Forcing axiom failure for any >_1

DOI10.1007/S00153-003-0208-9MaRDI QIDQ701721zbMATH OpenOpenAlexWikidataFDO

Authors S. Shelah

Publication date 16 December 2004

Published in Archive for Mathematical Logic (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0112286

zbMATH Keywords

forcing axiomproper forcingsemi-proper forcing

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Other aspects of forcing and Boolean-valued models (03E40)

Abstract: David Aspero asks on the possibility of having Forcing axiom FA_{aleph_2}(K), where K is the class of forcing notions preserving stationarity of subsets of aleph_1 and of aleph_2. We answer negatively, in fact we show the negative result for any regular lambda>aleph_1 even demanding adding no new sequence of ordinals of length<lambda.

Review text

A poset \(\mathbb P\) is semi-proper (or \(\{\aleph_1\}\)-semi-proper) if for every suitably large countable elementary submodel \(N\), \(\mathbb P\) has a semi-generic condition (forcing \(N\cap \omega_1 = N[G]\cap \omega_1\)). Each semi-proper poset preserves the stationarity of all stationary subsets of \(\omega_1\). The semi-proper forcing axiom (SPFA) implies that the converse holds (see XVII 1.3 of [\textit{S. Shelah}, Proper and improper forcing. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer (1998; Zbl 0889.03041)]). Namba forcing preserves stationary subsets of \(\omega_1\), changes the cofinality of \(\omega_2\) to \(\omega\) and, in the absence of large cardinals, is not semi-proper (see XII 2.5 of Shelah's book [loc. cit.]). The final section of the paper produces in ZFC a semi-proper forcing poset which is not proper. The first section of the paper shows that a forcing axiom for stationarity preserving posets in which we require a filter to meet \(\aleph_2\) many dense open sets will fail. In particular, for each regular \(\lambda>\aleph_1\), there is a poset \(\mathbb P\) which preserves stationary subsets of \(\lambda\) and which adds no new sequences of length less than \(\lambda\) and witnesses the failure of this potential forcing axiom.

Recommendations

• Collapsing \(\omega _2\) with semi-proper forcing
• Martin's maximum, saturated ideals, and nonregular ultrafilters. I
• Bounded dagger principles
• Forcing closed unbounded sets
• Shelah's work on non-semi-proper iterations, II
• Shelah's work on non-semi-proper iterations. I
• More about \(\lambda \)-support iterations of \((<\lambda)\)-complete forcing notions
• The proper forcing axiom and stationary set reflection
• α-Properness and Axiom A
• Proper forcing

Cited in

(9)

• Rado's conjecture implies that all stationary set preserving forcings are semiproper
• Semiproper forcing axiom implies Martin maximum but not PFA⁺
• Forcing closed unbounded sets
• Forcing the failure of CH by adding a real
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 591408 (Why is no real title available?)
• BOUNDING BY CANONICAL FUNCTIONS, WITH CH
• A club guessing toolbox. I
• Collapsing \(\omega _2\) with semi-proper forcing
• Consistent and inconsistent generalizations of Martin's Axiom, weak square and weak Chang's Conjecture

This page was built for publication: Forcing axiom failure for any \(\lambda >\aleph_1\)

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q701721)