MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

An ideal on $\omega_1$ is strong if it is precipitous and the associated generic elementary embedding always maps $\omega_1$ to $\omega_2$. This definition is from Baumgartner and Taylor, Saturation Properties of Ideals in Generic Extensions II (available online at Every pre-saturated ideal on $\omega_1$ is strong (this was well-known even before the terminology was introduced, I think) and in this paper the authors ask whether the converse is true.

Does anyone know the status of this question: "is every strong ideal on $\omega_1$ pre-saturated"?

share|cite|improve this question

Unfortunately, I don't think Trevor's question is addressed by either of the papers that Matteo mentions.

share|cite|improve this answer
Welcome to MathOverflow, Sean! – Trevor Wilson Sep 8 '12 at 21:30
up vote 2 down vote accepted

It is consistent that the nonstationary ideal on $\omega_1$ is strong but not pre-saturated. Baumgartner and Taylor proved in the aforementioned paper that strong ideals are preserved by c.c.c. forcing and asked whether the same is true for pre-saturated ideals. The answer to this question is negative, implying a negative answer to the question I posted above. Apparently this was first proved by Veličković in the paper Forcing axioms and stationary sets (which I cannot seem to access online) from ZFC + SPFA. Another example of a c.c.c. forcing that destroys pre-saturation may be found in a more recent paper by Larson and Yorioka, Another c.c.c. forcing that destroys presaturation, assuming the consistency of ZF + AD.

I don't know if a negative answer can be forced from only a Woodin cardinal (which is equiconsistent with the existence of a presaturated ideal and also with the existence of a strong ideal.)

share|cite|improve this answer

A somewhat related problem - in their paper Baumgartner and Taylor asked if the existence of a strong ideal implies the existence of a normal one. Moti Gitik (in On normal precipitous ideals. Israel J. Math 175, 191-219 (2010)) proposition 3.1 shows that the projection of such a strong ideal to a normal one gives an isomorphic ideal, and hence is precipitous.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.