_{\omega}\) which in turn implies that the forcing is proper (these implications don't reverse, e.g. Black wins \({\mathcal G}_{\omega}\) when you add a club subset of \(\omega_ 1\) by finite conditions). And so on. In addition to more results, open problems are given, and related work of C. Gray and M. Foreman is discussed.