×

Bounds on the strength of ordinal definable determinacy in small admissible sets. (English) Zbl 1269.03052

The author presents upper and lower bounds on the large-cardinal strength of a statement, denoted by Det\((*)\), which asserts that a certain admissible set believes that every ordinal-definable class of reals is determined. Before defining Det\((*)\), we introduce some notation. For any real \(x\in{^\omega}\omega\), let \(M_x=L_\alpha[x]\), where \(\alpha\) is the least ordinal so that \(L_\alpha[x]\) is admissible and \(x\in L_\alpha[x]\). Let \(\varphi(v)\) be a first-order formula, in the language of set theory, in which ordinal parameters in \(M_x\) are allowed to appear. Define the set of reals \(X_{\varphi}=\{y\in M_x\cap {^\omega}\omega : M_x\models \varphi(y)\}\). Observe that \(X_\varphi\) is a class in \(M_x\). Now let \(M_x\models \text{Det(OD)}\) represent the sentence: For every such formula \(\varphi\) we have that \(M_x\models\) “\(X_\varphi\) is determined”. Finally, define Det\((*)\) to be the assertion \((\exists x\in {^\omega}\omega) (M_x\models \text{Det(OD)})\).
The author identifies a large-cardinal assumption LC\((*)\), which is just below that of “the existence of a premouse-like structure with a measurable cardinal \(\kappa\) of Mitchell order \(\kappa^{++}\) and \(\omega\) successors”, and then proves that LC\((*)\) implies Det\((*)\). Thus, LC\((*)\) is an upper bound for Det\((*)\).
A. Lewis has previously shown that Det\((*)\) implies the existence of a countable model of ZFC with \(\lambda\)-many measurable cardinals (with \(\lambda\) recursive). The author improves this lower bound by showing that Det\((*)\) implies the existence of a ZFC model with stronger sequences of measures.

MSC:

03E45 Inner models, including constructibility, ordinal definability, and core models
03E55 Large cardinals
03E60 Determinacy principles
PDFBibTeX XMLCite
Full Text: DOI Euclid

References:

[1] Barwise, K. J., R. O. Gandy, and Y. N. Moschovakis, “The next admissible set,” Journal of Symbolic Logic , vol. 36 (1971), pp. 108-120. · Zbl 0236.02033
[2] Barwise, K. J. Admissible Sets and Structures , Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1975. · Zbl 0316.02047
[3] Devlin, K. J., Constructibility , Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984.
[4] Harrington, L., “Analytic determinacy and \(0^{\#}\),” Journal of Symbolic Logic , vol. 43 (1978), pp. 685-693. · Zbl 0398.03039
[5] Kechris, A. S., and R. M. Solovay, “On the relative consistency strength of determinacy hypothesis,” Transactions of the American Mathematical Society , vol. 290 (1985), pp. 179-211. · Zbl 0586.03045
[6] Keisler, H. J., and Knight, F., “Barwise: Infinitary logic and admissible sets,” Bulletin of Symbolic Logic , vol. 10 (2004), pp. 4-36. · Zbl 1080.03026
[7] Lewis, A., “Large Dilatators and Large Cardinals; and Determinacy in Small Admissible Sets,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1993.
[8] Martin, D. A., “Measurable cardinals and analytic games,” Fundamenta Mathematicae , vol. 66 (1970), pp. 287-291. · Zbl 0216.01401
[9] Martin, D. A., and J. R. Steel, “A proof of projective determinacy,” Journal of the American Mathematical Society , vol. 2 (1989), pp. 71-125. · Zbl 0668.03021
[10] Mitchell, W. J., “Sets constructible from sequences of ultrafilters,” Journal of Symbolic Logic , vol. 39 (1974), pp. 57-66. · Zbl 0295.02040
[11] Neeman, I., “Unraveling \(\Pi_{1}^{1}\) sets,” Annals of Pure and Applied Logic , vol. 106 (2000), pp. 151-205. · Zbl 0979.03040
[12] Sacks, G. E., “Countable admissible ordinals and hyperdegrees,” Advances in Mathematics , vol. 20 (1976), pp. 213-262. · Zbl 0439.03027
[13] Soare, R. I., Recursively Enumerable Sets and Degrees: A Study of Computable Functions and Computably Generated Sets , Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987. · Zbl 0667.03030
[14] Steel, J. R., “Determinacy in the Mitchell models,” Annals of Mathematical Logic , vol. 22 (1982), pp. 109-125. · Zbl 0573.03026
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.