7
$\begingroup$

In [KwoM] it is proved that the the core model K exists under the assumption that there is no inner model having a Woodin cardinal and satisfying ZFC. Furthermore, they also mention that the result is the "best possible", in the sense that we cannot weaken this anti-large-cardinal hypothesis without strengthening the remainder of the hypothesis.

From what I understand, using the core model induction (which I must admit I don't know the details of yet), K can be constructed below any finite number of Woodin cardinals. So my question is then whether or not K has been constructed below $\omega$ many Woodins and if so, what the extra hypothesis is? If this is indeed the case, I would greatly appreciate a reference to the given paper.

[KwoM] Jensen and Steel: "K without the measurable"

Edit: In the introduction to Schindler and Steel's "The Core Model Induction", they write that if we assume that there is no proper class model with $n+1$ Woodins and over every set there is a proper class model with $n$ Woodins, then $K$ exists (in the sense of the above [KwoM]).

Can this be extended to: if there is no proper class model with $\omega$ Woodins and over every set there is a proper class model with $n$ Woodins, for every $n<\omega$, then $K$ exists?

$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ There is a construction of inner model for assumptions up to Woodin cardinal which is a limit of strong cardinals (due to Neeman). The issue is that once there is a Woodin cardinal, those inner models can be changed by forcing (they are no longer generic absolute). $\endgroup$
    – Yair Hayut
    Oct 9, 2016 at 7:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for the comment Yair. It seems that we can get around this absoluteness issue by considering relative premice, from what I can tell by Andrés' answer to the following MO question: mathoverflow.net/questions/153745/…. He mentions that one of these extra assumptions we could use is that V is closed under sharps. I'm just interested in how exactly the theorem is stated, if other assumptions is needed as well. $\endgroup$ Oct 9, 2016 at 13:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In the introduction to Schindler and Steel's "The Core Model Induction", they write that if we assume that there is no proper class model with $n+1$ Woodins and over every set there is a proper class model with $n$ Woodins, then $K$ exists (in the sense of the above [KwoM]). Can this be extended to: if there is no proper class model with $\omega$ Woodins and over every set there is a proper class model with $n$ Woodins, for every $n<\omega$, then $K$ exists? $\endgroup$ Nov 9, 2016 at 17:59

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

Dan, the answer is "no." You might be in a situation where Kc is a mouse (i.e., its ctble. substructures are ω1+1 iterable), but Kc is not fully iterable. E.g. it could be that Kc has M2F,#, where F is the operator simultaneously closing under all Mn#, n<ω, but for some θ, V = LF(Vθ) (same F, V could even be an extender model): the Q-structures needed to fully iterate M2F,# would be given by the M1F,# operator which is not available thruout the universe. If Kc is not fully iterable, one can't use it to isolate K, and in such a situation usually there is no inner model which has enough of the relevant properties that it might be called "the core model." See e.g. the first two pages of https://ivv5hpp.uni-muenster.de/u/rds/K.pdf for a list of such properties. (There are exceptions to this, though, see e.g. https://ivv5hpp.uni-muenster.de/u/rds/CMPW.pdf and also https://ivv5hpp.uni-muenster.de/u/rds/RalfGrigor_version_Sept11_2017.pdf .)

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Ralf! Just to see if I get the argument: if we consider the operator $G:=M_1^{F,\sharp}$ and assume $K^c$ reaches $M_1^{G,\sharp}$ then to show that $M_1^{G,\sharp}$ is fully iterable we need to be able to build $L^G(\mathcal M(\mathcal T))$ in $V$ to be able to form the necessary $\mathcal Q$-structures, but we can arrange that $V$ isn't closed under $G$. So this shows that we can't even get $K$ if both $V$ is closed under $F$ and $M_2^{F,\sharp}$ exists, which is possible even with the requirement that there be no inner model with $\omega$ Woodins. Is this correctly understood? $\endgroup$ Sep 18, 2017 at 9:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yep, that's the thing :) $\endgroup$ Sep 18, 2017 at 10:41

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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