4
$\begingroup$

For $\mathbb{A},\mathbb{B}\subseteq\mathcal{P}(\omega^\omega)$, say that $\mathbb{A}$ spreads onto $\mathbb{B}$ iff there is some $F:\omega^\omega\rightarrow\omega^\omega$ such that $F[A]\in\mathbb{B}$ whenever $A\in\mathbb{A}$. Write "$\mathbb{A}\trianglerighteq\mathbb{B}$" for "$\mathbb{A}$ spreads onto $\mathbb{B}$."

Each cardinal characteristic in Cichon's diagram $\mathfrak{x}$ is defined as "The smallest cardinality of an element of $\mathbb{X}_\mathfrak{x}$" for some $\mathbb{X}_\mathfrak{x}\subseteq\mathcal{P}(\omega^\omega)$. I'm curious how the $\mathsf{ZFC}$-provable cardinality relationships between the $\mathfrak{x}$s compare to the $\mathsf{ZF+DC+AD}$-provable spreading relationships between the $\mathbb{X}_\mathfrak{x}$s. Specifically:

  • Is it the case that, for all $\mathfrak{x},\mathfrak{y}$ in Cichon's diagram, $\mathsf{ZFC}\vdash\mathfrak{x}\le\mathfrak{y}$ implies $\mathsf{ZF+DC+AD}\vdash \mathbb{X}_\mathfrak{x}\trianglelefteq \mathbb{X}_\mathfrak{y}$?

  • Is it the case that, for all $\mathfrak{x},\mathfrak{y}$ in Cichon's diagram, $\mathsf{ZF+DC+AD}\vdash \mathbb{X}_\mathfrak{x}\trianglelefteq \mathbb{X}_\mathfrak{y}$ implies $\mathsf{ZFC}\vdash \mathfrak{x}\le\mathfrak{y}$?

As positive evidence, Paul Larson showed that $\mathsf{ZF+DC+AD}\vdash\mathbb{X}_\mathfrak{b}\triangleleft \mathbb{X}_\mathfrak{d}$, so the "spreading-under-determinacy" picture agrees with (and in fact strengthens) the "cardinality-under-choice" picture in this instance.

I'm particularly interested in the behavior of either of the triples $\mathsf{add}(\mathcal{B}),\mathsf{cov}(\mathcal{B}),\mathfrak{b}$ or $\mathsf{cof}(\mathcal{B}),\mathsf{non}(\mathcal{B}),\mathfrak{d}$, where $\mathcal{B}$ is the $\sigma$-ideal of meager sets, since there is a $\mathsf{ZFC}$-theorem about each triple which isn't a consequence of any of the provable "simple inequalities" - I don't know how (if at all) I'd expect this more complicated relationship to be reflected on the "spreading"-side.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Wouldn't it be spreading into, rather than spreading onto? $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Commented Jun 19, 2023 at 8:37
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila I had in mind (and still do) the image of spreading butter onto bread, so that if you consider "most" of the butter it covers "most" of the bread. (Of course both bread and butter here are Baire space, but that's fine since "bread and butter" is frequently used to refer to the Baire necessities.) $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 20, 2023 at 3:24
  • $\begingroup$ But the definition doesn't require any sort of coverage. $\{\varnothing\}$ spreads "onto" any other class which includes the empty set, for example the full power set of the Baire space. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Commented Jun 20, 2023 at 7:26
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila That's true, but I'm only looking at "largeness" classes here. If we consider $\emptyset$ large then anything should indeed be large. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 21, 2023 at 3:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @NoahSchweber "Baire necessities"? $-\infty$ if I could downvote comments. $\endgroup$
    – bof
    Commented Jun 21, 2023 at 3:43

0

You must log in to answer this question.