In this note we answer the following question of Grinblat:
Is it consistent that for some set X, cov(NULL restriction X)=lambda is a weakly inaccessible cardinal (so X not null of course) while cov(meagre) is small, say it is aleph_1.
We prove the consistency of: for suitable strongly inaccessible cardinal lambda the dominating number, i.e. the cofinality of lambda^lambda is strictly bigger than cov(meagre_lambda), i.e. the minimal number of nowhere dense subsets of 2^lambda needed to cover it. This answers a question of Matet.
We prove the consistency of: for suitable strongly inaccessible cardinal lambda the dominating number, i.e., the cofinality of ^{lambda}lambda, is strictly bigger than cov_lambda(meagre), i.e. the minimal number of nowhere dense subsets of ^{lambda}2 needed to cover it. This answers a question of Matet.
It is well known to generalize the meagre ideal replacing aleph_0 by a (regular) cardinal lambda > aleph_0 and requiring the ideal to be lambda^+-complete. But can we generalize the null ideal? In terms of forcing, this means finding a forcing notion similar to the random real forcing, replacing aleph_0 by lambda, so requiring it to be (<lambda)-complete. Of course, we would welcome additional properties generalizing the ones of the random real forcing. Returning to the ideal (instead forcing) we may look at the Boolean Algebra of lambda-Borel sets modulo the ideal. Surprisingly we get an posi…
We give some sufficient and necessary conditions on a forcing notion Q for preserving the forcing notion ([omega]^{aleph_0},supseteq^*) is proper. They cover many reasonable forcing notions.
Assuming three strongly compact cardinals, it is consistent that \[ \aleph_1 < \mathrm{add}(\mathrm{null}) < \mathrm{cov}(\mathrm{null}) < \mathfrak{b} < \mathfrak{d} < \mathrm{non}(\mathrm{null}) < \mathrm{cof}(\mathrm{null}) < 2^{\aleph_0}.\] Under the same assumption, it is consistent that \[ \aleph_1 < \mathrm{add}(\mathrm{null}) < \mathrm{cov}(\mathrm{null}) < \mathrm{non}(\mathrm{meager}) < \mathrm{cov}(\mathrm{meager}) < \mathrm{non}(\mathrm{null}) < \mathrm{cof}(\mathrm{null}) < 2^{\aleph_0}.\]
We use a (countable support) creature construction to show that consistently \[ \mathfrak d=\aleph_1= \text{cov}(\text{NULL}) < \text{non}(\text{MEAGER}) < \text{non}(\text{NULL}) < \text{cof}(\text{NULL}) < 2^{\aleph_0}. \] The same method shows the consistency of \[ \mathfrak d=\aleph_1= \text{cov}(\text{NULL}) < \text{non}(\text{NULL}) < \text{non}(\text{MEAGER}) < \text{cof}(\text{NULL}) < 2^{\aleph_0}. \]
For $λ$ inaccessible, we may consider $(< λ)$-support iteration of some specific $(<λ)$-complete $λ^+$-c.c. forcing notion. But this fails a "preservation by restricting to a sub-sequence of the forcing, we "correct" the iteration to regain it. This is used in another paper in the consistency of $cov(meagre) < \mathfrak{d}_λ$.
Assuming four strongly compact cardinals, it is consistent that all entries in Cichoń's diagram are pairwise different, more specifically that \[ \aleph_1 < \mathrm{add}(\mathrm{null}) < \mathrm{cov}(\mathrm{null}) < \mathfrak{b} < \mathrm{non}(\mathrm{meager}) < \mathrm{cov}(\mathrm{meager}) < \mathfrak{d} < \mathrm{non}(\mathrm{null}) < \mathrm{cof}(\mathrm{null}) < 2^{\aleph_0}.\]
We continue the investigations in the author's book on cardinal arithmetic, assuming some knowledge of it. We deal with the cofinality of (S_{<= aleph_0}(kappa), subseteq) for kappa real valued measurable (Section 3), densities of box products (Section 5,3), prove the equality cov(lambda, lambda, theta^+,2)=pp(lambda) in more cases even when cf(lambda)= aleph_0 (Section 1), deal with bounds of pp(lambda) for lambda limit of inaccessible (Section 4) and give proofs to various claims I was sure I had already written but did not find (Section 6).
Our theme is that not every interesting question in set theory is independent of $ZFC$. We give an example of a first order theory $T$ with countable $D(T)$ which cannot have a universal model at $\aleph_1$ without CH; we prove in $ZFC$ a covering theorem from the hypothesis of the existence of a universal model for some theory; and we prove --- again in ZFC --- that for a large class of cardinals there is no universal linear order (e.g. in every $\aleph_1<ł<2^{\aleph_0}$). In fact, what we show is that if there is a universal linear order at a regular $ł$ and its existence is not a result of …
We investigate pseudopowers of singular cardinals, and show that deduce some consequences for cardinal arithmetic. For example, we show that in {\sf ZFC} that $$\cov(μ,μ,θ,σ)=\cov(μ,μ,(\cfμ)^+,σ)+\cov(μ,μ,θ,σ^+)$$ whenever $\aleph_1\leqσ=\cf(σ)<\cf(μ)<θ<μ$, and use recent work of Gitik to show that both summands in the equation are required.
We consider mainly the following version of set theory:"ZF + DC and for every $λ,λ^{\aleph_0}$ is well ordered", our thesis is that this is a reasonable set theory, e.g. much can be said. In particular, we prove that for a sequence $\barδ= \langle δ_s:s \in Y\rangle,\textrm{cf}(δ_s)$ large enough compared to $Y$, we can prove the pcf theorem with minor changes (using true cofinalities not the pseudo one). We then deduce the existence of covering numbers and define and prove existence of truly successor cardinals. From this we show that some diagonalization arguments (more specifically some bla…
Contents of this issue: Workshops on SPM themes; Second workshop on Coverings, Selections and Games in Topology (SPM05); Analysis and Descriptive Set Theory Workshop; Descriptive set theory: Effective methods, equivalence relations; Analysis: typical functions, level sets structure; Organizational and additional details; Research announcements; Cardinal restrictions on some homogeneous compacta; Filters: Topological congruence relations on groups; Inverse Limits and Function Algebras; Ultrafilters and partial products of infinite cyclic groups; More on regular reduced products; Consistency of …