Skip to main content
Fixed capitalization
Source Link
Rahman. M
  • 2.4k
  • 2
  • 24
  • 42

It is easy to see a forcing of size $\aleph_1$ is proper if and only if is semiproper. I was wondering when such an equivalency holds between semi-proper and stationary-preserving forcings in $\rm ZFC$? Or consistently in a model where significant fragments of $\rm MM$ failsfail.

It is easy to see a forcing of size $\aleph_1$ is proper if and only if is semiproper. I was wondering when such an equivalency holds between semi-proper and stationary-preserving forcings in $\rm ZFC$? Or consistently in a model where significant fragments of $\rm MM$ fails.

It is easy to see a forcing of size $\aleph_1$ is proper if and only if is semiproper. I was wondering when such an equivalency holds between semi-proper and stationary-preserving forcings in $\rm ZFC$? Or consistently in a model where significant fragments of $\rm MM$ fail.

properness Properness for small forcings

Source Link
Rahman. M
  • 2.4k
  • 2
  • 24
  • 42

properness for small forcings

It is easy to see a forcing of size $\aleph_1$ is proper if and only if is semiproper. I was wondering when such an equivalency holds between semi-proper and stationary-preserving forcings in $\rm ZFC$? Or consistently in a model where significant fragments of $\rm MM$ fails.