polarized partition properties on the second level of the
play

Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of the - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Apr 08, 2024 •151 likes •1.17k views

Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of the Projective Hierarchy. Yurii Khomskii University of Amstedam Joint work with J org Brendle (Kobe University, Japan) RIMS Set Theory Workshop 2009, Kyoto, Japan Polarized Partition

  1. Polarized Partitions Polarized partition properties have been studied by Henle, Llopis, DiPrisco, Todorˇ cevi´ c and Zapletal. Easy observations: 1. In order for ( � n → � m ) to hold even for very simple partitions, � m . n ≫ � 2. Γ ( � m ) . n → � m ) = ⇒ Γ ( � ω → � Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 9/3

  2. Polarized Partitions Polarized partition properties have been studied by Henle, Llopis, DiPrisco, Todorˇ cevi´ c and Zapletal. Easy observations: 1. In order for ( � n → � m ) to hold even for very simple partitions, � m . n ≫ � 2. Γ ( � m ) . n → � m ) = ⇒ Γ ( � ω → � m ′ ) , for all m, m ′ ≥ 2 . ω → � 3. Γ ( � ω → � m ) ⇐ ⇒ Γ ( � Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 9/3

  3. Polarized Partitions Polarized partition properties have been studied by Henle, Llopis, DiPrisco, Todorˇ cevi´ c and Zapletal. Easy observations: 1. In order for ( � n → � m ) to hold even for very simple partitions, � m . n ≫ � 2. Γ ( � m ) . n → � m ) = ⇒ Γ ( � ω → � m ′ ) , for all m, m ′ ≥ 2 . ω → � 3. Γ ( � ω → � m ) ⇐ ⇒ Γ ( � m ) , then for every other � m ′ there is � n ′ such that If Γ ( � n → � Γ ( � n ′ → � m ′ ) Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 9/3

  4. Polarized Partitions Polarized partition properties have been studied by Henle, Llopis, DiPrisco, Todorˇ cevi´ c and Zapletal. Easy observations: 1. In order for ( � n → � m ) to hold even for very simple partitions, � m . n ≫ � 2. Γ ( � m ) . n → � m ) = ⇒ Γ ( � ω → � m ′ ) , for all m, m ′ ≥ 2 . ω → � 3. Γ ( � ω → � m ) ⇐ ⇒ Γ ( � m ) , then for every other � m ′ there is � n ′ such that If Γ ( � n → � Γ ( � n ′ → � m ′ ) Use coding function ϕ ( x ) := �� x (0) , . . . , x ( i 1 ) � , � x ( i 1 + 1) , . . . , x ( i 1 + i 2 ) � , . . . � . Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 9/3

  5. Polarized Partitions Polarized partition properties have been studied by Henle, Llopis, DiPrisco, Todorˇ cevi´ c and Zapletal. Easy observations: 1. In order for ( � n → � m ) to hold even for very simple partitions, � m . n ≫ � 2. Γ ( � m ) . n → � m ) = ⇒ Γ ( � ω → � m ′ ) , for all m, m ′ ≥ 2 . ω → � 3. Γ ( � ω → � m ) ⇐ ⇒ Γ ( � m ) , then for every other � m ′ there is � n ′ such that If Γ ( � n → � Γ ( � n ′ → � m ′ ) Use coding function ϕ ( x ) := �� x (0) , . . . , x ( i 1 ) � , � x ( i 1 + 1) , . . . , x ( i 1 + i 2 ) � , . . . � . From now on, use generic notations ( � ω → � m ) and ( � n → � m ) . Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 9/3

  6. Polarized Partitions In [DiPrisco & Todorˇ cevi´ c, 2003]: ( � ω → � m ) and ( � n → � m ) hold for analytic sets. Explicit bounds � n computed from � m (using Ackermann-like function). Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 10/3

  7. Polarized Partitions In [DiPrisco & Todorˇ cevi´ c, 2003]: ( � ω → � m ) and ( � n → � m ) hold for analytic sets. Explicit bounds � n computed from � m (using Ackermann-like function). On the other hand, easy to find counterexample using AC (i.e. well-ordering of ω ω ). Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 10/3

  8. Polarized Partitions In [DiPrisco & Todorˇ cevi´ c, 2003]: ( � ω → � m ) and ( � n → � m ) hold for analytic sets. Explicit bounds � n computed from � m (using Ackermann-like function). On the other hand, easy to find counterexample using AC (i.e. well-ordering of ω ω ). So, what about ∆ 1 2 / Σ 1 m ) and ∆ 1 2 / Σ 1 2 ( � ω → � 2 ( � n → � m ) ? Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 10/3

  9. Upper bound Fact. Γ ( Ramsey ) = ⇒ Γ ( � ω → � m ) . Proof. Given A , let X ∈ ω ↑ ω be homogeneous for A ∩ ω ↑ ω . Then divide ran ( X ) into X 0 , X 1 , . . . such that | X i | = m i . Now H := � X 0 , X 1 , . . . � witnesses that A satisfies ( � ω → � m ) . Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 11/3

  10. Eventually different reals Theorem. (Brendle) If ∆ 1 2 ( � ω → � m ) then ∀ a there is an eventually different real over L[ a ] . i.e. an x such that ∀ y ∈ ω ω ∩ L[ a ] ∀ ∞ n ( x ( n ) � = y ( n )) Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 12/3

  11. Eventually different reals Theorem. (Brendle) If ∆ 1 2 ( � ω → � m ) then ∀ a there is an eventually different real over L[ a ] . i.e. an x such that ∀ y ∈ ω ω ∩ L[ a ] ∀ ∞ n ( x ( n ) � = y ( n )) Proof. • Suppose not, fix a such that ∀ x ∃ y ∈ L[ a ] s.t. ∃ ∞ n ( x ( n ) = y ( n )) . Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 12/3

  12. Eventually different reals Theorem. (Brendle) If ∆ 1 2 ( � ω → � m ) then ∀ a there is an eventually different real over L[ a ] . i.e. an x such that ∀ y ∈ ω ω ∩ L[ a ] ∀ ∞ n ( x ( n ) � = y ( n )) Proof. • Suppose not, fix a such that ∀ x ∃ y ∈ L[ a ] s.t. ∃ ∞ n ( x ( n ) = y ( n )) . • W.l.o.g., assume that ∀ x ∃ y ∈ L[ a ] s.t. ∃ ∞ n [ x ( n ) = y ( n ) & x ( n + 1) = y ( n + 1)] . Let y x denote the < L[ a ] -least such real. Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 12/3

  13. Eventually different reals Theorem. (Brendle) If ∆ 1 2 ( � ω → � m ) then ∀ a there is an eventually different real over L[ a ] . i.e. an x such that ∀ y ∈ ω ω ∩ L[ a ] ∀ ∞ n ( x ( n ) � = y ( n )) Proof. • Suppose not, fix a such that ∀ x ∃ y ∈ L[ a ] s.t. ∃ ∞ n ( x ( n ) = y ( n )) . • W.l.o.g., assume that ∀ x ∃ y ∈ L[ a ] s.t. ∃ ∞ n [ x ( n ) = y ( n ) & x ( n + 1) = y ( n + 1)] . Let y x denote the < L[ a ] -least such real. • Let A := { x | first n at which x ( n ) = y x ( n ) is even } . This is ∆ 1 2 ( a ) using the fact that < L[ a ] is ∆ 1 2 ( a ) . Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 12/3

  14. Eventually different reals Theorem. (Brendle) If ∆ 1 2 ( � ω → � m ) then ∀ a there is an eventually different real over L[ a ] . i.e. an x such that ∀ y ∈ ω ω ∩ L[ a ] ∀ ∞ n ( x ( n ) � = y ( n )) Proof. • Suppose not, fix a such that ∀ x ∃ y ∈ L[ a ] s.t. ∃ ∞ n ( x ( n ) = y ( n )) . • W.l.o.g., assume that ∀ x ∃ y ∈ L[ a ] s.t. ∃ ∞ n [ x ( n ) = y ( n ) & x ( n + 1) = y ( n + 1)] . Let y x denote the < L[ a ] -least such real. • Let A := { x | first n at which x ( n ) = y x ( n ) is even } . This is ∆ 1 2 ( a ) using the fact that < L[ a ] is ∆ 1 2 ( a ) . • Let H be homogeneous for A , w.l.o.g. [ H ] ⊆ A . But if x ∈ [ H ] then let us change finitely many digits of x to produce a new real x ′ , such that the first n at which x ′ ( n ) = y x ( n ) is odd but still x ′ ∈ [ H ] . It is easy to see that y x = y x ′ , hence x ′ / ∈ A : contradiction. Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 12/3

  15. Diagram of implications Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 13/3

  16. Diagram of implications Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 13/3

  17. Diagram of implications Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 13/3

  18. Diagram of implications Question: which implications cannot be reversed? Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 13/3

  19. Diagram of implications Question: which implications cannot be reversed? Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 14/3

  20. Mathias model Theorem. (Brendle-Kh) Let L R ω 1 be the Mathias model , i.e., the ω 1 -iteration with countable support of Mathias forcing = ∆ 1 2 ( Ramsey ) but ¬ ∆ 1 starting from L . Then L R ω 1 | 2 ( � n → � m ) . Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 15/3

  21. Diagram of implications Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 16/3

  22. Mathias model Theorem. (Brendle-Kh) Let L R ω 1 be the Mathias model , i.e., the ω 1 -iteration with countable support of Mathias forcing = ∆ 1 2 ( Ramsey ) but ¬ ∆ 1 starting from L . Then L R ω 1 | 2 ( � n → � m ) . Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 17/3

  23. Mathias model Theorem. (Brendle-Kh) Let L R ω 1 be the Mathias model , i.e., the ω 1 -iteration with countable support of Mathias forcing = ∆ 1 2 ( Ramsey ) but ¬ ∆ 1 starting from L . Then L R ω 1 | 2 ( � n → � m ) . Proof • Clearly ∆ 1 2 ( Ramsey ) holds in L R ω 1 . Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 17/3

  24. Mathias model Theorem. (Brendle-Kh) Let L R ω 1 be the Mathias model , i.e., the ω 1 -iteration with countable support of Mathias forcing = ∆ 1 2 ( Ramsey ) but ¬ ∆ 1 starting from L . Then L R ω 1 | 2 ( � n → � m ) . Proof • Clearly ∆ 1 2 ( Ramsey ) holds in L R ω 1 . → [ ω ] <ω | ∀ i | S ( i ) | ≤ 2 i } . Mathias forcing satisfies the Laver • Let C := { S : ω − property : For every y ∈ M ∩ ω ω and ˙ x s.t. � ∀ i ˙ x ( i ) ≤ y ( i ) , there is an S ∈ C ∩ M s.t. � ∀ i ˙ x ( i ) ∈ S ( i ) . Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 17/3

