Recall a stationary subset $S$ of a regular cardinal $\kappa$ is fat when for every $\alpha < \kappa$, and every club $C$, there is a closed set of order type $\alpha$ contained in $S \cap C$. It is a result of Stavi, proved here, that:

(1) For every regular cardinal $\kappa$ and every stationary $S \subseteq \kappa^+ \cap \mathrm{cf}(\kappa)$, $S \cup \mathrm{cf}(<\kappa)$ is fat.

(2) If $S \subseteq \kappa$ is fat, and $2^{<\alpha} < \kappa$ for all $\alpha< \kappa$, then there is a $<\kappa$-distributive forcing of size $2^{<\kappa}$ which forces a club $C \subseteq S$. Furthermore, the forcing preserves every stationary subset of $S$.

Questions: Suppose $\kappa$ is either (a) inaccessible or (b) the successor of singular cardinal. Is it true that there is a sequence of disjoint stationary sets $\langle S_\alpha : \alpha < \kappa \rangle$ and some set $T$ disjoint from all $S_\alpha$ with the following property? For all clubs $C$, and all $\alpha,\beta < \kappa$, there is a closed subset $p$ of $C \cap (T \cup S_\alpha)$ with order type $\geq \beta$, and $\max p \in S_\alpha$. An answer under additional combinatorial assumptions (known to be consistent) would be welcome.

  • $\begingroup$ It seems that you want to use this sequence and $T$ to do some forcing. What's the endgame here? $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Apr 7 '16 at 16:38
  • $\begingroup$ Code some information into the stationarity/ nonstationarity of some sets. $\endgroup$ – Monroe Eskew Apr 7 '16 at 16:39
  • $\begingroup$ Ah. So you essentially want a sequence of fat stationary sets, so you can shoot clubs into them without causing anything to collapse, and thus code information into which sets were shot in the club? $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Apr 7 '16 at 16:41
  • $\begingroup$ Yes. I think this kind of idea is due to Magidor... $\endgroup$ – Monroe Eskew Apr 7 '16 at 16:43
  • $\begingroup$ In the work (with Sy Friedman, if my memory serves me right) on getting the number of normal measures to be anything, right? $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Apr 7 '16 at 16:46

Suppose that $\lambda$ is a singular cardinal, $\square_\lambda$ holds, and $2^\lambda=\lambda^+$. Then:

  1. There exists a partition of $\lambda^+$ into $\lambda^+$ many pairwise disjoint fat stationary sets.
  2. There exists a family of $2^{(\lambda^+)}$ pairwise almost-disjoint fat stationary sets.

Both clauses follow from Theorem D of http://www.assafrinot.com/paper/11 .

An application of Lemma 2.3 of the same paper shows that Clause (1) follows already from $\square_\lambda$ (without the arithmetic hypothesis). For $\lambda$ regular, one obtains Clause (1) from $\square(\lambda^+)$ by feeding $\Gamma:=E^{\lambda^+}_\lambda$ to Lemma 3.2 of http://www.assafrinot.com/paper/18 .

Update Jan/2017: http://settheory.mathtalks.org/?p=7240

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ How necessary is the square? $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Apr 8 '16 at 4:31
  • $\begingroup$ @asaf For Clause (1)? I just need a $\square(\lambda^+)$ sequence for which $\{ \alpha<\lambda^+\mid \text{otp}(C_\alpha)\ge\lambda\}$ is stationary. $\endgroup$ – saf Apr 8 '16 at 5:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Correction: I just realized that MM implies the existence of $\aleph_2$ many pairwise disjoint fat subsets of $\aleph_2$. $\endgroup$ – saf Apr 8 '16 at 5:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Okay, so we're back to square one. Pun semi intended. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Apr 8 '16 at 6:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila I think I have a way of forcing this with a $\lambda^+$-closed forcing. This cannot introduce $\square_lambda$. $\endgroup$ – Monroe Eskew Apr 8 '16 at 14:26

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.