Let $\mu$ be a singular cardinal of countable cofinality. Let $ADS_\mu$ be the assertion that there exists $\langle A_\alpha\subset \mu: \alpha<\mu^+\rangle$ such that for all $\beta<\mu^+$, there exists $F: \beta \to \mu$ such that $\langle A_\alpha\backslash F(\alpha): \alpha<\beta\rangle$ is pairwise disjoint. It is a well-known fact that $ADS_\mu$ implies the failure of $Refl^*([\mu^+]^{\omega})$, which says for any stationary subset $S$ of $[\mu^+]^\omega$, there exists $W\in [\mu^+]^{\aleph_1}$ with $\omega_1\subset W$ and $cf(\sup W)=\omega_1$ such that $S\cap [W]^{\omega}$ is stationary.

$Refl([\mu]^{\omega})$ is almost the same assertion as $Refl^*([\mu^+]^\omega)$ except we do not require $cf(\sup W)=\omega_1$ (so it's weaker). It is also known that these two principles in general are not equivalent.

My question is: does $ADS_\mu$ imply the failure of $Refl([\mu^+]^\omega)$?

  • $\begingroup$ I am guessing that you already looked at the Cummings–Foreman–Magidor paper? $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Mar 9 '18 at 8:39
  • $\begingroup$ Yes it contains the mentioned result about $Refl^*([\mu^+]^\omega)$, and it doesn't seem to generalize naively $\endgroup$ – Otto Mar 9 '18 at 15:04

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.