  25. Mathias model Theorem. (Brendle-Kh) Let L R ω 1 be the Mathias model , i.e., the ω 1 -iteration with countable support of Mathias forcing = ∆ 1 2 ( Ramsey ) but ¬ ∆ 1 starting from L . Then L R ω 1 | 2 ( � n → � m ) . Proof • Clearly ∆ 1 2 ( Ramsey ) holds in L R ω 1 . → [ ω ] <ω | ∀ i | S ( i ) | ≤ 2 i } . Mathias forcing satisfies the Laver • Let C := { S : ω − property : For every y ∈ M ∩ ω ω and ˙ x s.t. � ∀ i ˙ x ( i ) ≤ y ( i ) , there is an S ∈ C ∩ M s.t. � ∀ i ˙ x ( i ) ∈ S ( i ) . 2 -well-ordering of L ∩ ω ω to define a ∆ 1 • Use the ∆ 1 2 -well-ordering of L ∩ C . Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 17/3

  26. Mathias model Theorem. (Brendle-Kh) Let L R ω 1 be the Mathias model , i.e., the ω 1 -iteration with countable support of Mathias forcing = ∆ 1 2 ( Ramsey ) but ¬ ∆ 1 starting from L . Then L R ω 1 | 2 ( � n → � m ) . Proof • Clearly ∆ 1 2 ( Ramsey ) holds in L R ω 1 . → [ ω ] <ω | ∀ i | S ( i ) | ≤ 2 i } . Mathias forcing satisfies the Laver • Let C := { S : ω − property : For every y ∈ M ∩ ω ω and ˙ x s.t. � ∀ i ˙ x ( i ) ≤ y ( i ) , there is an S ∈ C ∩ M s.t. � ∀ i ˙ x ( i ) ∈ S ( i ) . 2 -well-ordering of L ∩ ω ω to define a ∆ 1 • Use the ∆ 1 2 -well-ordering of L ∩ C . • Use that to define a ∆ 1 2 set A which explicitly violates ( � n → � m ) , where the m i grow faster then 2 i . This set is well-defined because of the Laver property. Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 17/3

  27. Diagram of implications Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 18/3

  28. Diagram of implications Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 18/3

  29. A model for ∆ 1 2 ( � n → � m ) Goal. Force a model in which ∆ 1 2 ( � ω → � m ) is true but ∆ 1 2 ( Ramsey ) is false. Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 19/3

  30. A model for ∆ 1 2 ( � n → � m ) Goal. Force a model in which ∆ 1 2 ( � ω → � m ) is true but ∆ 1 2 ( Ramsey ) is false. Stronger. Force a model in which ∆ 1 2 ( � n → � m ) is true but ∆ 1 2 ( Miller ) is false. Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 19/3

  31. Diagram of implications Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 20/3

  32. A model for ∆ 1 2 ( � n → � m ) Goal. Force a model in which ∆ 1 2 ( � ω → � m ) is true but ∆ 1 2 ( Ramsey ) is false. Stronger. Force a model in which ∆ 1 2 ( � n → � m ) is true but ∆ 1 2 ( Miller ) is false. Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 21/3

  33. A model for ∆ 1 2 ( � n → � m ) Goal. Force a model in which ∆ 1 2 ( � ω → � m ) is true but ∆ 1 2 ( Ramsey ) is false. Stronger. Force a model in which ∆ 1 2 ( � n → � m ) is true but ∆ 1 2 ( Miller ) is false. Which properties must such a forcing have? Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 21/3

  34. A model for ∆ 1 2 ( � n → � m ) Goal. Force a model in which ∆ 1 2 ( � ω → � m ) is true but ∆ 1 2 ( Ramsey ) is false. Stronger. Force a model in which ∆ 1 2 ( � n → � m ) is true but ∆ 1 2 ( Miller ) is false. Which properties must such a forcing have? 1. Proper and ω ω -bounding. for all ˙ x there is a y in the ground model and a p s.t. p � ∀ n ˙ x ( n ) ≤ y ( n ) . Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 21/3

  35. A model for ∆ 1 2 ( � n → � m ) Goal. Force a model in which ∆ 1 2 ( � ω → � m ) is true but ∆ 1 2 ( Ramsey ) is false. Stronger. Force a model in which ∆ 1 2 ( � n → � m ) is true but ∆ 1 2 ( Miller ) is false. Which properties must such a forcing have? 1. Proper and ω ω -bounding. for all ˙ x there is a y in the ground model and a p s.t. p � ∀ n ˙ x ( n ) ≤ y ( n ) . 2. If ∀ a there is a generic over L[ a ] , then ∆ 1 m ) holds. 2 ( � n → � Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 21/3

  36. Creature forcing Such a forcing notion exists! Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 22/3

  37. Creature forcing Such a forcing notion exists! Creature forcing, due to [Kellner-Shelah, 2009] and [Shelah-Zapletal, unpublished]. We shall refer to it as P KSZ . Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 22/3

  38. Creature forcing Such a forcing notion exists! Creature forcing, due to [Kellner-Shelah, 2009] and [Shelah-Zapletal, unpublished]. We shall refer to it as P KSZ . Construction of P KSZ : Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 22/3

  39. Creature forcing Such a forcing notion exists! Creature forcing, due to [Kellner-Shelah, 2009] and [Shelah-Zapletal, unpublished]. We shall refer to it as P KSZ . Construction of P KSZ : • At each n , a small ǫ n is given, and we construct a local partial order P n as follows: Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 22/3

  40. Creature forcing Such a forcing notion exists! Creature forcing, due to [Kellner-Shelah, 2009] and [Shelah-Zapletal, unpublished]. We shall refer to it as P KSZ . Construction of P KSZ : • At each n , a small ǫ n is given, and we construct a local partial order P n as follows: - Let F ( n ) ∈ ω be a ‘large’ upper bound. P n consists of ‘conditions’ or ‘creatures’ of the form ( c, k ) with c ⊆ F ( n ) and k ∈ ω such that log 2 ( | c | ) − k ≥ 1 Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 22/3

