Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-xq9c7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-01T06:55:35.649Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Regressive partitions and Borel diagonalization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Akihiro Kanamori*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 02215

Extract

Several rather concrete propositions about Borel measurable functions of several variables on the Hilbert cube (countable sequences of reals in the unit interval) were formulated by Harvey Friedman [F1] and correlated with strong set-theoretic hypotheses. Most notably, he established that a “Borel diagonalization” proposition P is equivalent to: for any aco and nω there is an ω-model of ZFC + ∃κ(κ is n-Mahlo) containing a. In later work (see the expository Stanley [St] and Friedman [F2]), Friedman was to carry his investigations further into propositions about spaces of groups and the like, and finite propositions. He discovered and analyzed mathematical propositions which turned out to have remarkably strong consistency strength in terms of large cardinal hypotheses in set theory.

In this paper, we refine and extend Friedman's work on the Borel diagonalization proposition P. First, we provide more combinatorics about regressive partitions and n-Mahlo cardinals and extend the approach to the context of the Erdös cardinals In passing, a combinatorial proof of a well-known result of Silver about these cardinals is given. Incorporating this work and sharpening Friedman's proof, we then show that there is a level-by-level analysis of P which provides for each n ⊆ ω a proposition almost equivalent to: for any a ⊆ co there is an ω-model of ZFC + ∃κ(κ is n-Mahlo) containing a. Finally, we use the combinatorics to bracket a natural generalization Sω of P between two large cardinal hypotheses.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1989

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

[B]Baumgartner, J., Ineffability properties of cardinals. II, Logic, foundations of mathematics and computability theory (Butts, R. E. and Hintikka, J., editors), Reidel, Dordrecht, 1977, pp. 87106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[F1]Friedman, H., On the necessary use of abstract set theory, Advances in Mathematics, vol. 41 (1981), pp. 209280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[F2]Friedman, H., Necessary uses of abstract set theory in finite mathematics, Advances in Mathematics, vol. 60 (1986), pp. 92122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[HKS]Hajnal, A., Kanamori, A., and Shelah, S., Regressive partition relations for infinite cardinals, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 299 (1987), pp. 145154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[KM]Kanamori, A. and McAloon, K., On Gödel incompleteness and finite combinatorics, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 33 (1987), pp. 2341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Sc]Schmerl, J., A partition property characterizing cardinals hyperinaccessible of finite type, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 188 (1974), pp. 281291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Si1]Silver, J., Some applications of model theory in set theory, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 3 (1971), pp. 45110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Si2]Silver, J., A large cardinal in the constructive universe, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 69 (1970), pp. 93100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[St]Stanley, L., Borel diagonalization and abstract set theory, Harvey Friedman 's research on the foundations of mathematics (Harrington, L.et al., editors), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1985, pp. 1186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar