Let $LM$ denote "all subsets of $\Bbb{R}$ are Lebesgue measurable", and

$WCH$ (weak continuum hypothesis) denote "every uncountable subset of $\Bbb{R}$ can be be put into 1-1 correspondence with $\Bbb{R}$".

[Warning: in other contexts, weak CH means something totally different , i.e., it sometimes means $2^{\aleph_{0}} < 2^{\aleph_{1}}$].

We know that $LM$ and $WCH$ both hold in Solovay models. By forcing a (Ramsey) ultrafilter over a Solovay model one can also arrange $WCH+\neg LM$ (due to joint work of Di Prisco and Todorčević, who showed that the perfect set property holds in the generic extension).

This prompts my question ($DC$ below is dependent choice).

Question: Is it known, relative to appropriate large cardinal axioms, whether there is a model of $ZF+LM+DC+\neg WCH$?

My question arose from an FOM-question of Tim Chow, and my answer to it; see also Chow's response.

  • $\begingroup$ What's your definition of uncountable: $\aleph_0 < |S|$ or $|S| \not\leq \aleph_0$ ? $\endgroup$
    – user5810
    Aug 3 '11 at 23:27
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think there's a difference in this case - any non-finite set $S\subseteq\mathbb{R}$ is also Dedekind non-finite. This is because $S$ comes with a natural linear ordering, the restriction of the ordering on $\mathbb{R}$. Let $L_S=\lbrace x\in S:$ There are more than finitely many $y\in S$ with $y>x$ as real numbers$\rbrace$, and $R_S=\lbrace x\in S:$ There are more than finitely many $y\in S$ with $y<x$ as real numbers$\rbrace$. Then either $L_S$ has no greatest member (in which case we can get an embedding of $\omega$ into $L_S$), or $R_S$ has no least member (cont'd.) $\endgroup$ Aug 3 '11 at 23:52
  • $\begingroup$ (in which case we can get an embedding of $\omega^*$ into $L_S$). Either way, we wind up with a subset of $S$ of cardinality $\aleph_0$. So if $S\subseteq \mathbb{R}$ is such that $\vert S\vert\not\leq\aleph_0$, then $\aleph_0<\vert S\vert$. $\endgroup$ Aug 3 '11 at 23:53
  • $\begingroup$ Assuming $L_S$ has no greatest member, it does not follow that there is an embedding of $\omega$ into $L_S\hspace{.05 in}$. See consequences.emich.edu/CONSEQ.HTM, form 13. $\endgroup$
    – user5810
    Aug 4 '11 at 0:47
  • $\begingroup$ @Ricky and Noah: first of all, thanks for your comments. Next: I have added $DC$, since talk of $LM$ without it is rather silly (and of course with $DC$ the two notions of uncountability that Ricky asked about collapse to one). $\endgroup$
    – Ali Enayat
    Aug 4 '11 at 1:12

This is an expansion of my comments above. In the paper with Zapletal that I reference, we assume a proper class of Woodin cardinals and force over $L(\mathbb{R})$ with a partial order of countable approximations to a certain kind of MAD family (which Jindra named an "improved" MAD family). Although I have yet to write out the details, I believe that the resulting model satisfies LM (it clearly satisfies DC), and that, in this model, $\mathbb{R}$ cannot be injected into the generic MAD family. The arguments I have in mind are straightforward applications of the arguments given in the paper.

The paper of Horowitz and Shelah referenced in my second comment works from the assumption of a strongly inaccessible cardinal and, as I understand it, adds the construction of a generic MAD family to Solovay's argument. As shown in their paper, DC + LM hold in the resulting model. I wrote to Haim and asked if $\mathbb{R}$ can be injected into the generic MAD family in this model, and he said no. He says he'll update their paper to include a proof of this (so they'll probably have a proof out before we do).

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ When we were finishing our masters, Haim mocked me for doing choiceless stuff. Now look at him, the cat's pajama of the theory of the reals without choice. :D (And yes, I constantly bring this up when we talk.) $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    May 5 '17 at 18:34
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for this answer Paul; it is good to hear about the promising work of yours and others in relation to the question. $\endgroup$
    – Ali Enayat
    May 9 '17 at 3:51
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @AliEnayat The new edition of the Shelah and Horowitz paper Madness and regularity properties addresses the question. See theorems 19 and 20 of their paper $\endgroup$ May 17 '17 at 9:54
  • $\begingroup$ @MohammadGolshani Thank you (I just now saw your comment). $\endgroup$
    – Ali Enayat
    Jun 27 '17 at 18:21
  • $\begingroup$ I've posted a draft of a paper containing our proof. The relevant theorems are 4.3 and 4.9/4.11. See here: users.miamioh.edu/larsonpb/canonical_again.pdf $\endgroup$ Jul 7 '17 at 1:39

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.