Timeline for Preservation of properness
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 13, 2015 at 2:35 | vote | accept | Monroe Eskew | ||
| Mar 9, 2015 at 13:48 | comment | added | Goldstern | @TanmayInamdar Matti Rubin of course, not Rudin. Thank you for the correction. - I think it is plausible that any nontrivial $\sigma$-closed forcing can serve as a counterexample (assuming non-CH or at least that there is no dense set of size $\aleph_1$ below any condition - we need this assumption by Victoria Gitman's answer), but I have not thought about it much. | |
| Mar 9, 2015 at 12:26 | comment | added | user3462 | @Goldstern I believe you mean Rubin+Shelah, 'Combinatorial properties on trees...'? Also, I'm not sure I understand the last sentence of your comment. Did either of you consider this claim (but find a counterexample/think it plausible but not dwell too much on it/am I misunderstanding completely)? | |
| Mar 7, 2015 at 13:49 | comment | added | Goldstern | Literally a minute or two. (And I really mean "literally" in the literal sense.) I think that some of this time he spent deliberating whether a single forcing $P$ would be enough for him (or me), or whether he should go for a claim "all nontrivial $\sigma$-closed $P$..." | |
| Mar 7, 2015 at 13:17 | history | edited | Goldstern | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
typos. Also clarified that the trees are increasing. Switched 1 and 0 in tree description - not that it matter.
|
| Mar 6, 2015 at 22:41 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | "It took him only a minute or so to come up with this answer." -- That long, huh? :-) | |
| Mar 6, 2015 at 21:15 | history | edited | Goldstern | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
a few corrections /clarifications
|
| Mar 6, 2015 at 20:59 | history | answered | Goldstern | CC BY-SA 3.0 |