7
$\begingroup$

Write $\mathfrak m_k$ for the Martin's axiom number for $k$-Knaster, i.e., for the smallest size of a family of dense subsets of some $k$-Knaster poset for which there is no generic filter. (A poset is $k$-Knaster if every uncountable set of conditions has an uncountable $k$-linked subset, i.e., any $k$ conditions in this subset have a common lower bound.)

Write $\mathfrak m^c$ for the Martin's axiom number for precaliber (i.e., as above, replacing "$k$-linked" by "centered": every finite subset has a lower bound).

Clearly $\mathfrak m_k\le \mathfrak m_{k+1}\le\mathfrak m^c$.

In a recent paper arXiv:1904.02617 we show (as a side result) that consistently $\mathfrak m_k=\aleph_1$ for all $k$ while $\mathfrak m^c=\lambda<\mu=2^{\aleph_0}$ for any desired regular uncountable $\lambda<\mu$.

Question: We suspect that this result is known, and that a known proof might even use the same (nameless?) forcing notion that we use (we call it $ P_{\text{cal},\lambda}$). Does anybody have a reference?

Details for our forcing:

  • It is well known (e.g., Barnett, Fund. Math. 141, 1992) that Cohen reals add a witness for $\mathfrak m_k=\aleph_1$ which is preserved under further $k+1$-Knaster extensions. So whenever we have a FS ccc iteration which is $\ell$-Knaster for all $\ell$ and adds Cohens (at the beginning, say), the resulting model will satisfy $\mathfrak m_k=\aleph_1$ for all $k$.
  • If we additionally make sure that by bookkeeping we force with all small ($<\lambda$) precaliber forcings, we get $\mathfrak m^c\ge \lambda$.
  • To ensure $\mathfrak m^c\le \lambda$, we initially force with $P_{\text{cal},\lambda}$ (defined in 5.1 of the linked paper) which adds $Q_{\text{cal}}$ (defined in 5.3) witnessing $\mathfrak m^c\le \lambda$, and furthermore this witnessing-property of $Q_{\text{cal}}$ is preserved in FS iterations of small precaliber extensions. (For our paper we additionally need that the iterations may also contain additional iterands which are $(\sigma,k)$-linked for all $k$.)
$\endgroup$
0

0

Your Answer

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.