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

Dependent choice, properness, and generic absoluteness

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 -preserving symmetric submodels of forcing extensions. Hence, 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, and formulate a natural question about the generic absoluteness of the Proper Forcing Axiom in and. Our results confirm 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

Non-Absoluteness of Model Existence at ℵω\aleph_\omega

In [FHK13], the authors considered the question whether model-existence of $L_{\omega_1,\omega}$-sentences is absolute for transitive models of ZFC, in the sense that if $V \subseteq W$ are transitive models of ZFC with the same ordinals, $\varphi\in V$ and $V\models "\varphi \text{ is an } L_{\omega_1,\omega}\text{-sentence}"$, then $V \models "\varphi \text{ has a model of size } \aleph_\alpha"$ if and only if $W \models "\varphi \text{ has a model of size } \aleph_\alpha"$. From [FHK13] we know that the answer is positive for $\alpha=0,1$ and under the negation of CH, the answer is negative for all $\alpha>1$. Under GCH, and assuming the consistency of a supercompact cardinal, the answer remains negative for each $\alpha>1$, except the case when $\alpha=\omega$ which is an open question in [FHK13]. We answer the open question by providing a negative answer under GCH even for $\alpha=\omega$. Our examples are incomplete sentences. In fact, the same sentences can be used to prove a negative answer under GCH for all $\alpha>1$ assuming the consistency of a Mahlo cardinal. Thus, the large cardinal assumption is relaxed from a supercompact in [FHK13] to a Mahlo cardinal. Finally, we consider the absoluteness question for the $\aleph_\alpha$-amalgamation property of $L_{\omega_1,\omega}$-sentences (under substructure). We prove that assuming GCH, $\aleph_\alpha$-amalgamation is non-absolute for $1<\alpha<\omega$. This answers a question from [SS]. The cases $\alpha=1$ and $\alpha$ infinite remain open. As a corollary we get that it is non-absolute that the amalgamation spectrum of an $L_{\omega_1,\omega}$-sentence is empty