Skip to main content
added 60 characters in body; edited body
Source Link
Monroe Eskew
  • 18.7k
  • 5
  • 53
  • 115

How do you prove theThe following statement? can be proven using elementary submodels and sufficiently generic conditions:

"If $S \subseteq cof(<\kappa) \cap \kappa^+$ is stationary, and $\kappa^{<\kappa} =\kappa$, then the stationarity of $S$ Isis preserved by $\kappa$-closed forcing."

If we just assume $\kappa$ is regular, do we need the cardinal arithmetic?

How do you prove the following statement?

"If $S \subseteq cof(<\kappa) \cap \kappa^+$ is stationary, and $\kappa^{<\kappa} =\kappa$, then the stationarity of $S$ Is preserved by $\kappa$-closed forcing."

If we just assume $\kappa$ is regular, do we need the cardinal arithmetic?

The following statement can be proven using elementary submodels and sufficiently generic conditions:

"If $S \subseteq cof(<\kappa) \cap \kappa^+$ is stationary, and $\kappa^{<\kappa} =\kappa$, then the stationarity of $S$ is preserved by $\kappa$-closed forcing."

If we just assume $\kappa$ is regular, do we need the cardinal arithmetic?

Source Link
Monroe Eskew
  • 18.7k
  • 5
  • 53
  • 115

Preservation of some stationary sets by sufficiently closed forcing

How do you prove the following statement?

"If $S \subseteq cof(<\kappa) \cap \kappa^+$ is stationary, and $\kappa^{<\kappa} =\kappa$, then the stationarity of $S$ Is preserved by $\kappa$-closed forcing."

If we just assume $\kappa$ is regular, do we need the cardinal arithmetic?