6
$\begingroup$

It's well-known that AD$_\mathbb{R}$ fails in $L(\mathbb{R})$, provably in ZFC. This is because:

I'm curious how much of AD$_\mathbb{R}$ is consistent (relative to large cardinals) with ZF + $V=L(\mathbb{R})$ + AD. Specifically, it's clear that the limit should be around $\Sigma^2_1$, but I'm not sure exactly where it lies (I can't recall precisely the level-by-level connection between scales and strategies, and I can't find it in Moschovakis); it's not even clear to me that projective real determinacy is consistent with this theory. Additionally, I'm interested in the large cardinals beyond a proper class of Woodins required to get (roughly) this amount of real determinacy in $L(\mathbb{R})$.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

I think the following may be relevant to your question:


First, several bullet points in your question are nontrivial results. However, there is another way to see $\mathsf{AD}_\mathbb{R}$ does not holds in $L(\mathbb{R})$.

Using a two step game, you can show $\mathsf{AD}_\mathbb{R}$ can prove uniformization for all sets of reals. Consider the relation $R(x,y)$ if and only if $y$ is not ordinal definable from $x$. Assuming that $L(\mathbb{R}) \models \mathsf{AD}_\mathbb{R}$, $R$ would have a uniformization. Every set of reals in $L(\mathbb{R})$ is ordinal definable from some real. Use this real to get a contradiction by diagonalization.

Also note that if you put the discrete topology on $\mathbb{R}$, a two point game is a closed game. Hence $\mathsf{ZF + AD}$ can not prove the Gale-Stewart theorem (closed determinacy) for games on $\mathbb{R}$. Of course, this is because there is no well-ordering of $\mathbb{R}$.


"The Extent of Scales in $L(\mathbb{R})$" Corollary 6 shows that $\mathsf{DET}_\mathbb{R}(\mathbf{\Pi}_1^1)$ can not hold in $L(\mathbb{R})$. Steel shows this by proving that $G^\mathbb{R}\Pi_1^1$ (the game quantifier class) is $\Sigma_1(L(\mathbb{R}, \{\mathbb{R}\})$. By $\mathsf{DET}_\mathbb{R}(\mathbf{\Pi}_1^1)$, $G^\mathbb{R} \Sigma_1^1$ is the dual of $G^\mathbb{R}\Pi_1^1$. Hence $G^\mathbb{R}\Sigma_1^1$ is $\Pi_1(L(\mathbb{R}, \{\mathbb{R}\})$. But you can directly show that $G^\mathbb{R}\Sigma_1^1$ is contained in $\Sigma_1(L(\mathbb{R}),\{\mathbb{R}\})$. Contradiction.

($\Sigma_1(L(\mathbb{R},\{\mathbb{R}\})$ is also $(\Sigma^2_1)^{L(\mathbb{R}}$. Using Wadges lemma and the not-ordinal-definable relation $R$ from above, Steels showed that if $\mathsf{AD}^{L(\mathbb{R})}$ holds, then a set has a scale in $L(\mathbb{R})$ if and only if it belongs to $(\mathbf{\Sigma}^2_1)^{L(\mathbb{R})}$. )

The same paper of Steel also notes that assuming $\mathsf{AD}$, $\mathsf{DET}_\mathbb{R}(\mathbf{\Pi}_1^1)$ is equivalent to the existence of $\mathbb{R}^\sharp$. (At least in the paper, Steel states it is open whether the equivalence can be proved in just $\mathsf{ZF} + \mathsf{DC}$.) Assuming $\mathsf{AD}$, $\mathsf{DET}_\mathbb{R}(\mathbf{\Pi}_1^1)$ has stronger consistency strength than $\mathsf{AD}$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

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.