We show that L absoluteness for semi-proper forcings is equiconsistent with the existence of a remarkable cardinal, and hence by [6] with L absoluteness for proper forcings. By [7], L absoluteness for stationary set preserving forcings gives an inner model with a strong cardinal. By [3], the Bounded Semi-Proper Forcing Axiom is equiconsistent with the Bounded Proper Forcing Axiom , which in turn is equiconsistent with a reflecting cardinal. We show that Bounded Martin's Maximum (...) is much stronger than BSPFA in that if BMM holds, then for every X ∈ V , X# exists. (shrink)

We study the preservation of the property of being a Solovay model under proper projective forcing extensions. We show that every strongly-proper forcing notion preserves this property. This yields that the consistency strength of the absoluteness of under strongly-proper forcing notions is that of the existence of an inaccessible cardinal. Further, the absoluteness of under projective strongly-proper forcing notions is consistent relative to the existence of a -Mahlo cardinal. We also show that (...) the consistency strength of the absoluteness of under forcing extensions with σ-linked forcing notions is exactly that of the existence of a Mahlo cardinal, in contrast with the general ccc case, which requires a weakly-compact cardinal. (shrink)

We show that the Proper Forcing Axiom implies the Singular Cardinal Hypothesis. The proof uses the reflection principle MRP introduced by Moore in [11].

In this paper I will communicate some new consequences of the Proper Forcing Axiom. First, the Bounded Proper Forcing Axiom implies that there is a well ordering of R which is Σ 1 -definable in (H(ω 2 ), ∈). Second, the Proper Forcing Axiom implies that the class of uncountable linear orders has a five element basis. The elements are X, ω 1 , ω 1 * , C, C * where X is any (...) suborder of the reals of size ω 1 and C is any Countryman line. Third, the Proper Forcing Axiom implies the Singular Cardinals Hypothesis at κ unless stationary subsets of S κ + ω reflect. The techniques are expected to be applicable to other open problems concerning the theory of H(ω 2 ). (shrink)

In this paper, we study the forcing axiom for the class of proper forcing notions which do not add ω sequence of ordinals. We study the relationship between this forcing axiom and many cardinal invariants. We use typical iterated forcing with large cardinals and analyse certain property being preserved in this process. Lastly, we apply the results to distinguish several forcing axioms.

The present paper investigates the power of proper forcings to change the shape of the universe, in a certain well-defined respect. It turns out that the ranking among large cardinals can be used as a measure for that power. However, in order to establish the final result I had to isolate a new large cardinal concept, which I dubbed “remarkability.” Let us approach the exact formulation of the problem—and of its solution—at a slow pace.Breathtaking developments in the mid 1980s (...) found one of its culminations in the theorem, due to Martin, Steel, and Woodin, that the existence of infinitely many Woodin cardinals with a measurable cardinal above them all implies that AD, the axiom of determinacy, holds in the least inner model containing all the reals, L. One of the nice things about AD is that the theory ZF + AD + V = L appears as a choiceless “completion” of ZF in that any interesting question seems to find an at least attractive answer in that theory. Beyond that, AD is very canonical as may be illustrated as follows.Let us say that L is absolute for set-sized forcings if for all posets P ∈ V, for all formulae ϕ, and for all ∈ ℝ do we have thatwhere is a name for the set of reals in the extension. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to present some results which suggest that the Singular Cardinals Hypothesis follows from the Proper Forcing Axiom. What will be proved is that a form of simultaneous reflection follows from the Set Mapping Reflection Principle, a consequence of PFA. While the results fall short of showing that MRP implies SCH, it will be shown that MRP implies that if SCH fails first at κ then every stationary subset of reflects. It will also (...) be demonstrated that MRP always fails in a generic extension by Prikry forcing. (shrink)

κ-M-proper forcing, introduced in [K00] when κ = ω1, is a very powerful new technique for generic stepping up, subsuming all previous generic steppings up using auxiliary functions. A general framework for using κ-M-proper forcing is set out, and a couple of examples of such forcings, adding κ−-thin-very tall scattered spaces and long chains in P(κ) modulo <κ−, are given. These objects are not currently obtainable by the previously known techniques.

We present two ways in which the model L(R) is canonical assuming the existence of large cardinals. We show that the theory of this model, with ordinal parameters, cannot be changed by small forcing; we show further that a set of ordinals in V cannot be added to L(R) by small forcing. The large cardinal needed corresponds to the consistency strength of AD L (R); roughly ω Woodin cardinals.

We prove that a number of axioms, each a consequence of PFA (the Proper Forcing Axiom) are equivalent. In particular we show that TOP (the Thinning-out Principle as introduced by Baumgartner in the Handbook of set-theoretic topology), is equivalent to the following statement: If I is an ideal on ω 1 with ω 1 generators, then there exists an uncountable $X \subseteq \omega_1$ , such that either [ X] ω ∩ I = ⊘ or $\lbrack X\rbrack^\omega \subseteq I$.

The bounded proper forcing axiom BPFA is the statement that for any family of ℵ 1 many maximal antichains of a proper forcing notion, each of size ℵ 1 , there is a directed set meeting all these antichains. A regular cardinal κ is called Σ 1 -reflecting, if for any regular cardinal χ, for all formulas $\varphi, "H(\chi) \models`\varphi'"$ implies " $\exists\delta . We investigate several algebraic consequences of BPFA, and we show that the consistency (...) strength of the bounded proper forcing axiom is exactly the existence of a Σ 1 -reflecting cardinal (which is less than the existence of a Mahlo cardinal). We also show that the question of the existence of isomorphisms between two structures can be reduced to the question of rigidity of a structure. (shrink)

Given a Polish space X and a countable collection of analytic hypergraphs on X, I consider the σ-ideal generated by Borel anticliques for the hypergraphs in the family. It turns out that many of the quotient posets are proper. I investigate the forcing properties of these posets, certain natural operations on them, and prove some related dichotomies.

In this paper we show that the Proper Forcing Axiom is preserved under forcing over any poset PP with the following property: In the generalized Banach–Mazur game over PP of length , Player II has a winning strategy which depends only on the current position and the ordinal indicating the number of moves made so far. By the current position we mean: The move just made by Player I for a successor stage, or the infimum of all (...) the moves made so far for a limit stage. As a consequence of this theorem, we introduce a weak form of the square principle and show that it is consistent with PFA. (shrink)

, a notion of forcing over E, the E-closure of L, is said to be effective if every sideways -generic extension preserves E-closure. There are set notions of forcing in E that do not preserve E-closure. The main theorem below asserts that is effective if and only if it is locally proper, a weak variant of Shelah's notion of proper.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:166 HUME'S INTEREST IN NEWTON AND SCIENCE Many writers have been forced to examine — in their treatments of Hume's knowledge of and acquaintance with scientific theories of his day — the related questions of Hume's knowledge of and acquaintance with Isaac Newton and of the nature and extent of Newtonian influences upon Hume's thinking. Most have concluded that — in some sense — Hume was acquainted with and (...) influenced by Newton's thought in particular and scientific thought in general. The genesis of this paper is the recent point of view put forward by Peter Jones which challenges the many permutations of this almost ritualistic standard line by removing Hume entirely from the Newtonian and the scientific scenes of thought. Jones argues that Hume knew less about Newton and science, and needed to know less about Newton and 2 science, than he believes is required by the above interpretation. Indeed, Jones argues that Hume's fundamental assumptions, which, according to Jones, derive ultimately from a form of Ciceronian humanism, drive a "wedge" between Newton's thought and that of 3 Hume. Even Hume's introductory remarks in the Treatise about his universal "science of man" are, for Jones, a declaration of independence from the materialistic trend (as Jones sees it) of Newtonian 4 science and not, as so many commentators have maintained — however tenuously or strongly evidence for linkage of Hume's project with Newtonian or scientific thought. Jones baldly argues that Hume totally lacked interest in science in general and in Newton and Newtonian science in particular. Following J. H. Burton's observation that Hume's work is surprisingly free from the "opinions" of contemporary scientists, 167 Jones states there is no evidence that Hume ever studied science at the University of Edinburgh or that he "pursued" scientific studies of any formal sort. Regarding Newtonian scientific thought, he emphasizes the paucity of specifically Newtonian scientific textbooks in the early eighteenth century 7 which might have been available for Hume to study and argues that nowhere in Hume's writings is there evidence of precise and detailed knowledge of Newton's science beyond what is available in Q Chamber's Cyclopaedia. Jones acknowledges that, in the Introduction to the Treatise, Hume utilizes a "general version" of Newton's "Regulae Philosophandi" from the beginning of Book III of Newton's Principia. Nevertheless, in Jones' view, Hume's fundamentally humanistic orientation separates him completely from g any Newtonian influence. Finally, according to Jones, Hume does not betray the least bit of knowledge of Newton's mathematics and its role in Newton's experimental methodology. On this evidence Jones grounds his central claim of Hume's "total lack of interest in contemporary science." What references there are to Newton and to science in Hume's works Jones finds "traceable to essentially literary predecessors such as Fontenelle or Montesquieu, or to standard works of theologians ] 2 or free-thinkers." The absence of clearly direct references to what Jones feels are scientific works results both from Hume's "total lack of interest in science" and from his commitment to a form of Ciceronian humanism which is "inimical" to what Jones finds to be the obvious materialistic tendencies of 13 science in the early modern period. Jones' account of the Ciceronian and French contexts of Hume's thought is excellent. But his claim that Hume had no interest whatsoever in science 168 is simply too strong and finally forces us to view science in Hume's day as equivalent to science in our own time, a manifestly anachronistic point of view. Throughout this paper, my argument will be conditioned by my view that Hume's interest in science cannot be separated from his epistemology or his religious scepticism. Hume's interest in science was precisely that of a man of letters of the eighteenth century vitally engaged in determining the proper use of scientific methodology in establishing the limits of the secular science of man once it has 14 been freed from the fetters of theology. Hume's interest in theological and epistemological issues inevitably gave rise to a strong interest on his part in the science of his day and in Newton's contributions... (shrink)

