Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T15:37:58.418Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Forcing and stable ordered–union ultrafilters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Todd Eisworth
Todd Eisworth*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA 50614, E-mail: eisworth@math.uni.edu, URL: http://www.math.uni.edu/~eisworth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We investigate the effect of a variant of Matet forcing on ultrafilters in the ground model and give a characterization of those P–points that survive such forcing, answering a question left open by Blass [4]. We investigate the question of when this variant of Matet forcing can be used to diagonalize small filters without destroying P–points in the ground model. We also deal with the question of generic existence of stable ordered-union ultrafilters.

Keywords

ordered–union ultrafiltersMatet forcingHindman's Theoremcardinal characteristics
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 67 , Issue 1 , March 2002 , pp. 449 - 464
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Bartoszyński, Tomek and Judah, Haim, Set Theory, A. K. Peters Limited, Wellesley, MA, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Blass, A. and Hindman, N., On strongly summable ultrafilters and union ultrafilters, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 304 (1987), no. 1, pp. 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Blass, Andreas, Ultrafilters related to Hindman's finite-unions theorem and its extensions, Logic and combinatorics, Contempory Mathematics, vol. 65, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1987, pp. 89–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Blass, Andreas, Applications of superperfect forcing and its relatives, Set theory and its applications, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1401, Springer, Berlin, 1989, pp. 18–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Blass, Andreas, Groupwise density and related cardinals, Archive for Mathematical Logic, vol. 30 (1990), no. 1, pp. 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Canjar, R. Michael, On the generic existence of special ultrafilters, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 110 (1990), no. 1, pp. 233–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Hindman, Neil, Finite sums from sequences within cells of a partition of N, Journal of Combinatorial Theory Series A, vol. 17 (1974), pp. 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Hindman, Neil, Ultrafilters and combinatorial number theory, Number theory, Carbondale 1979, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 751, Springer, Berlin, 1979, pp. 119–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Laflamme, Claude, Zapping small filters, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 114 (1992), no. 2, pp. 535–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Matet, P. and Pawlikowski, J., Ideals over Ω and cardinal invariants of the continuum, this Journal, vol. 63 (1998), no. 3, pp. 1040–1054.Google Scholar
[11]Matet, Pierre, Some filters of partitions, this Journal, vol. 53 (1988), no. 2, pp. 540–553.Google Scholar
[12]Milliken, Keith R., Ramsey's theorem with sums or unions, Journal of Combinatorial Theory Series A, vol. 18 (1975), pp. 276–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Taylor, Alan D., A canonical partition relation for finite subsets of Ω, Journal of Combinatorial Theory Series A, vol. 21 (1976), no. 2, pp. 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar