Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:23:02.347Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ON FOREMAN’S MAXIMALITY PRINCIPLE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 September 2016

MOHAMMAD GOLSHANI  and
YAIR HAYUT
MOHAMMAD GOLSHANI
Affiliation:
SCHOOL OF MATHEMATICS INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH IN FUNDAMENTAL SCIENCES (IPM) P.O. BOX: 19395-5746, TEHRAN, IRANE-mail: golshani.m@gmail.com
YAIR HAYUT
Affiliation:
THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM EINSTEIN INSTITUTE OF MATHEMATICS EDMOND J. SAFRA CAMPUS, GIVAT RAM JERUSALEM 91904, ISRAELE-mail: yair.hayut@mail.huji.ac.il
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, we consider Foreman’s maximality principle, which says that any nontrivial forcing notion either adds a new real or collapses some cardinals. We prove the consistency of some of its consequences. We observe that it is consistent that every c.c.c. forcing adds a real and that for every uncountable regular cardinal κ, every κ-closed forcing of size 2<κ collapses some cardinal.

Keywords

adding realscollapsing cardinalsextender sequencesextender based Radin forcing
Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 81 , Issue 4 , December 2016 , pp. 1344 - 1356
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Symbolic Logic 2016 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Abraham, U. and Shelah, S., Forcing closed unbounded sets, this Journal, vol. 48 (1983), no. 3, pp. 643–657.Google Scholar
Cummings, J., A model in which GCH holds at successors but fails at limits . Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 329 (1992), no. 1, pp. 1–39.Google Scholar
Foreman, M., Magidor, M., and Shelah, S., 0# and some forcing principles, this Journal, vol. 51 (1986), no. 1, pp. 39–46.Google Scholar
Foreman, M. and Woodin, W. H., The generalized continuum hypothesis can fail everywhere . Annals of Mathematics (2), vol. 133 (1991), no. 1, pp. 1–35.Google Scholar
Friedman, S.-D. and Golshani, M., Killing GCH everywhere by a cofinality-preserving forcing notion over a model of GCH . Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 223 (2013), no. 2, pp. 171–193.Google Scholar
Gitik, M. and Shelah, S., On certain indestructibility of strong cardinals and a question of Hajnal . Archive for Mathematical Logic, vol. 28 (1989), no. 1, pp. 35–42.Google Scholar
Jech, T., Distributive laws , Handbook of Boolean algebras, Vol. 2, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1989, pp. 317–331.Google Scholar
Merimovich, C., A power function with a fixed finite gap everywhere, this Journal, vol. 72 (2007), no. 2, pp. 361–417.Google Scholar
Mitchell, W. J., The covering lemma , Handbook of set theory. Vols. 1, 2, 3, Springer, Dordrecht, 2010, pp. 1497–1594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rinot, A., The Ostaszewski square and homogeneous Souslin trees . Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 199 (2014), no. 2, pp. 975–1012.Google Scholar
Schimmerling, E. and Zeman, M., Square in core models . Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, vol. 7 (2001), no. 3, pp. 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shelah, S., Proper and Improper Forcing, second ed., Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shelah, S., Consistently there is no non trivial ccc forcing notion with the Sacks or Laver property . Combinatorica, vol. 21 (2001), no. 2, pp. 309–319. Paul Erdös and his mathematics (Budapest, 1999).Google Scholar
Solovay, R. M. and Tennenbaum, S., Iterated Cohen extensions and Souslin’s problem . Annals of Mathematics, (2), vol. 94 (1971), pp. 201–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, M. C., Forcing disabled, this Journal, vol. 57 (1992), no. 4, pp. 1153–1175.Google Scholar