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

It is known that Namba forcing is stationary-preserving and hence can be used in the setting of Martin's Maximum. Does this result in any striking consequences?

share|cite|improve this question
Maybe the Strong Chang Conjecture? – François G. Dorais Apr 11 '10 at 0:20
Is the proof a relatively direct application of Namba forcing? Or is it more indirect? – Simon Thomas Apr 11 '10 at 0:41
I added the forcing tag. – Joel David Hamkins Apr 11 '10 at 0:43
@Francois: Are you referring to Shelah's result that "Namba forcing is semiproper" implies SCC? – Haim Apr 11 '10 at 0:53
That's what I was wondering. I'd like an application with a proof along the lines of those in Baumgartner's great article on PFA. If the proof of the Strong Chang Conjecture is: MM implies Namba is semi-proper which implies SCC, then I'm not satisfied. – Simon Thomas Apr 11 '10 at 1:01

Magidor's proof that MM implies that there are no good scales of length lambda^+ for lambda>cf(lambda)=w, utilizes a Namba-style forcing.

share|cite|improve this answer
up vote 5 down vote accepted

I think that I may have found a suitable candidate; namely, the result of Konig and Yoshinobu that $MM$ implies that there are no $\omega_{1}$-regressive $\omega_{2}$-Kurepa trees. The proof seems to have the same relatively direct flavor as those in Baumgartner's $PFA$ article.

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.