In this paper we build an Asperó–Mota iteration of length $\omega _2$ that adds a family of $\aleph _2$ many club subsets of $\omega _1$ which cannot be diagonalized while preserving $\aleph _2$. This result discloses a technical limitation of some types of Asperó–Mota iterations.

A diagonal version of the strong reflection principle is introduced, along with fragments of this principle associated with arbitrary forcing classes. The relationships between the resulting principles and related principles, such as the corresponding forcing axioms and the corresponding fragments of the strong reflection principle, are analyzed, and consequences are presented. Some of these consequences are “exact” versions of diagonal stationary reflection principles of sets of ordinals. We also separate some of these diagonal strong reflection principles from related axioms.

In this paper we study some statements similar to the Partition Principle and the Trichotomy. We prove some relationships between these statements, the Axiom of Choice, and the Generalized Continuum Hypothesis. We also prove some independence results. MSC: 03E25, 03E50, 04A25, 04A50.

Generalizing the notion of a tight almost disjoint family, we introduce the notions of a tight eventually different family of functions in Baire space and a tight eventually different set of permutations of $\omega $. Such sets strengthen maximality, exist under $\mathsf {MA} (\sigma \mathrm {-centered})$ and come with a properness preservation theorem. The notion of tightness also generalizes earlier work on the forcing indestructibility of maximality of families of functions. As a result we compute the cardinals $\mathfrak {a}_e$ and (...) $\mathfrak {a}_p$ in many known models by giving explicit witnesses and therefore obtain the consistency of several constellations of cardinal characteristics of the continuum including $\mathfrak {a}_e = \mathfrak {a}_p = \mathfrak {d} < \mathfrak {a}_T$, $\mathfrak {a}_e = \mathfrak {a}_p < \mathfrak {d} = \mathfrak {a}_T$, $\mathfrak {a}_e = \mathfrak {a}_p =\mathfrak {i} < \mathfrak {u}$, and $\mathfrak {a}_e=\mathfrak {a}_p = \mathfrak {a} < non(\mathcal N) = cof(\mathcal N)$. We also show that there are $\Pi ^1_1$ tight eventually different families and tight eventually different sets of permutations in L thus obtaining the above inequalities alongside $\Pi ^1_1$ witnesses for $\mathfrak {a}_e = \mathfrak {a}_p = \aleph _1$.Moreover, we prove that tight eventually different families are Cohen indestructible and are never analytic. (shrink)

This paper reconstructs Steel’s multiverse project in his ‘Gödel’s program’ (Steel [2014]), first by comparing it to those of Hamkins [2012] and Woodin [2011], then by detailed analysis what’s presented in Steel’s brief text. In particular, we reconstruct his notion of a ‘natural’ theory, describe his multiverse axioms and his translation function, and assess the resulting status of the Continuum Hypothesis. In the end, we reconceptualize the defect that Steel thinks CH might suffer from and isolate what it would take (...) to remove it while working within his framework. As our goal is to present as coherent and compelling a philosophical and mathematical story as we can, we allow ourselves to augment Steel’s story in places (e.g., in the treatment of Amalgamation) and to depart from it in others (e.g., the removal of ‘meaning’ from the account). The relevant mathematics is laid out in the appendices. (shrink)

We present recent results on the model companions of set theory, placing them in the context of a current debate in the philosophy of mathematics. We start by describing the dependence of the notion of model companionship on the signature, and then we analyze this dependence in the specific case of set theory. We argue that the most natural model companions of set theory describe (as the signature in which we axiomatize set theory varies) theories of $H_{\kappa ^+}$, as $\kappa (...) $ ranges among the infinite cardinals. We also single out $2^{\aleph _0}=\aleph _2$ as the unique solution of the continuum problem which can (and does) belong to some model companion of set theory (enriched with large cardinal axioms). While doing so we bring to light that set theory enriched by large cardinal axioms in the range of supercompactness has as its model companion (with respect to its first order axiomatization in certain natural signatures) the theory of $H_{\aleph _2}$ as given by a strong form of Woodin’s axiom $(*)$ (which holds assuming $\mathsf {MM}^{++}$ ). Finally this model-theoretic approach to set-theoretic validities is explained and justified in terms of a form of maximality inspired by Hilbert’s axiom of completeness. (shrink)

