HomePublications

The nonexistence of robust codes for subsets of ω

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Authors

Organisational units

Abstract

Several results are presented concerning the existence or nonexistence, for a subset S of ? , of a real r which works as a robust code for S with respect to a given sequence of pairwise disjoint stationary subsets of ? , where "robustness" of r as a code may either mean that S ? L[r, ] whenever each S * is equal to S modulo nonstationary changes, or may have the weaker meaning that S ? L[r, ] for every club C ? ? . Variants of the above theme are also considered which result when the requirement that S gets exactly coded is replaced by the weaker requirement that some set is coded which is equal to S up to a club, and when sequences of stationary sets are replaced by decoding devices possibly carrying more information (like functions from ? into ? ).

Details

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)215-231
Number of pages17
JournalFundamenta Mathematicae
Volume186
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2005
Peer-reviewedYes

Keywords

    Research areas

  • ℙ max extensions of L(ℝ), Forcing axioms, Robust codes for subsets of ω 1, Sequences of stationary subsets of ω 1

View graph of relations

ID: 8202913

Related by author
  1. Dependent choice, properness, and generic absoluteness

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  2. A forcing notion collapsing \aleph_3 and preserving all other cardinals

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  3. Long reals

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  4. Adding many Baumgartner clubs

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Related by journal
  1. Kelley-Morse set theory does not prove the class Fodor principle

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  2. Square compactness and the filter extension property

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  3. Trihedral Soergel bimodules

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  4. The rational field is not universally definable in pseudo-exponentiation

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle