Skip to main content
9 events
when toggle format what by license comment
May 20, 2016 at 17:49 comment added Philipp Lücke 1. The existence of weak Kurepa trees at all uncountable regular in L already follows from Solovay's argument mentioned in item 3. The cited paper sketches a class forcing construction that adds a weak Kurepa tree at every inaccessible cardinal, while preserving many large cardinals. 2. Yes. This short argument is, for example, contained in Section 7 of the paper cited in item 2.
May 16, 2016 at 13:17 comment added Boaz Tsaban @Philipp: I would appreciate some additional clarifications: 1. Remark (1) on page 33 of the paper you cited in your item 4: In $L$, is there a weak Kurepa tree for all uncountable regular (inaccessible?) $\kappa$? 2. Does your item 3 assert that the existence of a weak Kurepa tree for $\kappa$ imply $2^\kappa$ does not embed in every $\kappa$-compact space?
Apr 19, 2016 at 11:53 history bounty ended Boaz Tsaban
Apr 19, 2016 at 11:53 vote accept Boaz Tsaban
Apr 17, 2016 at 15:31 comment added Yair Hayut If $T$ is a tree that contains a subtree isomorphic to $2^{<\kappa}$ then $\text{Add}(\kappa, 1)$ adds to $[T]$ a new element. Thus, if you just want to get the consistency of having a many large cardinals but for every weakly compact, $\kappa$, a $\kappa$-tree $T$ such that $2^{<\kappa}$ does not embed into it - you can start with a model with many large cardinals and add a single Cohen real. In the generic extension, $2^{<\kappa}$ is not a subtree of any ground model $\kappa$-tree, by Hamkin's Gap argument.
Apr 17, 2016 at 13:58 history edited Philipp Lücke CC BY-SA 3.0
added 351 characters in body
Apr 16, 2016 at 11:12 history edited Philipp Lücke CC BY-SA 3.0
added 116 characters in body
Apr 15, 2016 at 18:55 review First posts
Apr 15, 2016 at 19:06
Apr 15, 2016 at 18:48 history answered Philipp Lücke CC BY-SA 3.0