  41. Creature forcing Such a forcing notion exists! Creature forcing, due to [Kellner-Shelah, 2009] and [Shelah-Zapletal, unpublished]. We shall refer to it as P KSZ . Construction of P KSZ : • At each n , a small ǫ n is given, and we construct a local partial order P n as follows: - Let F ( n ) ∈ ω be a ‘large’ upper bound. P n consists of ‘conditions’ or ‘creatures’ of the form ( c, k ) with c ⊆ F ( n ) and k ∈ ω such that log 2 ( | c | ) − k ≥ 1 - ( c ′ , k ′ ) ≤ n ( c, k ) iff c ′ ⊆ c and k ′ ≥ k . Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 22/3

  42. Creature forcing Such a forcing notion exists! Creature forcing, due to [Kellner-Shelah, 2009] and [Shelah-Zapletal, unpublished]. We shall refer to it as P KSZ . Construction of P KSZ : • At each n , a small ǫ n is given, and we construct a local partial order P n as follows: - Let F ( n ) ∈ ω be a ‘large’ upper bound. P n consists of ‘conditions’ or ‘creatures’ of the form ( c, k ) with c ⊆ F ( n ) and k ∈ ω such that log 2 ( | c | ) − k ≥ 1 - ( c ′ , k ′ ) ≤ n ( c, k ) iff c ′ ⊆ c and k ′ ≥ k . • Let a n := 2 1 /ǫ n . For each ( c, k ) ∈ P n , norm n ( c, k ) := log a n (log 2 ( | c | ) − k ) Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 22/3

  43. Creature forcing Such a forcing notion exists! Creature forcing, due to [Kellner-Shelah, 2009] and [Shelah-Zapletal, unpublished]. We shall refer to it as P KSZ . Construction of P KSZ : • At each n , a small ǫ n is given, and we construct a local partial order P n as follows: - Let F ( n ) ∈ ω be a ‘large’ upper bound. P n consists of ‘conditions’ or ‘creatures’ of the form ( c, k ) with c ⊆ F ( n ) and k ∈ ω such that log 2 ( | c | ) − k ≥ 1 - ( c ′ , k ′ ) ≤ n ( c, k ) iff c ′ ⊆ c and k ′ ≥ k . • Let a n := 2 1 /ǫ n . For each ( c, k ) ∈ P n , norm n ( c, k ) := log a n (log 2 ( | c | ) − k ) • If F ( n ) is large enough, then ∃ ( c, k ) ∈ P n s.t. norm n ( c, k ) ≥ n . [To be precise: F ( n ) ≥ 2 ((2 1 /ǫn ) n ) ] Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 22/3

  44. Creature forcing Now let P KSZ consist of conditions p such that: Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 23/3

  45. Creature forcing Now let P KSZ consist of conditions p such that: • There is stem( p ) ∈ ω <ω , ∀ n ≥ | stem( p ) | : p ( n ) ∈ P n and norm n ( p ( n )) → ∞ . Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 23/3

  46. Creature forcing Now let P KSZ consist of conditions p such that: • There is stem( p ) ∈ ω <ω , ∀ n ≥ | stem( p ) | : p ( n ) ∈ P n and norm n ( p ( n )) → ∞ . • p ′ ≤ p iff - stem( p ′ ) ⊇ stem( p ) - For n with | stem( p ) | ≤ n < | stem( p ′ ) | we have p ′ ( n ) ∈ first coordinate of p ( n ) - For n ≥ | stem( p ′ ) | we have p ′ ( n ) ≤ n p ( n ) Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 23/3

  47. Creature forcing Now let P KSZ consist of conditions p such that: • There is stem( p ) ∈ ω <ω , ∀ n ≥ | stem( p ) | : p ( n ) ∈ P n and norm n ( p ( n )) → ∞ . • p ′ ≤ p iff - stem( p ′ ) ⊇ stem( p ) - For n with | stem( p ) | ≤ n < | stem( p ′ ) | we have p ′ ( n ) ∈ first coordinate of p ( n ) - For n ≥ | stem( p ′ ) | we have p ′ ( n ) ≤ n p ( n ) Remark: P KSZ adds a generic real, but the generic filter is not determined from the generic real in the usual way, and P KSZ is not in general representable as BOREL( ω ω ) /I for a σ -ideal I . Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 23/3

  48. Proper and ω ω -bounding Theorem. (Kellner-Shelah, Shelah-Zapletal) If P KSZ is as above, and moreover 1 ∀ n : ǫ n ≤ n · � j<n F ( j ) then P KSZ is proper and ω ω -bounding. Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 24/3

  49. Proper and ω ω -bounding Theorem. (Kellner-Shelah, Shelah-Zapletal) If P KSZ is as above, and moreover 1 ∀ n : ǫ n ≤ n · � j<n F ( j ) then P KSZ is proper and ω ω -bounding. The proof uses two properties from the general theory of creature forcings: for each n , P n satisfies “ ǫ n -bigness ” and “ ǫ n -halving ”. Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 24/3

  50. Forcing ∆ 1 2 ( � n → � m ) Theorem. (Brendle-Kh) If for every a there is a P KSZ -generic over L[ a ] then ∆ 1 2 ( � m → � n ) holds. Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 25/3

  51. Forcing ∆ 1 2 ( � n → � m ) Theorem. (Brendle-Kh) If for every a there is a P KSZ -generic over L[ a ] then ∆ 1 2 ( � m → � n ) holds. Proof • For p ∈ P KSZ let [ p ] := { x ∈ ω ω | stem( p ) ⊆ x and ∀ n ≥ | stem( p ) | : x ( n ) ∈ 1 st coordinate of p ( n ) } . Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 25/3

