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

In chapter 8 of Mitchell's and Steel's FSIT, they prove a central fine structural result, which basically states that if $\mathcal{M}$ is 1-small, $k$-sound, $k$-iterable premouse then the $k+1$-strandard parameter is $k+1$-solid/universal over $\mathcal M$.

The proof is not too complicated but on page 76 they state that if $\rho_{k+1}^{\mathcal M}> lh(E)$ where $E$ is some extender on the $\mathcal M$-sequence then $\mathcal H= \mathcal H_{k+1}^{\mathcal M}(\alpha_s)$ (I omitted the rest of the parameter and $u$ ($u$ is the tuple having the solidity witnesses and the appropriate projectums whenever defined)from the hull so that it is easier to read, this is well written in details page 74) then $\mathcal H$ is an initial segment of $\mathcal M$. I can't see why this is true. Could anyone help me figure out the reason behind this? Thx.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

The assumption is that $\rho=\rho_{k+1}^M>\text{lh}(E)$ for \emph{all} $E$, not just some $E$. But looking at your message of March 6/7, it looks like you are indeed reading it as ``all''. Regarding the question in that message, $H$ agrees with $M$ below $\rho$ because $\rho\leq\alpha_s$, and all ordinals below $\alpha_s$ were put into the uncollapsed hull when forming $H$. So if $\pi:H\to M$ is the uncollapse, then $\text{crit}(\pi)\geq\rho$. (Note you could also just argue that $M=J_\gamma(M|\rho)$ for some ordinal $\gamma$, and $M|\rho$ is also passive. Since $\text{crit}(\pi)\geq\rho$, this gives that $H=J_\beta(M|\rho)$ for some $\beta\leq\gamma$.)

share|cite|improve this answer

Although I'm unsure of the details of the question you ask here, I think this is a typical comparison argument for M and H where we have to show that there are no ultrapowers taken on either side. Such a proof is done once somewhere in Steel's Outline of Inner Model Theory and thereafter the argument is taken for granted.

Sorry I couldn't be more helpful, Drake

share|cite|improve this answer
Hi Drake. Thank you for the hint, but Steel's article in the handbook doesn't have the fact I quoted above (it has another fact involving comparison also). Indeed this is a typical comparison argument. The argument is very beautiful and uses the copy maps, the Dood-Jensen lemma and iterations of $\mathcal M$ and of $\mathcal H$. I think I have a quick answer to my question above. I am going to post it and then I'll see what the experts will say. – Carlo Von Schnitzel Mar 6 '13 at 19:41

Let $r=<\alpha_0,...,\alpha_S>$ the $k+1$-standard parameter of $\mathcal M$. If $\mathcal{H} = \mathcal{H}_{k+1}^{\mathcal M}(\alpha_s \cup (\alpha_0,...,\alpha_{s-1},u)$, where $u$ is $u_k(\mathcal M)$ (i.e the tuple having the solidity witnesses and some projecta), was not an initial segment of $\mathcal M$ then this means the iteration used some extender $E$. Now if I can have that $\mathcal H$ and $\mathcal M$ agree below $\rho_{k+1}^{\mathcal M}$, then this will imply that $\rho_{k+1}^{\mathcal M} \leq lh(E)$, which is what we want. So the question is why do $\mathcal H$ and $\mathcal M$ agree below $\rho_{k+1}^{\mathcal M}$?(coherence or $\mathcal M$ is $k$-sound?)

share|cite|improve this answer
So now the iteration tree will be simple (it will have exactly one cofinal wellfounded branch at every limit level of the tree) and one can apply Dodd-Jensen. – Carlo Von Schnitzel Mar 6 '13 at 23:23

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.