On the Hamkins approximation property

DOI10.1016/J.APAL.2006.05.005MaRDI QIDQ861823zbMATH OpenOpenAlexFDO

Authors William J. Mitchell

Publication date 2 February 2007

Published in Annals of Pure and Applied Logic (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apal.2006.05.005

zbMATH Keywords

approximation propertyforcinggap forcing

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Consistency and independence results (03E35) Other aspects of forcing and Boolean-valued models (03E40)

Recommendations

• Consistency of Suslin's hypothesis, a nonspecial Aronszajn tree, and GCH
• Can a small forcing create Kurepa trees
• Namba forcing, weak approximation, and guessing
• Fragility and indestructibility. II
• Forcing with sequences of models of two types

Cites work

• A weak variation of shelah's I[ω₂]
• Aronszajn trees and the independence of the transfer property
• Extensions with the approximation and cover properties have no new large cardinals
• Gap forcing

Cited in

(14)

• SPECIALISING TREES WITH SMALL APPROXIMATIONS I
• Strong tree properties, Kurepa trees, and guessing models
• The downward directed grounds hypothesis and very large cardinals
• Strong tree properties for small cardinals
• Quotients of strongly proper forcings and guessing models
• Borel reductions and cub games in generalised descriptive set theory
• A general Mitchell style iteration
• 𝐼[𝜔₂] can be the nonstationary ideal on 𝐶𝑜𝑓(𝜔₁)
• Fragility and indestructibility. II
• Strongly proper forcing and some problems of Foreman
• Superstrong and other large cardinals are never Laver indestructible
• Namba forcing, weak approximation, and guessing
• Set-theoretic geology
• Characterizing large cardinals in terms of layered posets

This page was built for publication: On the Hamkins approximation property

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q861823)