  52. Forcing ∆ 1 2 ( � n → � m ) Theorem. (Brendle-Kh) If for every a there is a P KSZ -generic over L[ a ] then ∆ 1 2 ( � m → � n ) holds. Proof • For p ∈ P KSZ let [ p ] := { x ∈ ω ω | stem( p ) ⊆ x and ∀ n ≥ | stem( p ) | : x ( n ) ∈ 1 st coordinate of p ( n ) } . • P KSZ satisfies pure decision : for every φ and p ∈ P KSZ there is q ≤ p with the same stem as p s.t. q � φ or q � ¬ φ . Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 25/3

  53. Forcing ∆ 1 2 ( � n → � m ) Theorem. (Brendle-Kh) If for every a there is a P KSZ -generic over L[ a ] then ∆ 1 2 ( � m → � n ) holds. Proof • For p ∈ P KSZ let [ p ] := { x ∈ ω ω | stem( p ) ⊆ x and ∀ n ≥ | stem( p ) | : x ( n ) ∈ 1 st coordinate of p ( n ) } . • P KSZ satisfies pure decision : for every φ and p ∈ P KSZ there is q ≤ p with the same stem as p s.t. q � φ or q � ¬ φ . • Let A ⊆ ω ω be a ∆ 1 2 ( a ) -set, defined by Σ 1 2 ( a ) formulas φ and ψ . By downward Π 1 3 -absoluteness, the sentence “ ∀ x ( φ ( x ) ↔ ¬ ψ ( x )) ” holds in all generic extensions of L[ a ] . Using this fact and pure decision, find a condition p in L[ a ] , with empty stem, s.t. p � φ ( ˙ x gen ) or p � ψ ( ˙ x gen ) . Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 25/3

  54. Forcing ∆ 1 2 ( � n → � m ) Theorem. (Brendle-Kh) If for every a there is a P KSZ -generic over L[ a ] then ∆ 1 2 ( � m → � n ) holds. Proof • For p ∈ P KSZ let [ p ] := { x ∈ ω ω | stem( p ) ⊆ x and ∀ n ≥ | stem( p ) | : x ( n ) ∈ 1 st coordinate of p ( n ) } . • P KSZ satisfies pure decision : for every φ and p ∈ P KSZ there is q ≤ p with the same stem as p s.t. q � φ or q � ¬ φ . • Let A ⊆ ω ω be a ∆ 1 2 ( a ) -set, defined by Σ 1 2 ( a ) formulas φ and ψ . By downward Π 1 3 -absoluteness, the sentence “ ∀ x ( φ ( x ) ↔ ¬ ψ ( x )) ” holds in all generic extensions of L[ a ] . Using this fact and pure decision, find a condition p in L[ a ] , with empty stem, s.t. p � φ ( ˙ x gen ) or p � ψ ( ˙ x gen ) . • W.l.o.g. assume the former, and work in L[ a ] from now on. Let M ≺ H θ be countable and q ≤ p a ( M, P KSZ ) -Master condition. By pure decision, q has empty stem as well. Moreover, every x ∈ [ q ] is M -generic and by standard absoluteness arguments [ q ] ⊆ A follows. Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 25/3

  55. Forcing ∆ 1 2 ( � n → � m ) Theorem. (Brendle-Kh) If for every a there is a P KSZ -generic over L[ a ] then ∆ 1 2 ( � m → � n ) holds. Proof • For p ∈ P KSZ let [ p ] := { x ∈ ω ω | stem( p ) ⊆ x and ∀ n ≥ | stem( p ) | : x ( n ) ∈ 1 st coordinate of p ( n ) } . • P KSZ satisfies pure decision : for every φ and p ∈ P KSZ there is q ≤ p with the same stem as p s.t. q � φ or q � ¬ φ . • Let A ⊆ ω ω be a ∆ 1 2 ( a ) -set, defined by Σ 1 2 ( a ) formulas φ and ψ . By downward Π 1 3 -absoluteness, the sentence “ ∀ x ( φ ( x ) ↔ ¬ ψ ( x )) ” holds in all generic extensions of L[ a ] . Using this fact and pure decision, find a condition p in L[ a ] , with empty stem, s.t. p � φ ( ˙ x gen ) or p � ψ ( ˙ x gen ) . • W.l.o.g. assume the former, and work in L[ a ] from now on. Let M ≺ H θ be countable and q ≤ p a ( M, P KSZ ) -Master condition. By pure decision, q has empty stem as well. Moreover, every x ∈ [ q ] is M -generic and by standard absoluteness arguments [ q ] ⊆ A follows. • Since q has empty stem, it witnesses that A satisfies ( � n → � m ) . Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 25/3

  56. Forcing ∆ 1 2 ( � n → � m ) Corollary. An ω 1 -iteration of P KSZ , starting from L , gives a model in which ∆ 1 m ) holds but ∆ 1 2 ( Miller ) fails. 2 ( � n → � Notice that the bounds “ � n ” have been explicitly computed beforehand: they are the F ( n ) ’s from the definition of P KSZ . Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 26/3

  57. Diagram of implications Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 27/3

  58. Other properties Definition. A real x ∈ [ ω ] ω is splitting over M if for all a ∈ [ ω ] ω ∩ M , both a ∩ x and a \ x are infinite. Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 28/3

  59. Other properties Definition. A real x ∈ [ ω ] ω is splitting over M if for all a ∈ [ ω ] ω ∩ M , both a ∩ x and a \ x are infinite. Theorem. (Shelah-Zapletal) P KSZ does not add splitting reals. Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 28/3

  60. Other properties Definition. A real x ∈ [ ω ] ω is splitting over M if for all a ∈ [ ω ] ω ∩ M , both a ∩ x and a \ x are infinite. Theorem. (Shelah-Zapletal) P KSZ does not add splitting reals. By another result of Zapletal, the conjunction “ ω ω -bounding and not adding splitting reals” is preserved in ω 1 -iterations, so: Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 28/3

  61. Diagram of implications Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 29/3

  62. Open questions for ∆ 1 2 Open questions 1. Is the implication ∆ 1 2 ( � ω → � m ) ⇒ ∃ ev. diff. reals strict? Conjecture: ∆ 1 2 ( � ω → � m ) fails in the Random model. Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 30/3

  63. Open questions for ∆ 1 2 Open questions 1. Is the implication ∆ 1 2 ( � ω → � m ) ⇒ ∃ ev. diff. reals strict? Conjecture: ∆ 1 2 ( � ω → � m ) fails in the Random model. 2. Is there a characterization of ∆ 1 2 ( � ω → � m ) and ∆ 1 2 ( � n → � m ) in terms of transcendence over L ? Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 30/3

  64. The property on the Σ 1 2 level Recall that for Ramsey, Sacks, Miller and Laver measurability, ∆ 1 2 and Σ 1 2 are equivalent. Question: Are ∆ 1 2 and Σ 1 2 equivalent for the polarized partition properties? Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 31/3

  65. What we do know Theorem. If Σ 1 2 ( � ω → � m ) then ∀ a ∃ H s.t. ∀ x ∈ [ H ] : x is eventually different over L[ a ] . Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 32/3

  66. What we do know Theorem. If Σ 1 2 ( � ω → � m ) then ∀ a ∃ H s.t. ∀ x ∈ [ H ] : x is eventually different over L[ a ] . Theorem. In the Mathias model, Σ 1 2 ( Ramsey ) holds while Σ 1 2 ( � n → � m ) fails. Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 32/3

  67. Diagram of implications Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 33/3

  68. Forcing Σ 1 2 ( � n → � m ) Can we extend the result about P KSZ to Σ 1 2 ? Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 34/3

  69. Forcing Σ 1 2 ( � n → � m ) Can we extend the result about P KSZ to Σ 1 2 ? Not a priori, since P KSZ only adds one generic real. Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 34/3

  70. Forcing Σ 1 2 ( � n → � m ) Can we extend the result about P KSZ to Σ 1 2 ? Not a priori, since P KSZ only adds one generic real. [DiPrisco & Todorˇ cevi´ c] use a forcing P DPT adding a whole generic product H G with the following property: For all Borel sets B in the ground model, ( ∗ ) B ∩ [ H G ] is relatively clopen in [ H G ] . Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 34/3

  71. Forcing Σ 1 2 ( � n → � m ) Theorem. (Brendle-Kh) An ω 1 -iteration of P DPT starting from L give a model where Σ 1 m ) holds. 2 ( � n → � Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 35/3

  72. Forcing Σ 1 2 ( � n → � m ) Theorem. (Brendle-Kh) An ω 1 -iteration of P DPT starting from L give a model where Σ 1 m ) holds. 2 ( � n → � Proof. • Let A be Σ 1 2 ( a ) . Using Shoenfield trees, we find a partition A = � α<ω 1 A α into Borel sets with codes in L[ a ] . Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 35/3

  73. Forcing Σ 1 2 ( � n → � m ) Theorem. (Brendle-Kh) An ω 1 -iteration of P DPT starting from L give a model where Σ 1 m ) holds. 2 ( � n → � Proof. • Let A be Σ 1 2 ( a ) . Using Shoenfield trees, we find a partition A = � α<ω 1 A α into Borel sets with codes in L[ a ] . • Since by the property ( ∗ ) of P DPT there is a product H in V s.t. every A α ∩ [ H ] is relatively clopen in [ H ] , by compactness A is a union of finitely many clopen sets (in [ H ] ) and so it is in fact Borel (in [ H ] ). Then it follows easily that A satisfies ( � n → � m ) . Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 35/3

  74. Forcing Σ 1 2 ( � n → � m ) Theorem. (Brendle-Kh) An ω 1 -iteration of P DPT starting from L give a model where Σ 1 m ) holds. 2 ( � n → � Proof. • Let A be Σ 1 2 ( a ) . Using Shoenfield trees, we find a partition A = � α<ω 1 A α into Borel sets with codes in L[ a ] . • Since by the property ( ∗ ) of P DPT there is a product H in V s.t. every A α ∩ [ H ] is relatively clopen in [ H ] , by compactness A is a union of finitely many clopen sets (in [ H ] ) and so it is in fact Borel (in [ H ] ). Then it follows easily that A satisfies ( � n → � m ) . Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 35/3

  75. Forcing Σ 1 2 ( � n → � m ) Only problem: it is difficult to see whether P DPT is ω ω -bounding. Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 36/3

  76. Forcing Σ 1 2 ( � n → � m ) Only problem: it is difficult to see whether P DPT is ω ω -bounding. So instead, we can combine elements of P DPT with P KSZ to produce a new forcing notion P which is still proper and ω ω -bounding (higher bounds but same idea) and moreover adds a product with the ( ∗ ) property. Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 36/3

  77. Forcing Σ 1 2 ( � n → � m ) Only problem: it is difficult to see whether P DPT is ω ω -bounding. So instead, we can combine elements of P DPT with P KSZ to produce a new forcing notion P which is still proper and ω ω -bounding (higher bounds but same idea) and moreover adds a product with the ( ∗ ) property. Corollary. There is a model where Σ 1 2 ( � n → � m ) holds but Σ 1 2 ( Miller ) fails. Polarized Partition Properties on the Second Level of theProjective Hierarchy. – p. 36/3