We examine the differences between three standard classes of forcing notions relative to the way they collapse the continuum. It turns out that proper and semi-proper posets behave differently in that respect from the class of posets that preserve stationary subsets of \.

We present an exposition of Section VI.1 and most of Section VI.2 from Shelah’s book Proper and Improper Forcing. These sections offer proofs of the preservation under countable support iteration of proper forcing of various properties, including proofs that ωω\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\omega^\omega}$$\end{document} -bounding, the Sacks property, the Laver property, and the P-point property are preserved by countable support iteration of proper forcing.

We show that many countable support iterations of proper forcings preserve Souslin trees. We establish sufficient conditions in terms of games and we draw connections to other preservation properties. We present a proof of preservation properties in countable support iterations in the so-called Case A that does not need a division into forcings that add reals and those who do not.

We present an approach to forcing with finite sequences of models that uses models of two types. This approach builds on earlier work of Friedman and Mitchell on forcing to add clubs in cardinals larger than $\aleph_{1}$, with finite conditions. We use the two-type approach to give a new proof of the consistency of the proper forcing axiom. The new proof uses a finite support forcing, as opposed to the countable support iteration in the standard (...) proof. The distinction is important since a proof using finite supports is more amenable to generalizations to cardinals greater than $\aleph_{1}$. (shrink)

Given an ideal $I$ , let $\mathbb{P}_{I}$ denote the forcing with $I$ -positive sets. We consider models of forcing axioms $MA(\Gamma)$ which also have a normal ideal $I$ with completeness $\omega_{2}$ such that $\mathbb{P}_{I}\in \Gamma$ . Using a bit more than a superhuge cardinal, we produce a model of PFA (proper forcing axiom) which has many ideals on $\omega_{2}$ whose associated forcings are proper; a similar phenomenon is also observed in the standard model of $MA^{+\omega_{1}}(\sigma\mbox{-closed})$ (...) obtained from a supercompact cardinal. Our model of PFA also exhibits weaker versions of ideal properties, which were shown by Foreman and Magidor to be inconsistent with PFA. Along the way, we also show (1) the diagonal reflection principle for internally club sets ( $\mathit{DRP}(IC_{\omega_{1}})$ ) introduced by the author in earlier work is equivalent to a natural weakening of “there is an ideal $I$ such that $\mathbb{P}_{I}$ is proper”; and (2) for many natural classes $\Gamma$ of posets, $MA^{+\omega_{1}}(\Gamma)$ is equivalent to an apparently stronger version which we call $MA^{+\operatorname{Diag}}(\Gamma)$. (shrink)

The purpose of this communication is to present some recent advances on the consequences that forcing axioms and large cardinals have on the combinatorics of singular cardinals. I will introduce a few examples of problems in singular cardinal combinatorics which can be fruitfully attacked using ideas and techniques coming from the theory of forcing axioms and then translate the results so obtained in suitable large cardinals properties.The first example I will treat is the proof that the proper (...) forcing axiom PFA implies the singular cardinal hypothesis SCH, this will easily lead to a new proof of Solovay's theorem that SCH holds above a strongly compact cardinal. I will also outline how some of the ideas involved in these proofs can be used as means to evaluate the “saturation” properties of models of strong forcing axioms like MM or PFA.The second example aims to show that the transfer principle ↠ fails assuming Martin's Maximum MM. Also in this case the result can be translated in a large cardinal property, however this requires a familiarity with a rather large fragment of Shelah's pcf-theory.Only sketchy arguments will be given, the reader is referred to the forthcoming [25] and [38] for a thorough analysis of these problems and for detailed proofs. (shrink)

We introduce the Bounded Axiom A Forcing Axiom . It turns out that it is equiconsistent with the existence of a regular ∑2-correct cardinal and hence also equiconsistent with BPFA. Furthermore we show that, if consistent, it does not imply the Bounded Proper Forcing Axiom.

We show that Bounded Forcing Axioms (for instance, Martin's Axiom, the Bounded Proper Forcing Axiom, or the Bounded Martin's Maximum) are equivalent to principles of generic absoluteness, that is, they assert that if a $\Sigma_1$ sentence of the language of set theory with parameters of small transitive size is forceable, then it is true. We also show that Bounded Forcing Axioms imply a strong form of generic absoluteness for projective sentences, namely, if a $\Sigma^1_3$ sentence with (...) parameters is forceable, then it is true. Further, if for every real x, $x^{\sharp}$ exists, and the second uniform indiscernible is less than $\omega_2$ , then the same holds for $\Sigma^1_4$ sentences. (shrink)

Moore introduced the Mapping Reflection Principle and proved that the Bounded Proper Forcing Axiom implies that the size of the continuum is ℵ2\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\aleph _2$$\end{document}. The Mapping Reflection Principle follows from the Proper Forcing Axiom. To show this, Moore utilized forcing notions whose conditions are countable objects. Chodounský–Zapletal introduced the Y-Proper Forcing Axiom that is a weak fragments of the Proper Forcing Axiom but (...) implies some important conclusions from the Proper Forcing Axiom, for example, the P-ideal Dichotomy. In this article, it is proved that the Y-Proper Forcing Axiom implies the Mapping Reflection Principle by introducing forcing notions whose conditions are finite objects. (shrink)

If the Bounded Proper Forcing Axiom BPFA holds, then Mouse Reflection holds at N₂ with respect to all mouse operators up to the level of Woodin cardinals in the next ZFC-model. This yields that if Woodin's ℙ max axiom (*) holds, then BPFA implies that V is closed under the "Woodin-in-the-next-ZFC-model" operator. We also discuss stronger Mouse Reflection principles which we show to follow from strengthenings of BPFA, and we discuss the theory BPFA plus "NS ω1 is precipitous" (...) and strengthenings thereof. Along the way, we answer a question of Baumgartner and Taylor. [2, Question 6.11]. (shrink)

There is a partial order ${\mathbb{P}}$ preserving stationary subsets of ω 1 and forcing that every partial order in the ground model V that collapses a sufficiently large ordinal to ω 1 over V also collapses ω 1 over ${V^{\mathbb{P}}}$ . The proof of this uses a coding of reals into ordinals by proper forcing discovered by Justin Moore and a symmetric extension of the universe in which the Axiom of Choice fails. Also, using one feature of (...) the proof of the above result together with an argument involving the stationary tower it is shown that sometimes, after adding one Cohen real c, there are, for every real a in V[c], sets A and B such that c is Cohen generic over both L[A] and L[B] but a is constructible from A together with B. (shrink)

I introduced the notions of proper and piecewise proper families of reals to make progress on a long standing open question in the field of models of Peano Arithmetic [5]. A family of reals is proper if it is arithmetically closed and its quotient Boolean algebra modulo the ideal of finite sets is a proper poset. A family of reals is piecewise proper if it is the union of a chain of proper families each (...) of whom has size ≤ ω1.Here, I investigate the question of the existence of proper and piecewise proper families of reals of different cardinalities. I show that it is consistent relative to ZFC to have continuum many proper families of cardinality ω1 and continuum many piecewise proper families of cardinality ω2. (shrink)

Natural selection comes in degrees. Some biological traits are subjected to stronger selective force than others, selection on particular traits waxes and wanes over time, and some groups can only undergo an attenuated kind of selective process. This has downstream consequences for any notions that are standardly treated as binary but depend on natural selection. For instance, the proper function of a biological structure can be defined as what caused that structure to be retained by natural selection in the (...) past. We usually think of proper functions in binary terms: storing bile is a function of the gall bladder, but making stones is not. However, if functions arise through natural selection, and natural selection comes in degrees, then a binary approach to proper functions is in tension with the biological facts. In order to resolve this tension, we need to revise our standard accounts of proper function. In particular, we may have to seriously consider the possibility that functions themselves come in degrees, in spite of the ramifications this will have for the way we speak about functions and related concepts such as dysfunction, disease, and teleosemantic content. (shrink)

We show that Dependent Choice is a sufficient choice principle for developing the basic theory of proper forcing, and for deriving generic absoluteness for the Chang model in the presence of large cardinals, even with respect to $\mathsf {DC}$ -preserving symmetric submodels of forcing extensions. Hence, $\mathsf {ZF}+\mathsf {DC}$ not only provides the right framework for developing classical analysis, but is also the right base theory over which to safeguard truth in analysis from the independence phenomenon in (...) the presence of large cardinals. We also investigate some basic consequences of the Proper Forcing Axiom in $\mathsf {ZF}$, and formulate a natural question about the generic absoluteness of the Proper Forcing Axiom in $\mathsf {ZF}+\mathsf {DC}$ and $\mathsf {ZFC}$. Our results confirm $\mathsf {ZF} + \mathsf {DC}$ as a natural foundation for a significant portion of “classical mathematics” and provide support to the idea of this theory being also a natural foundation for a large part of set theory. (shrink)

The Theme. Strong forcing axioms like Martin’s Maximum give a reasonably satisfactory structural analysis of $H(\omega _2)$. A broad program in modern Set Theory is searching for strong forcing axioms beyond $\omega _1$. In other words, one would like to figure out the structural properties of taller initial segments of the universe. However, the classical techniques of forcing iterations seem unable to bypass the obstacles, as the resulting forcings axioms beyond $\omega _1$ have not thus far been (...) strong enough! However, with his celebrated work on generalised side conditions, I. Neeman introduced us to a novel paradigm to iterate forcings. In particular, he could, among other things, reprove the consistency of the Proper Forcing Axiom using an iterated forcing with finite supports. In 2015, using his technology of virtual models, Veličković built up an iteration of semi-proper forcings with finite supports, hence reproving the consistency of Martin’s Maximum, an achievement leading to the notion of a virtual model.In this thesis, we are interested in constructing forcing notions with finitely many virtual models as side conditions to preserve three uncountable cardinals. The thesis constitutes six chapters and three appendices that amount to 118 pages, where Section 1 is devoted to preliminaries, and Section 2 is a warm-up about the scaffolding poset of a proper forcing. In Section 3, we present the general theory of virtual models in the context of forcing with sets of models of two types, where we, e.g., define the “meet” between two virtual models and prove its properties.The main results are joint with Boban Veličković, and partly appeared in Guessing models and the approachability ideal, J. Math. Log. 21 (2021).Pure Side Conditions. In Section 4, we use two types of virtual models (countable and large non-transitive ones induced by a supercompact cardinal, which we call Magidor models) to construct our forcing with pure side conditions. The forcing covertly uses a third type of models that are transitive. We also add decorations to the conditions to add many clubs in the generic $\omega _2$. In contrast to Neeman’s method, we do not have a single chain, but $\alpha $ -chains, for an ordinal $\alpha $ with $V_\alpha \prec V_\lambda $. Thus, starting from suitable large cardinals $\kappa <\lambda $, we construct a forcing notion whose conditions are finite sets of virtual models described earlier. The forcing is strongly proper, preserves $\kappa $, and has the $\lambda $ -Knaster property. The relevant quotients of the forcing are strongly proper, which helps us prove strong guessing model principles. The construction is generalisable to a ${<}\mu $ -closed forcing, for any given cardinal $\mu $ with $\mu ^{<\mu }=\mu <\kappa $.The Iteration Theorem. In Section 5, we use the forcing with pure side conditions to iterate a subclass of proper and $\aleph _2$ -c.c. forcings and obtain a forcing axiom at the level of $\aleph _2$. The iterable class is closely related to Asperó–Mota’s forcing axiom for finitely proper forcings.Guessing Model Principles. Section 6 encompasses the main parts of the thesis. We prove the consistency of the guessing principle $\mathrm {GMP}^+(\omega _3,\omega _1)$ that states for any cardinal ${\theta \geq \omega _3}$, the set of $\aleph _2$ -sized elementary submodels M of $H(\theta )$, which are the union of an $\omega _1$ -continuous $\in $ -chain of $\omega _1$ -guessing, I.C. models is stationary in $\mathcal P_{\omega _3}(H(\theta ))$. The consistency and consequences of this principle are demonstrated in the following diagram. We also prove that one can obtain the above guessing models in a way that the $\omega _1$ -sized $\omega _1$ -guessing models remain $\omega _1$ -guessing model in any outer transitive model with the same $\omega _1$, and we denote this principle by $\rm{SGMP}^+(\omega_3,\omega_1)$.In the following diagram, $\mathrm{TP}$ stands for the tree property; $w\mathrm{KH}$ stands for the weak Kurepa Hypothesis; $\mathrm{MP}$ stands for Mitchell property, i.e., the approachability ideal is trivial modulo the nonstationary ideal; $\mathrm{AP}$ stands for the approachability property; $\mathrm {AMTP}(\kappa ^+)$ states that if $2^\kappa <\aleph _{\kappa ^+}$, then every forcing which adds a new subset of $\kappa ^+$ whose initial segments are in the ground model, collapses some cardinal $\leq 2^{\kappa }$. The dotted arrow denotes the relative consistency, while others are logical implications.Appendices. Appendix A includes merely the above diagram. Appendix B presents a proof of the Mapping Reflection Principle with finite conditions under $\mathrm {PFA}$. Appendix C contains open problems. Finally, the thesis’s bibliography consists of 42 items.Abstract prepared by Rahman MohammadpourE-mail: [email protected]: https://theses.hal.science/tel-03209264. (shrink)

The ability of the medical profession to sustain life, or more appropriately, to prolong dying, in patients with terminal illness, creates a most complex and controversial situation for all involved: the patient, if mentally alert; the patient's family; and the medical care team including physicians, nurses and attendants. This situation is especially complex in large acute care hospitals where medical and nursing students, residents and house officers receive advanced medical training. A major problem, prolonging the dying of the terminally ill, (...) with its medical, legal, ethical and economic complexities now confronts American society. The problem is particularly acute in teaching hospitals, in which one finds a disproportionate number of terminally ill patients. The ability to work at these questions as a community rather than as adversaries will determine much about the ability of the health care system to respect the dignity and autonomy of those who seek aid and comfort when faced with serious illness and impending death. Better communication between the physicians, health care providers, the lawyers and ethicists must be developed in order to solve these problems. Over the next ten years society and our elected representatives will be making very demanding decisions about the use of the health dollar. One possible way to prevent increasing costs is to reach significant agreement on the proper care of the dying. Proper care for the dying is being considered, discussed, and evaluated by very thoughtful people. It is not governments which should decide who is to live or who is to die. There is the serious problem of the 'slippery slope' to euthanasia by omission if cost containment becomes the major force in formulating policy on the proper care of the dying. (shrink)

We prove rigidity results for large classes of corona algebras, assuming the Proper Forcing Axiom. In particular, we prove that a conjecture of Coskey and Farah holds for all separable [Formula: see text]-algebras with the metric approximation property and an increasing approximate identity of projections.

Suppose that T^∗ is an ω_1-Aronszajn tree with no stationary antichain. We introduce a forcing axiom PFA(T^∗) for proper forcings which preserve these properties of T^∗. We prove that PFA(T^∗) implies many of the strong consequences of PFA, such as the failure of very weak club guessing, that all of the cardinal characteristics of the continuum are greater than ω_1, and the P-ideal dichotomy. On the other hand, PFA(T^∗) implies some of the consequences of diamond principles, such as (...) the existence of Knaster forcings which are not stationarily Knaster. (shrink)

Some 40 years ago, Dana Scott proved that every countable Scott set is the standard system of a model of PA. Two decades later, Knight and Nadel extended his result to Scott sets of size ω₁. Here, I show that assuming the Proper Forcing Axiom (PFA), every A-proper Scott set is the standard system of a model of PA. I define that a Scott set X is proper if the quotient Boolean algebra X/Fin is a (...) class='Hi'>proper partial order and A-proper if X is additionally arithmetically closed. I also investigate the question of the existence of proper Scott sets. (shrink)

In this paper we probe the possibilities of creating a Kurepa tree in a generic extension of a ground model of CH plus no Kurepa trees by an ω1-preserving forcing notion of size at most ω1. In Section 1 we show that in the Lévy model obtained by collapsing all cardinals between ω1 and a strongly inaccessible cardinal by forcing with a countable support Lévy collapsing order, many ω1-preserving forcing notions of size at most ω1 including all (...) ω-proper forcing notions and some proper but not ω-proper forcing notions of size at most ω1 do not create Kurepa trees. In Section 2 we construct a model of CH plus no Kurepa trees, in which there is an ω-distributive Aronszajn tree such that forcing with that Aronszajn tree does create a Kurepa tree in the generic extension. At the end of the paper we ask three questions. (shrink)

We prove that the Sacks forcing collapses the continuum onto ${\frak d}$ , answering the question of Carlson and Laver. Next we prove that if a proper forcing of the size at most continuum collapses $\omega_2$ then it forces $\diamondsuit_{\omega_{1}}$.

A $\Sigma _{1}^{2}$ truth for λ is a pair 〈Q, ψ〉 so that Q ⊆ Hλ, ψ is a first order formula with one free variable, and there exists B ⊆ Hλ+ such that (Hλ+; ε, B) $(H_{\lambda +};\in ,B)\vDash \psi [Q]$ . A cardinal λ is $\Sigma _{1}^{2}$ indescribable just in case that for every $\Sigma _{1}^{2}$ truth 〈Q, ψ〉 for λ, there exists $\overline{\lambda}<\lambda $ so that $\overline{\lambda}$ is a cardinal and $\langle Q\cap H_{\overline{\lambda}},\psi \rangle $ is a (...) $\Sigma _{1}^{2}$ truth for $\overline{\lambda}$ . More generally, an interval of cardinals [κ, λ] with κ ≤ λ is $\Sigma _{1}^{2}$ indescribable if for every $\Sigma _{1}^{2}$ truth 〈Q, ψ〉 for λ, there exists $??\leq \overline{\lambda}<\kappa,??\subseteq H_{\overline{\lambda}}$ , and π: $H_{\overline{\lambda}}\rightarrow H_{\lambda}$ so that $??$ is a cardinal, $\langle ??,\psi \rangle $ is a $\Sigma _{1}^{2}$ truth for $??$ , and π is elementary from $(H_{\overline{\lambda}};\in,??,??)$ with $\pi \,|\,??={\rm id}$ . We prove that the restriction of the proper forcing axiom to c-linked posets requires a $\Sigma _{1}^{2}$ indescribable cardinal in L, and that the restriction of the proper forcing axiom to c⁺-linked posets, in a proper forcing extension of a fine structural model, requires a $\Sigma _{1}^{2}$ indescribable 1-gap [κ, κ⁺]. These results show that the respective forward directions obtained in " Hierarchies of Forcing Axioms I" by Neeman and Schimmerling are optimal. (shrink)

We develop the theory of partial satisfaction relations for structures that may be proper classes and define a satisfaction predicate ($\models^*$) appropriate to such structures. We indicate the utility of this theory as a framework for the development of the metatheory of first-order predicate logic and set theory, and we use it to prove that for any recursively enumerable extension $\Theta$ of ZF there is a finitely axiomatizable extension $\Theta'$ of GB that is a conservative extension of $\Theta$. We (...) also prove a conservative extension result that justifies the use of $\models^*$ to characterize ground models for forcing constructions. (shrink)

