Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic

More Notions of Forcing Add a Souslin Tree

Ari Meir Brodsky and Assaf Rinot

Full-text: Access denied (no subscription detected)

We're sorry, but we are unable to provide you with the full text of this article because we are not able to identify you as a subscriber. If you have a personal subscription to this journal, then please login. If you are already logged in, then you may need to update your profile to register your subscription. Read more about accessing full-text

Abstract

An 1-Souslin tree is a complicated combinatorial object whose existence cannot be decided on the grounds of ZFC alone. But fifteen years after Tennenbaum and Jech independently devised notions of forcing for introducing such a tree, Shelah proved that already the simplest forcing notion—Cohen forcing—adds an 1-Souslin tree.

In this article, we identify a rather large class of notions of forcing that, assuming a GCH-type hypothesis, add a λ+-Souslin tree. This class includes Prikry, Magidor, and Radin forcing.

Article information

Source
Notre Dame J. Formal Logic, Volume 60, Number 3 (2019), 437-455.

Dates
Received: 18 July 2016
Accepted: 4 September 2017
First available in Project Euclid: 11 June 2019

Permanent link to this document
https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ndjfl/1560218424

Digital Object Identifier
doi:10.1215/00294527-2019-0011

Mathematical Reviews number (MathSciNet)
MR3985620

Subjects
Primary: 03E05: Other combinatorial set theory
Secondary: 03E35: Consistency and independence results 05C05: Trees 03E65: Other hypotheses and axioms

Keywords
Souslin-tree construction microscopic approach Prikry forcing Magidor forcing Radin forcing Cohen forcing Hechler forcing parameterized proxy principle square principle outside guessing of clubs

Citation

Brodsky, Ari Meir; Rinot, Assaf. More Notions of Forcing Add a Souslin Tree. Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 60 (2019), no. 3, 437--455. doi:10.1215/00294527-2019-0011. https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ndjfl/1560218424


Export citation

References

  • [1] Abraham, U., and S. Shelah, “Forcing closed unbounded sets,” Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 48 (1983), pp. 643–57.
  • [2] Adolf, D., A. W. Apter, and P. Koepke, “Singularizing successor cardinals by forcing,” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol.146 (2018), pp. 773–83.
  • [3] Brodsky, A. M., and A. Rinot, “A microscopic approach to Souslin-tree constructions, Part I,” Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 168 (2017), pp. 1949–2007.
  • [4] Brodsky, A. M., and A. Rinot, “A microscopic approach to Souslin-tree constructions. Part II,” in preparation.
  • [5] Brodsky, A. M., and A. Rinot, “Reduced powers of Souslin trees,” Forum of Mathematics, Sigma, vol. 5 (2017), no. e2.
  • [6] Brodsky, A. M., and A. Rinot, “A remark on Schimmerling’s question,” Order, published electronically February 21, 2019.
  • [7] Cummings, J., M. Foreman, and M. Magidor, “Squares, scales and stationary reflection,” Journal of Mathematical Logic, vol. 1 (2001), pp. 35–98.
  • [8] Cummings, J., and E. Schimmerling, “Indexed squares,” Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 131 (2002), pp. 61–99.
  • [9] Devlin, K. J., and H. Johnsbraten, The Souslin Problem, vol. 405 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Springer, Berlin, 1974.
  • [10] Fontanella, L., and Y. Hayut, “Square and delta reflection,” Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 167 (2016), pp. 663–83.
  • [11] Gregory, J., “Higher Souslin trees and the generalized continuum hypothesis,” Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 41 (1976), pp. 663–71.
  • [12] Jensen, R. B., “The fine structure of the constructible hierarchy,” Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 4 (1972), pp. 229–308.
  • [13] Lambie-Hanson, C., “Aronszajn trees, square principles, and stationary reflection,” Mathematical Logic Quarterly, vol. 63 (2017), pp. 265–81.
  • [14] Lambie-Hanson, C., “Pseudo-Prikry sequences,” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 146 (2017), pp. 4905–20.
  • [15] Rinot, A., “A cofinality-preserving small forcing may introduce a special Aronszajn tree,” Archive for Mathematical Logic, vol. 48 (2009), pp. 817–23.
  • [16] Rinot, A., “Chromatic numbers of graphs—large gaps,” Combinatorica, vol. 35 (2015), pp. 215–33.
  • [17] Rinot, A., “Higher Souslin trees and the GCH, revisited,” Advances in Mathematics, vol. 311 (2017), pp. 510–31.
  • [18] Schimmerling, E., “A question about Suslin trees and the weak square hierarchy,” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 46 (2005), pp. 373–74.
  • [19] Shelah, S., “Diamonds,” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 138 (2010), pp. 2151–61.
  • [20] Specker, E., “Sur un problème de Sikorski,” Colloquium Mathematicum, vol. 2 (1949), pp. 9–12.
  • [21] Todorčević, S., “Trees and linearly ordered sets,” pp. 235–93 in Handbook of Set-Theoretic Topology, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1984.
  • [22] Todorčević, S., “Partitioning pairs of countable ordinals,” Acta Mathematica, vol. 159 (1987), pp. 261–94.