A $\square(\kappa)$-like principle consistent with weak compactness

PDF   Bibtex

B. Cody, V. Gitman, and C. Lambie-Hanson, “A $\square(κ)$-like principle consistent with weak compactness,” Submitted.

In this paper, we introduce and investigate an incompactness principle we call $\square_1(\kappa)$, which is closely related to $\square(\kappa)$ but is consistent with weak compactness. Let us begin by recalling the basic facts about $\square(\kappa)$.

The principle $\square(\kappa)$ asserts that there is a $\kappa$-length coherent sequence of clubs $\vec{C}=\langle C_\alpha\mid\alpha\in\text{lim}(\kappa)\rangle$ that cannot be threaded. For an uncountable cardinal $\kappa$, a sequence $\vec{C}=\langle C_\alpha\mid\alpha\in\text{lim}(\kappa)\rangle$ of clubs $C_\alpha\subseteq\alpha$ is called coherent if whenever $\beta$ is a limit point of $C_\alpha$ we have $C_\beta=C_\alpha\cap\beta$. Given a coherent sequence $\vec{C}$, we say that $C$ is a thread through $\vec{C}$ if $C$ is a club subset of $\kappa$ and $C\cap\alpha=C_\alpha$ for every limit point $\alpha$ of $C$. A coherent sequence $\vec{C}$ is called a $\square(\kappa)$-sequence if it cannot be threaded, and $\square(\kappa)$ holds if there is a $\square(\kappa)$-sequence. It is easy to see that $\square(\kappa)$ implies that $\kappa$ is not weakly compact, and thus $\square(\kappa)$ can be viewed as asserting that $\kappa$ exhibits a certain amount of incompactness. The principle $\square(\kappa)$ was isolated by Todorčević [1], building on work of Jensen [2], who showed that, if $V = L$, then $\square(\kappa)$ holds for every regular uncountable $\kappa$ that is not weakly compact.

The natural ${\leq}\kappa$-strategically closed forcing to add a $\square(\kappa)$-sequence ([3], Lemma 35) preserves the inaccessibility as well as the Mahloness of $\kappa$, but kills the weak compactness of $\kappa$ and indeed adds a non-reflecting stationary set. However, if $\kappa$ is weakly compact, there is a forcing [4] which adds a $\square(\kappa)$-sequence and also preserves the fact that every stationary subset of $\kappa$ reflects. Thus, relative to the existence of a weakly compact cardinal, $\square(\kappa)$ is consistent with ${\rm Refl}(\kappa)$, the principle that every stationary set reflects. However, $\square(\kappa)$ implies the failure of the simultaneous stationary reflection principle ${\rm Refl}(\kappa,2)$ which states that if $S$ and $T$ are any two stationary subsets of $\kappa$, then there is some $\alpha<\kappa$ with ${\rm cf}(\alpha)>\omega$ such that $S\cap \alpha$ and $T\cap\alpha$ are both stationary in $\alpha$. In fact, $\square(\kappa)$ implies that every stationary subset of $\kappa$ can be partitioned into two stationary sets that do not simultaneously reflect ([4], Theorem 2.1).

If $\kappa$ is a weakly compact cardinal, then the collection of non-$\Pi^1_1$-indescribable subsets of $\kappa$ forms a natural normal ideal called the $\Pi^1_1$-indescribability ideal: $$\Pi^1_1(\kappa)=\{X\subseteq\kappa\mid \text{$X$ is not $\Pi^1_1$-indescribable}\}.$$ A set $S\subseteq\kappa$ is $\Pi^1_1$-indescribable if for every $A\subseteq V_\kappa$ and every $\Pi^1_1$-sentence $\varphi$, whenever $(V_\kappa,\in,A)\models\varphi$ there is an $\alpha\in S$ such that $(V_\alpha,\in,A\cap V_\alpha)\models\varphi$. More generally, a $\Pi^1_n$-indescribable cardinal $\kappa$ carries the analogously defined $\Pi^1_n$-indescribability ideal. It is natural to ask the question: which results concerning the nonstationary ideal can be generalized to the various ideals associated to large cardinals, such as the $\Pi^1_n$-indescribability ideals? The work of Sun [5] and Hellsten [6] showed that when $\kappa$ is $\Pi^1_n$-indescribable the collection of \emph{$n$-club} subsets of $\kappa$ is a filter-base for the filter $\Pi^1_n(\kappa)^*$ dual to the $\Pi^1_n$-indescribability ideal, yielding a characterization of $\Pi^1_n$-indescribable sets that resembles the definition of stationarity: when $\kappa$ is $\Pi^1_n$-indescribable, a set $S\subseteq\kappa$ is $\Pi^1_n$-indescribable if and only if $S\cap C\neq\emptyset$ for every $n$-club $C\subseteq\kappa$. Several recent results have used this characterization ([7], [8], [9] and [10]) to generalize theorems concerning the nonstationary ideal to the $\Pi^1_1$-indescribability ideal. For technical reasons, there has been less success with the $\Pi^1_n$-indescribability ideals for $n>1$. In this article we continue this line of research: by replacing "clubs" with "$1$-clubs" we obtain a $\square(\kappa)$-like principle $\square_1(\kappa)$ that is consistent with weak compactness but not with $\Pi^1_2$-indescribability.

We will see that the principle $\square_1(\kappa)$ holds trivially at weakly compact cardinals $\kappa$ below which stationary reflection fails. (This is analogous to the fact that $\square(\kappa)$ holds trivially for every $\kappa$ of cofinality $\omega_1$.) Thus, the task at hand is not just to show that $\square_1(\kappa)$ is consistent with the weak compactness of $\kappa$, but to show that it is consistent with the weak compactness of $\kappa$ even when stationary reflection holds at many cardinals below $\kappa$, so that nontrivial coherence of the sequence is obtained. Recall that when $\kappa$ is $\kappa^+$-weakly compact, the set of weakly compact cardinals below $\kappa$ is weakly compact and much more, so, in particular, the set of inaccessible $\alpha<\kappa$ at which stationary reflection holds is weakly compact.

Theorem: If $\kappa$ is $\kappa^+$-weakly compact and the ${\rm GCH}$ holds, then there is a cofinality-preserving forcing extension in which

We will also investigate the relationship between $\square_1(\kappa)$ and weakly compact reflection principles. The weakly compact reflection principle ${\rm Refl}_1(\kappa)$ states that $\kappa$ is weakly compact and for every weakly compact $S\subseteq \kappa$ there is an $\alpha<\kappa$ such that $S\cap\alpha$ is weakly compact. It is straightforward to see that if $\kappa$ is $\Pi^1_2$-indescribable, then ${\rm Refl}_1(\kappa)$ holds, and if ${\rm Refl}_1(\kappa)$ holds, then $\kappa$ is $\omega$-weakly compact (see [9]). However, the following results show that neither of these implications can be reversed. The first author [9] showed that if ${\rm Refl}_1(\kappa)$ holds then there is a forcing which adds a non-reflecting weakly compact subset of $\kappa$ and preserves the $\omega$-weak compactness of $\kappa$, hence the $\omega$-weak compactness of $\kappa$ does not imply ${\rm Refl}_1(\kappa)$. The first author and Hiroshi Sakai [10] showed that ${\rm Refl}_1(\kappa)$ can hold at the least $\omega$-weakly compact cardinal, and hence ${\rm Refl}_1(\kappa)$ does not imply the $\Pi^1_2$-indescribability of $\kappa$. Just as $\square(\kappa)$ and ${\rm Refl}(\kappa)$ can hold simultaneously relative to a weakly compact cardinal, we will prove that $\square_1(\kappa)$ and ${\rm Refl}_1(\kappa)$ can hold simultaneously relative to a $\Pi^1_2$-indescribable cardinal.

Theorem: Suppose that $\kappa$ is $\Pi^1_2$-indescribable and the ${\rm GCH}$ holds. Then there is a cofinality-preserving forcing extension in which

Using $n$-club subsets of $\kappa$, we formulate a generalization of $\square_1(\kappa)$ to higher degrees of indescribability. It is easily seen that $\square_n(\kappa)$ implies that $\kappa$ is not $\Pi^1_{n+1}$-indescribable. However, for technical reasons our methods do not seem to show that $\square_n(\kappa)$ can hold nontrivially when $\kappa$ is $\Pi^1_n$-indescribable. Our methods do allow for a generalization of Hellsten's $1$-club shooting forcing to $n$-club shooting, and we also show that, if $S$ is a $\Pi^1_n$-indescribable set, a $1$-club can be shot through $S$ while preserving the $\Pi^1_n$-indescribability of all $\Pi^1_n$-indescribable subsets of $S$. Finally, we consider the influence of $\square_n(\kappa)$ on \emph{simultaneous} reflection of $\Pi^1_n$-indescribable sets. We let ${\rm Refl}_n(\kappa,\mu)$ denote the following simultaneous reflection principle: $\kappa$ is $\Pi^1_n$-indescribable and whenever $\{S_\alpha\mid\alpha<\mu\}$ is a collection of $\Pi^1_n$-indescribable sets, there is a $\beta<\kappa$ such that $S_\alpha\cap\beta$ is $\Pi^1_n$-indescribable for all $\alpha < \mu$. We show that for $n\geq 1$, if $\square_n(\kappa)$ holds at a $\Pi^1_n$-indescribable cardinal, then the simultaneous reflection principle ${\rm Refl}_n(\kappa,2)$ fails. As a consequence, we show that relative to a $\Pi^1_2$-indescribable cardinal, it is consistent that ${\rm Refl}_1(\kappa)$ holds and ${\rm Refl}_1(\kappa,2)$ fails.

References

  1. S. Todorčević, “Partitioning pairs of countable ordinals,” Acta Math., vol. 159, no. 3-4, pp. 261–294, 1987. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02392561
  2. R. B. Jensen, “The fine structure of the constructible hierarchy,” Ann. Math. Logic, vol. 4, pp. 229–308; erratum, ibid. 4 (1972), 443, 1972. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0003-4843(72)90001-0
  3. C. Lambie-Hanson, “Squares and covering matrices,” Ann. Pure Appl. Logic, vol. 165, no. 2, pp. 673–694, 2014. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apal.2013.10.001
  4. Y. Hayut and C. Lambie-Hanson, “Simultaneous stationary reflection and square sequences,” J. Math. Log., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 1750010, 27, 2017. Available at: https://doi-org.proxy.library.vcu.edu/10.1142/S0219061317500106
  5. W. Z. Sun, “Stationary cardinals,” Arch. Math. Logic, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 429–442, 1993. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01270466
  6. A. Hellsten, “Diamonds on large cardinals,” Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. Diss., no. 134, p. 48, 2003.
  7. A. Hellsten, “Orders of indescribable sets,” Arch. Math. Logic, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 705–714, 2006. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00153-006-0015-1
  8. A. Hellsten, “Saturation of the weakly compact ideal,” Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., vol. 138, no. 9, pp. 3323–3334, 2010. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9939-2010-10399-4
  9. B. Cody, “Adding a non-reflecting weakly compact set,” Accepted at Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.04358
  10. B. Cody and H. Sakai, “The weakly compact reflection principle need not imply a high order of weak compactness,” Submitted. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.08506