A strong coloring on a cardinal$\kappa $is a function$f:[\kappa ]^2\to \kappa $such that for every$A\subseteq \kappa $of full size$\kappa $, every color$\unicode{x3b3} <\kappa $is attained by$f\restriction [A]^2$. The symbol$$\begin{align*} \kappa\nrightarrow[\kappa]^2_{\kappa} \end{align*}$$asserts the existence of a strong coloring on$\kappa $.We introduce the symbol$$\begin{align*} \kappa\nrightarrow_p[\kappa]^2_{\kappa} \end{align*}$$which asserts the existence of a coloring$f:[\kappa ]^2\to \kappa $which isstrong over a partition$p:[\kappa ]^2\to \theta $. A coloringfis strong overpif for every$A\in [\kappa ]^{\kappa }$there is$i<\theta $so that for every color$\unicode{x3b3} <\kappa $is (...) attained by$f\restriction ([A]^2\cap p^{-1}(i))$.We prove that whenever$\kappa \nrightarrow [\kappa ]^2_{\kappa }$holds, also$\kappa \nrightarrow _p[\kappa ]^2_{\kappa }$holds for an arbitrary finite partitionp. Similarly, arbitrary finitep-s can be added to stronger symbols which hold in any model of ZFC. If$\kappa ^{\theta }=\kappa $, then$\kappa \nrightarrow _p[\kappa ]^2_{\kappa }$and stronger symbols, like$\operatorname {Pr}_1(\kappa,\kappa,\kappa,\chi )_p$or$\operatorname {Pr}_0(\kappa,\kappa,\kappa,\aleph _0)_p$, also hold for an arbitrary partitionpto$\theta $parts.The symbols$$\begin{gather*} \aleph_1\nrightarrow_p[\aleph_1]^2_{\aleph_1},\;\;\; \aleph_1\nrightarrow_p[\aleph_1\circledast \aleph_1]^2_{\aleph_1},\;\;\; \aleph_0\circledast\aleph_1\nrightarrow_p[1\circledast\aleph_1]^2_{\aleph_1}, \\ \operatorname{Pr}_1(\aleph_1,\aleph_1,\aleph_1,\aleph_0)_p,\;\;\;\text{ and } \;\;\; \operatorname{Pr}_0(\aleph_1,\aleph_1,\aleph_1,\aleph_0)_p \end{gather*}$$hold for an arbitrary countable partitionpunder the Continuum Hypothesis and are independent over ZFC$+ \neg $CH. (shrink)

In $\mathsf {ZF}$ (i.e., Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory minus the axiom of choice ( $\mathsf {AC}$ )), we investigate the open problem of the deductive strength of the principle UFwob(ω): “There exists a free ultrafilter on ω with a well-orderable base”, which was introduced by Herzberg, Kanovei, Katz, and Lyubetsky [(2018), Journal of Symbolic Logic, 83(1), 385–391]. Typical results are: (1) “ $\aleph _{1}\leq 2^{\aleph _{0}}$ ” is strictly weaker than $\mathsf {UF_{wob}}(\omega )$ in $\mathsf {ZF}$. (2) “There exists a free (...) ultrafilter on $\omega $ ” does not imply “ $\aleph _{1}\leq 2^{\aleph _{0}}$ ” in $\mathsf {ZF}$, and thus (by (1)) neither does it imply $\mathsf {UF_{wob}}(\omega )$ in $\mathsf {ZF}$. This fills the gap in information in Howard and Rubin [Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, American Mathematical Society, 1998], as well as in Herzberg et al. (2018). (3) Martin’s Axiom ( $\mathsf {MA}$ ) implies “no free ultrafilter on $\omega $ has a well-orderable base of cardinality $<2^{\aleph _{0}}$ ”, and the latter principle is not implied by $\aleph _{0}$ -Martin’s Axiom ( $\mathsf {MA}(\aleph _{0})$ ) in $\mathsf {ZF}$. (4) $\mathsf {MA} + \mathsf {UF_{wob}}(\omega )$ implies $\mathsf {AC}(\mathbb {R})$ (the axiom of choice for non-empty sets of reals), which in turn implies $\mathsf {UF_{wob}}(\omega )$. Furthermore, $\mathsf {MA}$ and $\mathsf {UF_{wob}}(\omega )$ are mutually independent in $\mathsf {ZF}$. (5) For any infinite linearly orderable set X, each of “every filter base on X can be well ordered” and “every filter on X has a well-orderable base” is equivalent to “ $\wp (X)$ can be well ordered”. This yields novel characterizations of the principle “every linearly ordered set can be well ordered” in $\mathsf {ZFA}$ (i.e., Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with atoms), and of $\mathsf {AC}$ in $\mathsf {ZF}$. (6) “Every filter on $\mathbb {R}$ has a well-orderable base” implies “every filter on $\omega $ has a well-orderable base”, which in turn implies $\mathsf {UF_{wob}}(\omega )$, and none of these implications are reversible in $\mathsf {ZF}$. (7) “Every filter on $\omega $ can be extended to an ultrafilter with a well-orderable base” is equivalent to $\mathsf {AC}(\mathbb {R}),$ and thus is strictly stronger than $\mathsf {UF_{wob}}(\omega )$ in $\mathsf {ZF}$. (8) “Every filter on $\omega $ can be extended to an ultrafilter” implies “there exists a free ultrafilter on $\omega $ which has no well-orderable base of cardinality ${<2^{\aleph _{0}}}$ ”. The former principle does not imply “there exists a free ultrafilter on $\omega $ which has no well-orderable base” in $\mathsf {ZF}$, and the latter principle is true in the Basic Cohen Model. (shrink)

We show that MAκ implies that each collection of Pc-points of size at most κ which has a Pc-point as an RK upper bound also has a Pc-point as an RK lower bound.

We investigate the mathematics of a model of the human mind which has been proposed by the psychologist Jens Mammen. Mathematical realizations of this model consists of what the first author (A.T.) has called Mammen spaces, where a Mammen space is a triple in the Baumgartner–Laver model.Finally, consequences for psychology are discussed.

We generalize the combinatorial principles Cn(κ), Cns(κ), and Princ(κ) introduced by various authors, and prove some of their properties and connections between them. We also answer a question asked by Juhász and Kunen about the relation between these principles, by showing that Cn(κ) does not imply Cn+1(κ) for any n>2. We also show the consistency of C(κ)+¬Cs(κ).

We prove various iteration theorems for forcing classes related to subproper and subcomplete forcing, introduced by Jensen. In the first part, we use revised countable support iterations, and show that 1) the class of subproper, ${}^\omega \omega $ -bounding forcing notions, 2) the class of subproper, T-preserving forcing notions (where T is a fixed Souslin tree) and 3) the class of subproper, $[T]$ -preserving forcing notions (where T is an $\omega _1$ -tree) are iterable with revised countable support. In the (...) second part, we adopt Miyamoto’s theory of nice iterations, rather than revised countable support. We show that this approach allows us to drop a technical condition in the definitions of subcompleteness and subproperness, still resulting in forcing classes that are iterable in this way, preserve $\omega _1$, and, in the case of subcompleteness, don’t add reals. Further, we show that the analogs of the iteration theorems proved in the first part for RCS iterations hold for nice iterations as well. (shrink)