Timeline for Forcing as a tool to prove theorems
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
3 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 30, 2010 at 6:40 | comment | added | Justin Palumbo | Because under MA the partition relation holds, and N contains $\chi$ and has the same $\omega_1$. That MA implies the partition relation is Theorem 2 in the paper. I don't think I have a good enough understanding of the argument to give a cogent summary. For what it's worth it seems the only consequence of MA needed is that the so-called tower number is at least $\omega_2$. (which implies the dominating number is at least $\omega_2$, which they use as well) | |
| Jun 29, 2010 at 20:46 | comment | added | Rachid Atmai | Why does MA holding in $N$ ensure that $N$ contains a $\chi$-homogeneous set of size $\alpha$? Thanks for reference! | |
| Jun 29, 2010 at 18:40 | history | answered | Justin Palumbo | CC BY-SA 2.5 |