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend

Minimal k -partition for the p -norm of the eigenvalues V. Bonnaillie-No el DMA, CNRS, ENS

Minimal k -partition for the p -norm of the eigenvalues V. Bonnaillie-No el DMA, CNRS, ENS

Definition 2-partition Properties 3-partition k -partitions Conclusion Minimal k -partition for the p -norm of the eigenvalues V. Bonnaillie-No el DMA, CNRS, ENS Paris joint work with B. Bogosel, B. Helffer, C. L ena, G. Vial Calculus

527 views • 50 slides
Polarized Targets for EURISOL F. Marchal Institut de Physique Nuclaire, Orsay (France)

Polarized Targets for EURISOL F. Marchal Institut de Physique Nuclaire, Orsay (France)

Polarized Targets for EURISOL F. Marchal Institut de Physique Nuclaire, Orsay (France) Polarized Targets Physics case Technical solutions Unpolarized Targets why a polarized target ? efficient way to learn about spin-orbit properties in

474 views • 13 slides
Partition Properties for Non-Ordinal Sets Under the Axiom of Determinacy Jared Holshouser and

Partition Properties for Non-Ordinal Sets Under the Axiom of Determinacy Jared Holshouser and

Background J onsson Properties for R J onsson Properties for General Sets J onsson Properties for R / E 0 Partition Properties for Non-Ordinal Sets Under the Axiom of Determinacy Jared Holshouser and Stephen Jackson University of North

357 views • 34 slides
Po Polarized 3 He He Tar arget t Statu tus On Behalf of the JLab Polarized 3 He Target Group

Po Polarized 3 He He Tar arget t Statu tus On Behalf of the JLab Polarized 3 He Target Group

Po Polarized 3 He He Tar arget t Statu tus On Behalf of the JLab Polarized 3 He Target Group Junhao Chen The College of William &amp; Mary 1/28/2020 1 Why Polarized 3 He No free neutron target: life time too short ~ 880.2 s Pol. 3 He

255 views • 25 slides
From Polarized Targets to Polarized Ion Beams EIC Accelerator Collaboration Meeting 2019

From Polarized Targets to Polarized Ion Beams EIC Accelerator Collaboration Meeting 2019

From Polarized Targets to Polarized Ion Beams EIC Accelerator Collaboration Meeting 2019 Opportunities and challenges for EIC spin physics Whitney R. Armstrong October 11, 2019 Argonne National Laboratory 1 Polarized DIS with Longitudinal and

401 views • 21 slides
I. FAQ S Q. What is partition? Partition is a proceeding in equity to determine the way in

I. FAQ S Q. What is partition? Partition is a proceeding in equity to determine the way in

Partition Actions: Everything You Never Realized You Ought to Know About Them William J. Maffucci, J.D. Partition is a hoary proceeding. I say that mischievously, hoping that the phonetics will fool a few readers into thinking that the topic

306 views • 14 slides
medium energy hadron beam Yi Zhang Lanzhou University What do we learn from polarized experiment

medium energy hadron beam Yi Zhang Lanzhou University What do we learn from polarized experiment

Polarized experiment with medium energy hadron beam Yi Zhang Lanzhou University What do we learn from polarized experiment ? unpolarized polarized 2017/7/28 2 Outline Three-body Nuclear Force (TNF) in polarized scattering Polarized

867 views • 48 slides
Partition Properties for Non-Ordinal Sets Under the Axiom of Determinacy Jared Holshouser

Partition Properties for Non-Ordinal Sets Under the Axiom of Determinacy Jared Holshouser

Partition Properties for Non-Ordinal Sets Under the Axiom of Determinacy Jared Holshouser University of North Texas 2017 Joint Math Meetings Jared Holshouser University of North Texas Partition Properties for Non-Ordinal Sets Under the Axiom

368 views • 13 slides
IT1100 : Introduction to Operating Systems Chapter 15 What is a partition? A partition is just a

IT1100 : Introduction to Operating Systems Chapter 15 What is a partition? A partition is just a

IT1100 : Introduction to Operating Systems Chapter 15 What is a partition? A partition is just a logical division of your hard drive. This is done to put data in different locations for flexibility, scalability, ease of administration, and a

262 views • 7 slides
Information Information partition Player 's information partition is a collection of his

Information Information partition Player 's information partition is a collection of his

Information by Prof. Kyung Hwan Baik. Slides for chapter 7 of Games and Information Information partition Player 's information partition is a collection of his information sets i such that each path is represented by one node in

799 views • 43 slides
New materials for high- - New materials for high efficiency spin- -polarized polarized

New materials for high- - New materials for high efficiency spin- -polarized polarized

New materials for high- - New materials for high efficiency spin- -polarized polarized efficiency spin electron source electron source A. Janotti Metals and Ceramics Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN In Collaboration with S.-H.

