How much of the inner model project can be constructed without assuming the axiom of choice? I.e. which large cardinals provably have canonical inner models not assuming choice?
-
1$\begingroup$ Where does the assumption of choice in the outer model works into? The whole point of canonical inner models is canonicity. Canonicity doesn't require choice. $\endgroup$– Asaf Karagila ♦Commented Dec 4, 2020 at 1:10
-
$\begingroup$ Alright thanks for clearing that up! So the answer is all of them. $\endgroup$– Someone211Commented Dec 4, 2020 at 1:21
-
2$\begingroup$ @Asaf It is a bit trickier than that. Some comparisons arguments require choice, for example. $\endgroup$– Andrés E. CaicedoCommented Dec 4, 2020 at 2:42
-
4$\begingroup$ A good place to see the difficulties caused by the lack of choice is "The strength of choiceless patterns of singular and weakly compact cardinals" by Busche and Schindler. $\endgroup$– Andrés E. CaicedoCommented Dec 4, 2020 at 2:49
1 Answer
Addressing the first question: I should argue that Choice comes in almost at the beginning of the inner model project, if we regard proving Covering Lemmata as an integral part of that project: one defines a model under an anti-large cardinal assumption; proves that it is rigid; the Covering Lemma is then proven as holding over that model. One then has the contrapositive that if Covering fails, then so does your anti large cardinal hypothesis, and then we move on to define the ‘next’ inner model that accommodates that large cardinal.
With that in mind, then in ZF alone one can indeed prove that assuming $\neg O^\sharp$ then the (Jensen Strong) Covering Lemma holds over $L$. Dodd & Jensen then defined as the ‘next’ model $K^{DJ}$, the core model ‘below’ a measurable cardinal. The general Covering Lemma $CL$, $\Gamma$ say, then ran:
$\Gamma$: “ Assume $\neg O^{\dagger}$. Then either the Covering Lemma holds over $K^{DJ}$, or it holds over $L[\mu_0]$ where the latter is the least ‘$\rho$-model’, i.e. has a measure $\mu_0$ on some least possible ordinal $\kappa_0$. Or it holds over $L[C]$ where $C$ is a Prikry sequence over $L[\mu_0]$”.
If these three alternatives fail, then we have $O^{\dagger}$ and we look to build the next model, culminating in a model with two measurable cardinals {\em &c.} But $\Gamma$ can only be proven in ZFC. Reason: if one looks at $M = \bigcap_{i< \omega^2}L[\mu_i]$ (where $L[\mu_i]$ is the $i$t’h iterate of the least $\rho$-model, now on $\kappa_i$) this is a ZF model, but the set of Prikry sequences in the model cofinal in the ordinal $\kappa = \kappa_{\omega^2}$ is not wellorderable in $M$. One then ends up with $(\neg \Gamma)^M$.
-
1$\begingroup$ It seems to me like this is an artifact of insisting on a certain language in the statement of the covering lemma. If you state it that every set of ordinals is covered by one in the inner model, then I don't see where choice comes into play here. $\endgroup$– Asaf Karagila ♦Commented Dec 8, 2020 at 14:14
-
$\begingroup$ Philip is saying that fails in $M,$ because if some ZFC inner model covers every Prikry sequence in $M,$ that gives us a way to well-order them. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 8, 2020 at 15:49
-
$\begingroup$ @Elliot: I see, but that still feels like somehow an artifact of the formulation. Like saying "Not every set has a cardinal" being the artifact of using a very restrictive definition of "cardinal" to mean "initial ordinal". I'm not saying it's somehow wrong, but just that it seems to me more like a witness of a deeper essence of what the covering theorem should say. But maybe I'm wrong, IANAIMT... $\endgroup$– Asaf Karagila ♦Commented Dec 10, 2020 at 1:33
-
$\begingroup$ @Asaf: I cannot quite grasp what the exact artifactuality of the formulation is that you are pointing at. In $ZFC + \neg O^{\dagger}$ we can prove there is a Covering Lemma. Drop $AC$ and we can't? $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 15, 2020 at 18:44