Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Suppose $\lambda$ is a strong limit cardinal of cofinality $\omega$ and for $A$ a transitive set, define $L(A)$ in the usual fashion by setting $$L_0(A)=A;$$ $$L_{\alpha+1}(A) = L_\alpha (A)\cup \mathcal P_{Def}(L_\alpha(A));$$ $$L(A)=\bigcup_{\alpha\in Ord} L_\alpha (A).$$

In Woodin's longer article "The Continuum Hypothesis" (in LNL 19, Logic Colloquium 2000), the following facts are stated regarding $L(V_{\lambda+1})$:

(1) If $c$ is Cohen generic over $V$ then very likely $$(L(V_{\lambda+1}))^{V[c]}\neq L(V_{\lambda+1})[c].$$

(2) On the other hand, if $G\subset Coll(\omega_1,\mathbb{R})$ is $V$-generic then $$(L(V_{\lambda+1}))^{V[G]}= L(V_{\lambda+1})[G].$$

Can anyone give a (sketch of) proof of either (1) or (2)? Are these results given only in the context of a non-trivial elementary embedding $j:L(V_{\lambda+1})\prec L(V_{\lambda+1})$ with $crit(j)<\lambda$?

More generally, for a partial order $\mathbb{P}$ and a $G\subset \mathbb{P}$ which is $V$-generic, which properties of $\mathbb{P}$ are sufficient to ensure the equality $$(L(V_{\lambda+1}))^{V[G]}= L(V_{\lambda+1})[G]$$ holds? Fails? Is this even known?

share|improve this question
    
Some context missing as there is no free access to that paper, for example what is $\lambda$, and Woodin's definitions of () and []. If V[c] is a Cohen extension and $\lambda$ small enough then $(L(V_{\lambda+1}))^{V[c]} = L(V_{\lambda+1})^{V}$. –  Eran Oct 12 '12 at 9:41
    
Eran: I added the context you requested. Would you mind elaborating on your remark about Cohen extensions and small $\lambda$? –  Everett Piper Oct 12 '12 at 16:38
    
Eran: If (as I assumed) "Cohen generic" refers to a Cohen real (as opposed to a Cohen subset of some larger ordinal), then $(L(V_{\lambda+1}))^{V[c]}$ will differ from $L(V_{\lambda+1})^V$ as soon as $\lambda\geq\omega$, because the former contains $c$ and the latter doesn't. –  Andreas Blass Oct 12 '12 at 16:53
1  
Andreas, I think that Everett may be intending it to be read as $L(V_{\lambda+1}^{V[c]})$, that is, as the "L(V_{\lambda+1})" of the model $V[c]$. –  Joel David Hamkins Oct 12 '12 at 17:00
    
If you allow $c$ (instead of Cohen generic real) to be a real coding two Sacks generic reals, then as in (mathoverflow.net/questions/107441/…) $(L(V_{\lambda+1}))^{V[c]}$ will contain their minimal degrees while $L(V_{\lambda+1})[c]$ won't. –  Eran Oct 13 '12 at 1:52
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 8 down vote accepted

They are immediate consequences of Theorem 175 of W. Hugh Woodin, "Suitable extender models II: beyond $\omega$-huge", J. Math. Log., vol. 11 (2011), no. 2, pp. 115–436, which says

If there is a (proper) elementary embedding $j: L(V_{\lambda+1}) \to L(V_{\lambda+1})$ with $\text{crit}(j)<\lambda$ and if $G\subset \mathbb{P}$ is $V$-generic for some poset $\mathbb{P}\in V_\lambda$, then $V_{\lambda+1} \in L_\lambda(V_{\lambda+1})^{V[G]}$ if and only if $(\lambda^\omega)^V = (\lambda^\omega)^{V[G]}$.

This theorem can be proved using the Large Perfect Set Theorem for subsets of $V_{\lambda+1}$ in $L_\lambda(V_{\lambda+1})$, which says assuming there is a (proper) elementary embedding $j: L(V_{\lambda+1}) \to L(V_{\lambda+1})$ with $\text{crit}(j)<\lambda$, those subsets of $V_{\lambda+1}$ either has size $\leq \lambda$ or contains a large perfect subset, i.e. a homeomorphic copy of $\lambda^\omega$. Cramer recently improves the Large Perfect Set Theorem to all subsets of $V_{\lambda+1}$ in $L(V_{\lambda+1})$, so $L_\lambda(V_{\lambda+1})$ can be replaced by $L(V_{\lambda+1})$.

share|improve this answer
    
X. Shi: Thank you so much for this answer. I have been immersed in the Large Perfect Set Theorem for a week now. I have two related questions as a result. (1) In your paper on the Robinson-Posner Theorem at $I_0$, you state the Large Perfect Set Theorem for $X\subset V_{\lambda+1}$ definable from parameters in $V_{\lambda+1}$, i.e., for $X\in L_1(V_{\lambda+1})$. Can you extend your argument there in some way to get the result for all large $X\in L_\lambda(V_{\lambda+1})$? I ask because Woodin's proof of Large Perfect Set in Lemma 22 uses the notion of $\mathbb{U}(j)$-representability. –  Everett Piper Oct 19 '12 at 23:14
    
(2) Can you sketch Cramer's extension of Large Perfect Set Theorem to the more general case where $X\in L(V_{\lambda+1})$? –  Everett Piper Oct 19 '12 at 23:15
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.