Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-kp629 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T07:34:09.664Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A weak variation of shelah's I[ω2]

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

William J. Mitchell
William J. Mitchell*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, P.O. Box 118105, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611-8105, USA, E-mail: mitchell@math.ufl.edu, URL: http://www.math.ufl.edu/~mitchell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We use a κ+-Mahlo cardinal to give a forcing construction of a model in which there is no sequence ⟨ Aβ : β < ω2 ⟩ of sets of cardinality ω1 such that

is stationary.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 69 , Issue 1 , March 2004 , pp. 94 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

[1]Baumgartner, James E., Taylor, Alan D., and Wagon, Stanley, On splitting stationary subsets of large cardinals, this Journal, vol. 42 (1977), pp. 203–214.Google Scholar
[2]Harrington, Leo and Shelah, Saharon, Some exact equiconsistency results in set theory, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 26 (1985), pp. 178–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Jech, Thomas, Stationary subsets of inaccessible cardinals, Axiomatic set theory (Boulder, Colorado, 1983), Contemporary Mathematics, vol. 31, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1984, pp. 115–142.Google Scholar
[4]Mitchell, William, Aronszajn trees and the independence of the transfer property, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 5 (1972/1973), pp. 21–46.Google Scholar
[5]Shelah, Saharon, Reflecting stationary sets and successors of singular cardinals. Archive of Mathematical Logic, vol. 31 (1991), pp. 25–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar