The 15th SLALM (Latin American Symposium in Mathematical Logic) was held in Bogotá, June 4-8, 2012. There were also three tutorials preceding the main event, on May 30-June 2. I give one of the tutorials, on Determinacy and Inner model theory, 10:40-12 each day, at the Universidad Nacional. Here is the abstract:

Since the invention of forcing, we know of many statements that are independent of the usual axioms of set theory, and even more that we know are consistent with the axioms (but we do not yet know whether they are actually provable).

These proofs of consistency typically make use of large cardinal assumptions. Inner model theory is the most powerful technique we have developed to analyze the structure of large cardinals. It also allows us to show that the use of large cardinals is in many cases indispensable. For years, the main tool in the development of this area was fine structure theory.

Determinacy (in suitable inner models) is a consequence of large cardinals, and recent work has revealed deep interconnections between determinacy assumptions and the existence of inner models with large cardinals, thus showing that descriptive set theory is also a key tool.

The development of these connections started in earnest with Woodin’s core model induction technique, and has led to what we now call Descriptive inner model theory.

The goal of the mini-course is to give a rough overview of these developments.

I have written a set of notes based on these talks, and will be making it available soon.

In addition, I gave one of the invited talks during the set theory session: Forcing with over models of strong versions of determinacy. Here is the abstract:

Hugh Woodin introduced , a definable poset, and showed that, when forcing with it over (in the presence of determinacy), one recovers choice, and obtains a model of many combinatorial assertions for which simultaneous consistency was not known by traditional forcing techniques. can be applied to larger models of determinacy. As part of joint work with Larson, Sargsyan, Schindler, Steel, and Zeman, we show how this allows us to calibrate the strength of different square principles.

This is of course related to the paper I discussed recently.

43.614000-116.202000

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on Monday, May 21st, 2012 at 3:30 pm and is filed under Conferences. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

The key reference for this is MR0799042 (87d:03141). Henle, J. M.; Mathias, A. R. D.; Woodin, W. Hugh. A barren extension. In Methods in mathematical logic (Caracas, 1983), C. A. Di Prisco, editor, 195–207, Lecture Notes in Math., 1130, Springer, Berlin, 1985. There, Henle, Mathias, and Woodin start with $L(\mathbb R)$ under the assumption of determinacy (an […]

This is consistent, at least under a rather tame large cardinal assumption. (One can also produce examples by manipulating Dedekind finite sets, but Asaf's answer addresses this. The answer here works even in the context of $\mathsf{DC}$.) For instance, see MR3612001. Conley, Clinton T.; Miller, Benjamin D. Measure reducibility of countable Borel equiva […]

The only reference I know for precisely these matters is the handbook chapter MR2768702. Koellner, Peter; Woodin, W. Hugh. Large cardinals from determinacy. In Handbook of set theory. Vols. 1, 2, 3, 1951–2119, Springer, Dordrecht, 2010. (Particularly, section 7.) For closely related topics, see also the work of Yong Cheng (and of Cheng and Schindler) on Harr […]

As other answers point out, yes, one needs choice. The popular/natural examples of models of ZF+DC where all sets of reals are measurable are models of determinacy, and Solovay's model. They are related in deep ways, actually, through large cardinals. (Under enough large cardinals, $L({\mathbb R})$ of $V$ is a model of determinacy and (something stronge […]

Surprisingly, the answer is no due to serious set-theoretic restrictions. If $X$ is an infinite set such that there is a ($\sigma$-additive) measure on $\mathcal P(X)$ that only takes the values 0 and 1, assigns 1 to $X$ and 0 to singletons, then the cardinality $\kappa=|X|$ of $X$ is much much larger than $\mathfrak c=|\mathbb R|$, the cardinality of the se […]

No, you cannot show this. For instance, it is consistent to have infinite Dedekind-finite sets whose power set is still Dedekind-finite. Now, if there is a surjection from $A$ to $\omega$, then there is an injection from $\omega$ (indeed, from $\mathcal P(\omega)$) to $\mathcal P(A)$, so $\mathcal P(A)$ is Dedekind-infinite. Thus, if $\mathcal P(X)$ is infin […]

First, there are some nice examples like $$ e=\sum_{n\ge0}\frac1{n!} $$ or Liouville-like numbers, mentioned in the answers by Wilem2, that can be easily proved to be irrational using the theorem, but for which typically there are simpler irrationality proofs: For $e$, we quickly get that $$0

Note first that if $C$ is uncountable and for each $i\in C$ we have a real number $r_i>0$, then $\sum_i r_i=+\infty$. The point is that for some $n>0$, the family $\{i\in C: r_i>1/n\}$ is uncountable. Of course, in this case there is a countable subfamily whose sum is infinite as well. Now, let $A$ be measurable of infinite measure. If there is an u […]

The theorem says that to prove an implication it is enough to assume the hypothesis and proceed to prove the conclusion. Proofs of that kind tend to be more natural than proofs that conclude the implication directly. Just as in regular mathematical practice: many theorems have the form "Assuming $A$, then we have $B$", and we usually prove them by […]