Determinacy from strong compactness of \(\omega_1\) (Q2662692)

This article shows that in the context of weak choice (\( \mathsf{DC} \)), the ``small'' cardinal \( \omega_1 \) exhibits some quite ``large'' large cardinal properties: \( \mathcal{P}(\omega_1) \)-strongly compact and \( \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R}) \)-supercompact. Here, \( \omega_1 \) is \( X \)-strongly compact means there is a countably complete fine measure on \( \mathcal{P}_{\omega_1}(X) \), and is \( X \)-supercompact if the measure is, in addition, normal. Working under \( \mathsf{ZF} + \mathsf{DC} \), the authors apply the machinery of core model induction (set up in section 2) to show the following two results: \begin{itemize} \item the \( \mathbb{R} \)-strong compactness of \( \omega_1 \) plus the failure of \( \Box_{\omega_1} \) imply the axiom of determinacy in \( L(\mathbb{R}) \) (see Section 3 and 4); \item assuming the \( \mathbb{R} \)-strong compactness of \( \omega_1 \), if \( \omega_1 \) is either \( \Theta \)-strongly compact or \( \Theta \) is singular, then \( \mathsf{AD}_{\mathbb{R}} \) holds in a model of the form \( L(\Omega^{\ast}, \mathbb{R}) \), where \( \Omega^{\ast} \subset \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R}) \). \end{itemize} These two results lead to a number of equiconsistency results. \begin{itemize} \item Over \( \mathsf{ZF} + \mathsf{DC} \), the axiom of determinacy is equiconsistent with the \( \mathcal{P}(\omega_1) \)-strong compactness of \( \omega_1 \), moreover, the following statements have the same consistency strength: \begin{itemize} \item[1.] \( \omega_{1} \) is both \( \mathbb{R} \)-strongly compact and \( \omega_{2} \)-strongly compact; \item[2.] \( \omega_{1} \) is \( \mathbb{R} \)-strongly compact and \( \Box_{\omega_1} \) fails. \item[3.] \( \omega_{1} \) is \( \mathbb{R} \)-strongly compact and \( \Theta > \omega_2 \). \end{itemize} \item Over \( \mathsf{ZF} + \mathsf{DC} \), the axiom of determinacy (\( \mathsf{AD} \)) for real games (\( \mathsf{AD}_{\mathbb{R}} \)) is equiconsistent with the \( \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R}) \)-strong compactness of \( \omega_1 \), and moreover, the following statements have the same consistency strength: \begin{itemize} \item[1.] \( \omega_{1} \) is both \( \mathbb{R} \)-strongly compact and \( \Theta \)-strongly compact; \item[2.] \( \omega_{1} \) is \( \mathbb{R} \)-strongly compact and \( \Theta \) is singular. \end{itemize} \item Over \( \mathsf{ZF} \), the theory of \( \mathsf{AD}_{\mathbb{R}} \) is equiconsistent with \( \mathsf{DC}_{\mathcal{P}(\omega_1)} \) plus ``\( \omega_{1} \) is \( \mathbb{R} \)-strongly compact and \( \Theta \) is singular''. \end{itemize} The last section discusses the consistency strengths of \( X \)-supercompactness of \( \omega_1 \), for \( X = \mathbb{R} \) and \( \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R}) \). The case of \( X = \mathbb{R} \) is equiconsistent with \( \omega^2 \) many Woodin cardinals, which is strictly stronger than the strength of \( \mathsf{AD} \). And the case \( X = \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R}) \) implies the existence of the sharp for a model of \( \mathsf{AD}_{\mathbb{R}} + \mathsf{DC} \), therefore is strictly stronger than the consistency strength of the \( \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R}) \)-strong compactness of \( \omega_1 \). But the exact strength of \( \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R}) \)-supercompactness of \( \omega_1 \) is yet unknown. Further questions regarding consistency strength of stronger forms of \( X \)-strongly compactness and \( X \)-supercompactness for \( \omega_1 \) (in the context of \( \mathsf{ZF} + \mathsf{DC} \)) are also laid out in the last section.