For a regular uncountable kappa-tree, keep exactly the nodes whose extensions have unbounded heights:This set is predecessor-closed. At any level , if no node survived, the extension heights above each of its fewer than nodes would be bounded. Regularity would give a single bound for their union, contradicting the height of the original set-theoretic tree. Thus every level of is nonempty and still has size less than .
If and , consider its extensions at level . If none survived, fewer than bounded extension sets would again bound every extension of , a contradiction. Therefore a surviving level- extension exists. HenceThis unbounded-extension kernel of a regular tree uses regularity essentially. If one permits singular-height set-theoretic trees in the term “-tree”, the unrestricted assertion is false: take fewer than disjoint branches with lengths cofinal in a singular . The levels are small and the height is , but no node has unbounded extensions. A common root can be added without creating a well-pruned subtree. The usual regular-height convention is therefore the one used here.
Prune an -Suslin tree as in part (a), then use its nodes as forcing conditions, with extensions stronger. Two conditions are compatible exactly when comparable, so the absence of uncountable tree antichains is the forcing countable chain condition for forcing. For each , the set of nodes of height at least is dense, by well-pruned set-theoretic tree.
If , full Martin's axiom includes . It would provide a filter in an ordered set meeting all these dense subsets of a forcing order. Directedness makes that filter in an ordered set a chain in a partial order, and meeting every makes its heights unbounded, producing an uncountable branch. This contradicts the Suslin-tree property. A Suslin set-theoretic tree together with failure of Continuum hypothesis therefore implies failure of Martin's axiom. This is the Suslin-tree obstruction to Martin's axiom.
Articles by others on the same topic
There are currently no matching articles.