4
$\begingroup$

We have learned from Joel David Hamkins and Monroe Eskew that:

Answers: Having a measurable cardinal $\delta$ we can force a $\kappa$-Suslin tree for many $\kappa$'s above $\delta$.

But is the opposite true (I am interested in the case when $\delta$ is the least measurable):

Question 1: If we have a set theory with (the least) measurable cardinal $\delta$ can we have a set theory with $\delta$ (still the least measurable) but without any $\kappa$-Suslin trees for $\kappa>\delta$?

Actually I hadn't expected Souslin trees above $\delta$... Since I seem to be unable to remove another assumption from my constructions let me ask:

Question 2: Does the validity of statements in Answer and Question 1 above change if we assume that $\delta$ (the least measurable) is strongly compact?


Edit: I edited the text to indicate that, to me, the most interesting case is when $\delta$ is the least measurable cardinal. Inserted pieces are in parentheses.


Why am I interested in this? Let $\mathbb{Z}^\kappa=A\oplus B$ be a direct sum decomposition of the product of the group of integers. By old results, if no measurable cardinal exists below $\kappa$ then both $A$ and $B$ are themselves isomorphic to some products of integers. For larger $\kappa$'s little is known except that $A$ or $B$ has to be of this form. I think that the problem of whether both $A$ and $B$ have to be products depends on the existence of Suslin trees above $\delta$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Do you want SH to hold in a single cardinal above the measurable $\delta$ or in every (regular) cardinal above $\delta$? $\endgroup$ – Yair Hayut Apr 1 '15 at 17:58
  • $\begingroup$ @Yair Hayut - in every cardinal above $\delta$. I edited the question, hopefully it is more clear now. $\endgroup$ – Adam Przeździecki Apr 1 '15 at 18:48
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I don't know if the situation in Question 1 is consistent, but if it is, it would require much larger cardinals than just a measurable. For example, in order to get SH at successor to strong limit singular you must either violate SCH or have $\neg \square_\mu$, where $\mu$ is the strong limit, by a result of Ben-David and Shelah. So you need at least a cardinal $\kappa$ with $o(\kappa) = \kappa^{++}$, and probably much more. $\endgroup$ – Yair Hayut Apr 1 '15 at 20:49
4
$\begingroup$

By Laver-Shelah: If $\kappa=\lambda^+$ is successor of a regular uncountable cardinal and there is a weakly compact cardinal above it, then there is a $\lambda-$directed closed forcing notion, forcing $\kappa$-Souslin hypothesis. From this question 1 follows immediately.

Also if we start with supercompct $\delta$, and consider $\kappa>\delta^+$ successor of a regular cardinal, assume there is a weakly compact cardinal above $\kappa$ and if we assume $\delta$ is Laver indestructible, then we can force $\kappa$-Souslin hypothesis, preserving the supercompactness of $\delta.$


If we require $\kappa$-Souslin hypothesis holds at all regular cardinals above $\delta,$ then the question is open and its consistency requires large cardinals much stronger than measurability (see Yair Hayut's comment).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ making sure: the forcings you describe kill Suslin trees only at one $\kappa$ at a time, not all the $\kappa$-Suslin trees between $\delta$ and the weakly compact above it? $\endgroup$ – Adam Przeździecki Apr 1 '15 at 18:57
  • $\begingroup$ It just forces the tree property at $\kappa,$ and in fact it make the weakly compact cardinal in the extension to become $\kappa.$ $\endgroup$ – Mohammad Golshani Apr 2 '15 at 1:20

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.