3
$\begingroup$

This is a spinoff of this earlier question of mine.

Short version:

What measures in $L(\mathbb{R})$ can be gotten from "potentially club" filters, under appropriate hypotheses?


Long version: EDIT: Most of this is completely wrong, see the answer below.

Here's a very silly proof that large cardinals in $V$ imply that $L(\mathbb{R})$ has a proper class of measurables.

Of course, from some mild large cardinals we know that $L(\mathbb{R})$ has one measurable, namely $\omega_1$. We'll show how we can use this (together with more large cardinals) to get, for any cardinal $\kappa$, a measurable $\mu>\kappa$. Specifically, our large cardinal assumption is:

$(*)$ There is a proper class of Woodins.

Aaaaand that's why this is silly. But bear with me.

Fix $\kappa$; we want to show that, in $L(\mathbb{R})$, there is a measurable above $\kappa$.

Suppose there are a proper class of Woodins. Then the theory of $L(\mathbb{R})$ is invariant under set forcing. In particular, for any set-generic real $G$ we have that $L(\mathbb{R})[G]=L(\mathbb{R})^{V[G]}$ satisfies "The club filter on $\omega_1$ is an ultrafilter."

Now consider the forcing $Col(\omega,\kappa)$. A generic for this is a bijection $G: \omega\rightarrow\kappa$. The induced ordering on $\omega$ - $a<_Gb\iff G(a)<G(b)$ - is coded by a real, and determines $G$ ($G$ is the unique order-preserving bijection between $<_G$ and $\kappa$), so $L(\mathbb{R})[G]=(L(\mathbb{R}))^{V[G]}$. In particular, since $L(\mathbb{R})$ thinks the club filter on $\omega_1$ is measurable, so does $L(\mathbb{R})[G]$ by $(*)$. But $\omega_1^{L(\mathbb{R})[G]}>\kappa$. Let $\mu=\omega_1^{L(\mathbb{R})[G]}$; we'll show $\mu$ is measurable in $L(\mathbb{R})$.

Let $\mathcal{F}_G=\{x\subseteq\mu: L(\mathbb{R})[G]\models\mbox{"$x$ contains a club"}\}.$ Then it's easy to check that (in $L(\mathbb{R})$) $\mathcal{F}_G$ is a $\mu$-complete filter on $\mu$: $L(\mathbb{R})$ satisfies "the intersection of countably many clubs on $\omega_1$ is a club," so so does $L(\mathbb{R})[G]$. By the above paragraph $\mathcal{F}_g$ is an ultrafilter. So - in $L(\mathbb{R})$ - $\mu$ is measurable. $\Box$

Now, this is a very silly proof: our large cardinal assumption far outstrips what we're trying to prove! In particular, every Woodin in $V$ is measurable in $L(\mathbb{R})$.

That said, the construction itself seems neat to me: by using forcing absoluteness, we pull a specific definable measure on $\omega_1$ in the generic extension back to a measure on some large $\mu$ in the ground. This is neat!

My question is, what are the measures which can be so recovered?

Precisely, say that a measure $U$ on a cardinal $\mu$ (in $L(\mathbb{R})$) is a potentially club measure if for some real $G$ which is set-generic over $L(\mathbb{R})$, we have $\mu=\omega_1^{L(\mathbb{R})[G]}$ and $U=\{x\subseteq\mu: L(\mathbb{R})[G]\models\mbox{"$x$ contains a club"}\}$. Then:

What are the potentially club measures?

(This is in $L(\mathbb{R})$ of course.)

In particular, is there a description of which measures on $\omega_2^{L(\mathbb{R})}$ are potentially club? A reasonable guess is that the above argument with $Col(\omega,\omega_1)$ constructs such a measure; and under appropriate hypotheses (the nonstationary ideal on $\omega_1$ is $\omega_2$-saturated and $\mathcal{P}(\omega_1)^\sharp$ exists) this is verified by calculating the projective ordinal $\delta^1_2$ - since $L(\mathbb{R})$ computes $\omega_2$ correctly, $\omega_1^{L(\mathbb{R})[G]}=\omega_2^V=\omega_2^{L(\mathbb{R})}$. However, I don't know a snappy description for this measure. So we may ask:

What are the potentially club measures on $\omega_2$?

In particular, is the measure in the usual proof of the measurability of $\omega_2$ in $L(\mathbb{R})$ the same as the potentially club filter gotten from $Col(\omega,\omega_2)$?

Note: any definable measure on $\omega_1$ gives rise to an analogous question. As a computability theorist, for instance, the "potentially cone" measures actually seem more interesting. However, I suspect they're harder to analyze, so I'm beginning with the club version.

