Distributive proper forcing axiom and cardinal invariants (Q365665)

In what follows, we assume the reader is familiar with all notions involved in the definitions of Martin's Axiom (\textbf{MA}) and the Proper Forcing Axiom (\textbf{PFA}) -- if this is not the case, see, respectively, [\textit{D. A. Martin} and \textit{R. M. Solovay}, Ann. Math. Logic 2, 143--178 (1970; Zbl 0222.02075)] and [\textit{J. E. Baumgartner}, in: Handbook of set-theoretic topology, 913--959 (1984; Zbl 0556.03040)]. \textbf{BPFA} denotes the Bounded Proper Forcing Axiom [\textit{J. Bagaria}, Arch. Math. Logic 39, No. 6, 393--401 (2000; Zbl 0966.03047)]. If \(\kappa\) is a regular cardinal, a partial order \(\mathbb{P}\) is said to be \textit{\(\kappa\)-distributive} if forcing with \(\mathbb{P}\) adds no new sequence of ordinals with length less than \(\kappa\), and it is said to be \textit{distributive} if it is \(\aleph_1\)-distributive. For proper partial orders, distributivity is equivalent to the following property: forcing with \(\mathbb{P}\) adds no new reals. Let \textbf{DPFA} be the restriction of \textbf{PFA} to distributive orders, i.e., let \textbf{DPFA} be the statement: ``If \(\mathbb{P}\) is distributive and proper and \(\mathcal{D}\) is a family of \(\aleph_1\) dense subsets of \(\mathbb{P}\), then there is a filter \(G \subseteq \mathbb{P}\) such that \(G \cap D \neq \emptyset\) for all \(D \in \mathcal{D}\).'' In the paper under review, the author investigates the relationship between the forcing axiom \textbf{DPFA} and many known cardinal invariants, and applies his results to distinguish several forcing axioms. The main theorem of the paper is the following (we assume now the reader is familiar with all mentioned cardinal invariants): Theorem. If it is consistent that a supercompact cardinal exists, then it is consistent that \textbf{DPFA} holds and all the following cardinal invariants are equal to \(\aleph_1\): \(\mathfrak{a}\), \(\mathfrak{b}\), \(\mathfrak{d}\), \(\mathfrak{e}\), \(\mathfrak{g}\), \(\mathfrak{h}\), \(\mathfrak{i}\), \(\mathfrak{m}\), \(\mathfrak{p}\), \(\mathfrak{r}\), \(\mathfrak{s}\), \(\mathfrak{t}\), \(\mathfrak{u}\), \(\mathrm{add}(\mathbb{M})\), \(\mathrm{cov}(\mathbb{M})\), \(\mathrm{non}(\mathbb{M})\), \(\mathrm{cof}(\mathbb{M})\), \(\mathrm{add}(\mathbb{L})\), \(\mathrm{cov}(\mathbb{L})\), \(\mathrm{non}(\mathbb{L})\) and \(\mathrm{cof}(\mathbb{L})\). As a corollary, the author concludes, e.g., that the axiom \textbf{DPFA} does not imply any of the previously mentioned axioms (that is, none of \textbf{MA}, \textbf{BPFA} and \textbf{PFA} are consequences of \textbf{DPFA}).