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.

In set theory, definitely the notion of a Woodin cardinal. First, it is not an entirely straightforward notion to guess. Significant large cardinals were up to that point defined as critical points of certain elementary embeddings. This is not the case here: Woodin cardinals need not be measurable. If $\kappa$ is Woodin, then $V_\kappa$ is a model of set the […]

The first example that came to mind was MR0270881 (42 #5764) van der Waerden, B. L. How the proof of Baudet's conjecture was found. 1971 Studies in Pure Mathematics (Presented to Richard Rado) pp. 251–260 Academic Press, London. There, van der Waerden describes some of the history as well as his proof of his well-known theorem. Another example: MR224589 […]

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 claim is not true. An easy counterexample is obtained by letting $f$ be identically 0 and $g$ be the characteristic function of the rationals. We have $f=g$ a.e., $f$ is everywhere continuous and $g$ is nowhere continuous. (Clearly, the restriction of $g$ to the irrationals is continuous (being constant), but this is not enough to ensure that $g$ is cont […]

You should really stop writing soups of symbols and just describe in words what you are doing. It saves a coding headache on your side and a decoding headache on the reader's. Anyway, the formula seems to say that if for every ordinal there is a larger cardinal with property $\psi$, then there is a bijection between the class of ordinals and that of car […]

Your idea is sound, but it requires more work. As pointed out, you have only described so far a very small subcollection of the Borel sets. Instead, show that you can associate to each Borel set a code that keeps track of the "history" of its construction starting from basic open sets, and then count the number of such codes. There is a lot of leew […]

Yes, the minimal such model is $L[0^\sharp]$. This model can be built by stages, just as $L$, starting with the empty set, taking unions at limit stages, and at each successor stage $\alpha+1$ taking the collection of subsets of $L_\alpha[0^\sharp]$ definable in $(L_\alpha[0^\sharp],\in,0^\sharp)$ from parameters. Here, $0^\sharp$ can be thought of as a set […]

There are several issues here. An obvious one is that there are only so many proofs and many more ordinals, so there are ordinals that we cannot even refer to within the theory, so of course the theory cannot prove anything about them. This is somewhat subtle, as there are models of set theory that are pointwise definable, so that any $x$ in the model is def […]