Absoluteness via Resurrection

The resurrection axioms are forcing axioms introduced recently by Hamkins and Johnstone, developing on ideas of Chalons and Velickovi\'c. We introduce a stronger form of resurrection axioms (the \emph{iterated} resurrection axioms $\textrm{RA}_\alpha(\Gamma)$ for a class of forcings $\Gamma$ and a given ordinal $\alpha$), and show that $\textrm{RA}_\omega(\Gamma)$ implies generic absoluteness for the first-order theory of $H_{\gamma^+}$ with respect to forcings in $\Gamma$ preserving the axiom, where $\gamma=\gamma_\Gamma$ is a cardinal which depends on $\Gamma$ ($\gamma_\Gamma=\omega_1$ if $\Gamma$ is any among the classes of countably closed, proper, semiproper, stationary set preserving forcings). We also prove that the consistency strength of these axioms is below that of a Mahlo cardinal for most forcing classes, and below that of a stationary limit of supercompact cardinals for the class of stationary set preserving posets. Moreover we outline that simultaneous generic absoluteness for $H_{\gamma_0^+}$ with respect to $\Gamma_0$ and for $H_{\gamma_1^+}$ with respect to $\Gamma_1$ with $\gamma_0=\gamma_{\Gamma_0}\neq\gamma_{\Gamma_1}=\gamma_1$ is in principle possible, and we present several natural models of the Morse Kelley set theory where this phenomenon occurs (even for all $H_\gamma$ simultaneously). Finally, we compare the iterated resurrection axioms (and the generic absoluteness results we can draw from them) with a variety of other forcing axioms, and also with the generic absoluteness results by Woodin and the second author.Comment: 34 page

On what I do not understand (and have something to say): Part I

This is a non-standard paper, containing some problems in set theory I have in various degrees been interested in. Sometimes with a discussion on what I have to say; sometimes, of what makes them interesting to me, sometimes the problems are presented with a discussion of how I have tried to solve them, and sometimes with failed tries, anecdote and opinion. So the discussion is quite personal, in other words, egocentric and somewhat accidental. As we discuss many problems, history and side references are erratic, usually kept at a minimum (``see ... '' means: see the references there and possibly the paper itself). The base were lectures in Rutgers Fall'97 and reflect my knowledge then. The other half, concentrating on model theory, will subsequently appear

Logical Dreams

We discuss the past and future of set theory, axiom systems and independence results. We deal in particular with cardinal arithmetic