690 views • 35 slides
Wire Scanners for the 100 keV Polarized Electron Beam Line at the S-DALINAC * Christian Eckardt

Wire Scanners for the 100 keV Polarized Electron Beam Line at the S-DALINAC * Christian Eckardt

Wire Scanners for the 100 keV Polarized Electron Beam Line at the S-DALINAC * Christian Eckardt DITANET 2011 Sevilla 09.11.2011 SFB 634 *Supported by DFG through SFB 634 Outline S-DALINAC Polarized Electrons Polarized Injector

479 views • 33 slides
Scanning Tunneling Microscopy (STM) and spin-polarized STM Part II - spin polarized STM Wulf

Scanning Tunneling Microscopy (STM) and spin-polarized STM Part II - spin polarized STM Wulf

Scanning Tunneling Microscopy (STM) and spin-polarized STM Part II - spin polarized STM Wulf Wulfhekel Max-Planck-Institut fr Mikrostrukturphysik, Weinberg 2, 06120 Halle, Germany Max-Planck-Institut fr Mikrostrukturphysik European School

393 views • 35 slides
photons off transversely polarized protons (g9b-FROST) Lelia Aneta Net Research

photons off transversely polarized protons (g9b-FROST) Lelia Aneta Net Research

Polarization observables in double charged pion photo-production with circularly polarized photons off transversely polarized protons (g9b-FROST) Lelia Aneta Net Research supported in parts by National Science Foundation NSF PHY-1505615

807 views • 43 slides
Drell-Yan Experiment with a Polarized Proton Target Kun Liu Los Alamos National Laboratory

Drell-Yan Experiment with a Polarized Proton Target Kun Liu Los Alamos National Laboratory

Drell-Yan Experiment with a Polarized Proton Target Kun Liu Los Alamos National Laboratory Opportunities for Polarized Physics at Fermilab, May 20-22, 2013 Transverse single-spin asymmetry ZGS 4.9 GeV AGS 6.6 GeV FNAL 20 GeV RHIC 62.4 GeV

443 views • 13 slides
GUID Partition Table (GPT) A Forensic Perspective Villanova University Department of

GUID Partition Table (GPT) A Forensic Perspective Villanova University Department of

GUID Partition Table (GPT) A Forensic Perspective Villanova University Department of Computing Sciences D. Justin Price Spring 2014 GPT Protective Partition Partition GPT Backup MBR Header Table Area Supports up to

235 views • 6 slides
2 nd semester Topic 51: Verb Patterns. Verb + to + verb Verb + verb + ing Verb +

2 nd semester Topic 51: Verb Patterns. Verb + to + verb Verb + verb + ing Verb +

2 nd semester Topic 51: Verb Patterns. Verb + to + verb Verb + verb + ing Verb + preposition + verb +ing Verb + object + verb Verbs with two patterns and different meanings Verb + to + verb: These verbs all use this pattern:

190 views • 7 slides
CHANGS CONJECTURE FOR TRIPLES REVISITED MASAHIRO SHIOYA UNIVERSITY OF TSUKUBA 1 2 Chang

CHANGS CONJECTURE FOR TRIPLES REVISITED MASAHIRO SHIOYA UNIVERSITY OF TSUKUBA 1 2 Chang

CHANGS CONJECTURE FOR TRIPLES REVISITED MASAHIRO SHIOYA UNIVERSITY OF TSUKUBA 1 2 Chang type conjectures for pairs Suppose N = ( N ; R, ) is a structure for a countable first-order language with a distinguished unary pred- icate

876 views • 33 slides
Two possible motivations: 2 / 23 Introduction Hypothesis Motivation Generic I0 Thesis

Two possible motivations: 2 / 23 Introduction Hypothesis Motivation Generic I0 Thesis

Introduction Hypothesis Motivation Generic I0 Thesis Motivation Generic I0 at Vincenzo Dimonte 25 March 2015 1 / 23 Introduction Hypothesis Motivation Generic I0 Thesis Motivation Two possible motivations: 2 / 23 Introduction

1.55k views • 105 slides
Combinatorial properties of singular cardinals Dima Sinapova University of Illinois at Chicago

Combinatorial properties of singular cardinals Dima Sinapova University of Illinois at Chicago

Combinatorial properties of singular cardinals Dima Sinapova University of Illinois at Chicago August 2013 Dima Sinapova University of Illinois at Chicago Combinatorial properties of singular cardinals Overview Singular cardinals Dima

1.91k views • 167 slides
Structural Ramsey Theory and the Extension Property for Partial Automorphisms Jan Hubi cka

Structural Ramsey Theory and the Extension Property for Partial Automorphisms Jan Hubi cka

Structural Ramsey Theory and the Extension Property for Partial Automorphisms Jan Hubi cka Department of Applied Mathematics Charles University Prague Charles University Prague, Oct 7 2020 Combinatorics Topological dynamics Model theory

559 views • 54 slides
Israel is Still a Kingdom of Priests Tabernacle Home for the Tablets Will Become Gods

Israel is Still a Kingdom of Priests Tabernacle Home for the Tablets Will Become Gods

Israel is Still a Kingdom of Priests Tabernacle Home for the Tablets Will Become Gods Dwelling Place High Priest Head of all the Priests Will Become Head of the Priesthood Covenant Conditions Exodus 20:1 24:11 Universal &amp; Eternal

185 views • 7 slides
Analysing texts with R (and writing a package to do so) Adam Obeng About me: Adam Obeng

Analysing texts with R (and writing a package to do so) Adam Obeng About me: Adam Obeng

Analysing texts with R (and writing a package to do so) Adam Obeng About me: Adam Obeng Computational Social Scientist (i.e. Data Scientist, Research Scientist, etc.) ABD PhD in Sociology at Columbia Jared taught me R adamobeng.com About me:

614 views • 44 slides
Density Ramsey Theory for trees Pandelis Dodos University of Athens Bertinoro, May 2011

Density Ramsey Theory for trees Pandelis Dodos University of Athens Bertinoro, May 2011

Density Ramsey Theory for trees Pandelis Dodos University of Athens Bertinoro, May 2011 Conventions/Definitions All trees in this talk will be uniquely rooted and finitely branching . A tree T will be called homogeneous if there exists

337 views • 10 slides

More recommend