$\endgroup$
8
$\begingroup$

The claim you are trying to prove is false: $L(\mathbb R)$ has no measurable cardinals greater than $\Theta$. Work in $L(\mathbb R).$ We will use Woodin's theorem that $\text{HOD} = L[\mathbb P]$ for $\mathbb P\subseteq \Theta$ a partial order encoded as a subset of $\Theta$ and that $L(\mathbb R)$ is an inner model of $\text{HOD}[G]$ for a $\text{HOD}$-generic filter $G\subseteq \mathbb P$. (We will use the second half of this at the end of our answer but for now it suffices to accept that $\text{HOD} =L[A]$ for $A\subseteq \Theta$.) If $\kappa>\Theta$ is measurable, and $U$ is a $\kappa$-complete ultrafilter on $\kappa$ then we have $\text{Ult}(\text{HOD},U) = L[j(\mathbb P)] = L[\mathbb P] = \text{HOD}$ where $j$ is the ultrapower map. Now $j:\text{HOD}\to \text{HOD}$ witnesses $\mathbb P^\#$ exists. But then $\mathbb P^\#$ is in $\text{HOD}$, contradicting $\text{HOD} = L[\mathbb P]$.

The issue with your proof is that in general $L(\mathbb R)[G]$ is not equal to $L(\mathbb R)^{V[G]}$ even when $G$ is a $V$-generic real. (There is no reason that names for reals should be reals themselves. Furthermore there is no reason that $\mathbb R^V$ should be in $L(\mathbb R)^{V[G]}$.) It fails in particular when $G\subseteq \text{Col}(\omega,\kappa)$ (assuming a proper class of Woodin cardinals in $V$). At least, if $\kappa \geq |\mathbb R|$, then in $V[G]$ there is a real $r$ coding an enumeration of $\mathbb R^V$ in order type $\omega$, but if there is such a real in $L(\mathbb R)[G]$, then $L(\mathbb R)[G]$ satisfies AC (since then $L(\mathbb R)[G] = L[r,G]$). Thus assuming $L(\mathbb R)[G] = L(\mathbb R)^{V[G]}$ we obtain $L(\mathbb R)^{V[G]}\vDash \text{AC}$, a contradiction in the context of our large cardinal hypothesis. (If $V = L$ we of course have no contradiction at all.)

Incidentally, if $L(\mathbb R)\vDash \text{AD}$ then $\Theta$ is not measurable either. Suppose it were. Consider $j:\text{HOD}\to \text{Ult}(\text{HOD},U)$ where $U\in L(\mathbb R)$ is a $\Theta$-complete ultrafilter on $\Theta$. Since $\Theta$ is inaccessible in $\text{HOD}$, $j(\Theta)$ is inaccessible in $\text{Ult}(\text{HOD},U)$ and hence in $\text{HOD}$ since $\text{HOD} = L[\mathbb P] \subseteq L[j(\mathbb P)] = \text{Ult}(\text{HOD},U)$. On the other hand $j(\Theta)$ is not a cardinal in $L(\mathbb R)$ since $|j(\Theta)| = | P(\Theta)\cap \text{HOD}| = |(2^\Theta)^{\text{HOD}}|$, while $(2^{\Theta})^{\text{HOD}} < j(\Theta)$ (as ordinals) again since $j(\Theta)$ is inaccessible in $\text{HOD}$. Now $L(\mathbb R)$ is an inner model of $\text{HOD}[G]$ for a $\text{HOD}$-generic filter $G\subseteq \mathbb P$. In $\text{HOD}[G]$, $j(\Theta)$ remains inaccessible by the usual Levy-Solovay analysis. This contradicts the fact that $j(\Theta)$ is not a cardinal in the inner model $L(\mathbb R)\subseteq \text{HOD}[G]$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Ouch. That's definitely the kind of mistake I shouldn't be making anymore - both the assumption that $L(\mathbb{R})$ has all the names for reals, and missing the fact that that forcing (for large enough $\kappa$) makes $L(\mathbb{R})[G]$ satisfy choice! Thanks a ton. Incidentally, do you know if it's possible to get a measure on $\omega_2$ in the manner above? $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Dec 20 '16 at 17:35
  • $\begingroup$ Did you mean to write $\text{Col}(\omega,\omega_2)$ above, or did you mean $\text{Col}(\omega,\omega_1)$ or $\text{Col}(\omega,{<}\omega_2)$? For the latter forcings, I think Asaf argued that every club in the extension contains a ground model club so you'll just get the club filter of $L(\mathbb R)$ on $\omega_2$ back. (This is not an ultrafilter since $\text{Cof}(\omega)$ and $\text{Cof}(\omega_1)$ are stationary.) You might try shooting a club through $\text{Cof}(\omega)$. (Note that the club filter on $\omega_2$ along with $\text{Cof}(\omega)$ generates an ultrafilter.) $\endgroup$ – Gabe Goldberg Dec 20 '16 at 18:58
  • $\begingroup$ I meant $Col(\omega,\omega_1)$, thanks. $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Dec 20 '16 at 19:00

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.