10
$\begingroup$

The question is as in the title, but let me explain a bit.

Assuming a proper class of Woodin cardinals, $L(\mathbb{R})$ satisfies AD (and DC). And $L(\mathbb{R})$ is a very natural inner model. I'm curious if there is a similarly natural inner model for AD$_\mathbb{R}$.

Now, ZF + $V=L(\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R}))$ + large cardinals proves AD$_\mathbb{R}$ if I recall correctly; however, this is somewhat misleading as $L(\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R}))$ is never a model of AD, let alone AD$_\mathbb{R}$, since in it the reals are well-ordered.

So I'm curious: assuming large cardinals, is there a reasonably canonical inner model of AD$_\mathbb{R}$ which is "easy to describe"?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Sure, there is a minimal pointclass $\Gamma$ such that $L(\Gamma,\mathbb R)$ satisfies $\mathsf{ZF}+V=L(\mathcal P(\mathbb R))+\mathsf{AD}_{\mathbb R}$. Minimality is here in the sense of Wadge degrees. The same applies to just about any natural determinacy assumption we can obtain using derived models of fine-structural inner models. I assume Grigor's BSL paper and his paper in the Memoirs of the AMS are the natural place to find details. $\endgroup$ – Andrés E. Caicedo May 7 '17 at 21:53
  • $\begingroup$ (Well, OK, as long as the assumption does not yet put us in the region of "divergent" $\mathsf {AD}$ models.) $\endgroup$ – Andrés E. Caicedo May 7 '17 at 21:58
  • $\begingroup$ @AndrésE.Caicedo Ah, thanks very much! I'm not very familiar with inner model theory (and I'm totally derived-model-illiterate) so that hadn't occurred to me. If you post this as an answer, I'll definitely upvote it - and I'll accept it as soon as I'm able to tease the necessary details from the papers you link (or others that I find). $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber May 7 '17 at 22:01
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. Let's wait a couple of days and if no answers show up in the meantime I will try to write something semicoherent as an answer. $\endgroup$ – Andrés E. Caicedo May 7 '17 at 22:14
  • $\begingroup$ @Andrés I think it's okay even if there are divergent models of AD: any minimal model of $\mathsf{ZF} + \mathsf{AD}_\mathbb{R}$ containing all reals is in fact minimum by the fact that the intersection of divergent models of AD containing all reals satisfies $\mathsf{AD}_\mathbb{R}$. $\endgroup$ – Trevor Wilson May 7 '17 at 22:57
6
$\begingroup$

A Wadge initial segment (of $\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$) is a subset $\Gamma$ of $\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$ such that whenever $A\in\Gamma$ and $B\le_W A$, where $\le_W$ denotes Wadge reducibility, then $B\in\Gamma$. Note that if $\Gamma\subseteq\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$ and $L(\Gamma,\mathbb R)\models \Gamma=\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$, then $\Gamma$ is a Wadge initial segment. The relevance of this notion is that if $M$ is an inner model containing all the reals and satisfying $\mathsf{AD}_{\mathbb R}$, then $\Gamma=\mathcal P(\mathbb R)^M$ is a Wadge initial segment and $L(\Gamma,\mathbb R)\models\mathsf{AD}_{\mathbb R}$.

Under appropriate large cardinal assumptions, there is a Wadge initial segment $\Gamma=\Gamma_{min}$ such that $L(\Gamma,\mathbb R)\models\mathsf{AD^+}+\mathsf{AD_{\mathbb R}}+\Gamma=\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$. Moreover, given any inner model $M$ containing all the reals and satisfying $\mathsf{AD}^++\mathsf{AD}_{\mathbb R}$, we have $\Gamma_{min}\subset M$. The mention of $\mathsf{AD}^+$ may well be superfluous here (or, perhaps, we should redefine $\mathsf{AD}_{\mathbb R}$ as $\mathsf{AD^+}+\mathsf{AD_{\mathbb R}}$); the situation does not seem entirely understood otherwise.

Surely $\Gamma_{min}$ admits a purely descriptive set-theoretic description as well (in terms of the complexity of the iteration strategies of the hybrid or hod mice that it captures), but I do not know how to specify it.


I suspect all of this is written up in reasonable detail nowadays. I suggest to read first

MR3362806 Reviewed. Sargsyan, Grigor. Hod mice and the mouse set conjecture (English summary), Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 236 (2015), no. 1111, viii+172 pp. ISBN: 978-1-4704-1692-8

(with all the technical details of the underlying theory) and

MR3087400 Reviewed. Sargsyan, Grigor(1-RTG). Descriptive inner model theory (English summary), Bull. Symbolic Logic 19 (2013), no. 1, 1–55

(for a more leisurely introduction).


The result can of course be generalized to other strengthenings of $\mathsf{AD}^+$, but you will eventually run into difficulties, as it is possible that there are incompatible (or ``divergent'') $\mathsf{AD}^+$ models, that is, it is consistent to have sets of reals $A,B$ such that $L(A,\mathbb R)$ and $L(B,\mathbb R)$ are both models of $\mathsf{AD}^+$, but $A$ and $B$ are Wadge-incomparable so $A\notin L(B,\mathbb R)$, $B\notin L(A,\mathbb R)$, and $L(A,B,\mathbb R)$ is not a model of $\mathsf{AD}^+$. In such a setting, it may well be that there is no minimal pointclass $\Gamma$ playing the role of $\Gamma_{min}$ for your strengthening of determinacy. What saves us for $\mathsf{AD}^++\mathsf{AD}_{\mathbb R}$ is that it is a theorem of Woodin that if $A,B$ are as above, and $\Gamma=\mathcal P(\mathbb R)^{L(A,\mathbb R)}\cap\mathcal P(\mathbb R)^{L(B,\mathbb R)}$, then ($\Gamma$ is again a Wadge initial segment, and) $L(\Gamma,\mathbb R)\models\mathsf{AD}^++\mathsf{AD}_{\mathbb R}$.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Do you happen to know what kind of large cardinal assumptions are necessary/sufficient for existence of such an initial segment? $\endgroup$ – Wojowu Oct 5 '17 at 15:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A Woodin limit of Woodin cardinals is more than enough. It wouldn't surprise me if the optimal assumption is the existence of a sufficiently iterable $M_{adr}^\sharp$ (so, just a bit beyond the large cardinal assumption needed to establish the consistency of $\mathsf{AD}_{\mathbb R}$). $\endgroup$ – Andrés E. Caicedo Oct 5 '17 at 15:25

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.