In this paper I consider fairness of blaming a wrongdoer. In particular, I consider the claim that blaming a wrongdoer can be unfair because blame has a certain characteristic force, a force which is not fairly imposed upon the wrongdoer unless certain conditions are met--unless, e.g., the wrongdoer could have done otherwise, or unless she is someone capable of having done right, or unless she is able to control her behavior by the light of moral reasons. While agreeing that blame (...) has a characteristic force, I am skeptical of this charge of unfairness. My skepticism concerns itself less with the particular conditions of fairness proposed than with the idea that blame can be rendered unfair by its characteristic force. If to blame a person were simply to perform certain intentional actions, then, as we will see, blame could be rendered unfair by its force. But to blame a person is not just to act in certain ways. It is, at least in large part, to make certain judgments or adopt certain attitudes. However, it is unclear how these attitudes or judgments carry "force"? and also unclear whether they can be rendered unfair by their force. Examining these issues, I will suggest that much of the force of blame is found in a set of judgments--most centrally, the judgment that one person failed to show proper regard for others. But, I will argue, once it is granted that such judgments are true, their characteristic force cannot render them unfair. (shrink)

We investigate the effect after forcing with a coherent Souslin tree on the gap structure of the class of coherent Aronszajn trees ordered by embeddability. We shall show, assuming the relativized version PFA(S) of the proper forcing axiom, that the Souslin tree S forces that the class of Aronszajn trees ordered by the embeddability relation is universal for linear orders of cardinality at most ${\aleph_1}$.

ABSTRACT Recently, the content/force distinction has had a bad press. It has been argued that the distinction is not properly motivated and that it makes the problem of the unity of the proposition intractable. I will argue that Frege’s version of the content/force distinction is immune from these objections. In order to do so, I will reconstruct his argument that ‘the nature of a question’ requires a distinction between force and content. I will answer the concern about the unity of (...) the proposition by outlining how the distinction can be combined with a Fregean account of the unity of thought. (shrink)

Recently, several philosophers have challenged the view that evolutionary theory is usefully understood by way of an analogy with Newtonian mechanics. Instead, they argue that evolutionary theory is merely a statistical theory. According to this alternate approach, natural selection and random genetic drift are not even causes, much less forces. I argue that, properly understood, the Newtonian analogy is unproblematic and illuminating. I defend the view that selection and drift are causes in part by attending to a pair of important (...) distinctions—that between process and product and that between natural selection and fitness. (shrink)

We define the notion of Souslin forcing, and we prove that some properties are preserved under iteration. We define a weaker form of Martin's axiom, namely MA(Γ + ℵ 0 ), and using the results on Souslin forcing we show that MA(Γ + ℵ 0 ) is consistent with the existence of a Souslin tree and with the splitting number s = ℵ 1 . We prove that MA(Γ + ℵ 0 ) proves the additivity of measure. Also (...) we introduce the notion of proper Souslin forcing, and we prove that this property is preserved under countable support iterated forcing. We use these results to show that ZFC + there is an inaccessible cardinal is equiconsistent with ZFC + the Borel conjecture + Σ 1 2 -measurability. (shrink)

Evolutionary explanations are not only common in the biological sciences, but also widespread outside biology. But an account of how evolutionary explanations perform their explanatory work is still lacking. This paper develops such an account. I argue that available accounts of explanations in evolutionary science miss important parts of the role of history in evolutionary explanations. I argue that the historical part of evolutionary science should be taken as having genuine explanatory force, and that it provides how‐possibly explanations sensu Dray. (...) I propose an account of evolutionary explanations as comparative‐composite explanations consisting of two distinct kinds of explanations, one processual and one historical, that are connected via the explanandum's evolvability to show how the explanandum is the product of its evolutionary past. The account is both a reconstruction of how evolutionary explanations in biology work and a guideline specifying what kind of explanations evolutionary research programs should develop. (shrink)

In the first part of this paper, we consider several natural axioms in urelement set theory, including the Collection Principle, the Reflection Principle, the Dependent Choice scheme and its generalizations, as well as other axioms specifically concerning urelements. We prove that these axioms form a hierarchy over $\text {ZFCU}_{\text {R}}$ (ZFC with urelements formulated with Replacement) in terms of direct implication. The second part of the paper studies forcing over countable transitive models of $\text {ZFU}_{\text {R}}$. We propose a (...) new definition of ${\mathbb P}$ -names to address an issue with the existing approach. We then prove the fundamental theorem of forcing with urelements regarding axiom preservation. Moreover, we show that forcing can destroy and recover certain axioms within the previously established hierarchy. Finally, we demonstrate how ground model definability may fail when the ground model contains a proper class of urelements. (shrink)