Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Cardinal invariants related to density

David Valderrama

TL;DR

The paper investigates density-based variants of splitting and reaping defined via asymptotic density, focusing on invariants $\mathfrak{s}_{1/2}$, $\mathfrak{r}_{1/2}$, the independence number $\mathfrak{i}$, and the $*$-independence $\mathfrak{i}_{*}$, and their relation to the $\sigma$-ideal $\mathcal{E}$. It develops $\sigma$-centered forcing methods to preserve density-based cardinals and employs Hechler forcing, Cohen forcing, and Mathias forcing to separate these invariants, establishing Con$(\mathfrak{d}<\mathfrak{s}_{1/2})$, Con$(\mathfrak{r}_{1/2}<\mathfrak{b})$, and Con$(\mathfrak{i}_{*}<2^{\aleph_0})$, along with $\mathfrak{s}_{1/2}^{\infty} \leq \text{non}(\mathcal{E})$ and $\text{cov}(\mathcal{E}) \leq \mathfrak{r}_{1/2}^{\infty}$. It also demonstrates the consistency of strict inequalities involving $\mathcal{E}$ via Hechler and Dual Hechler models, and proves Con$(\mathfrak{i}_{*}<2^{\aleph_0})$ in a Cohen-model under CH. Together, these results extend density-based invariants beyond classical splitting/reaping and clarify their interplay with the ideal $\mathcal{E}$, while showcasing robust forcing techniques to separate these cardinals.

Abstract

We investigate some variants of the splitting, reaping, and independence numbers defined using asymptotic density. Specifically, we give a proof of Con($\mathfrak{i}<\mathfrak{s}_{1/2}$), Con($\mathfrak{r}_{1/2}<\mathfrak{b}$) and Con($\mathfrak{i}_*<2^{\aleph_0}$). This answers two questions raised in arXiv:1808.02442v3. Besides, we prove the consistency of $\mathfrak{s}_{1/2}^{\infty} < $ non$(\mathcal{E})$ and cov$(\mathcal{E}) < \mathfrak{r}_{1/2}^{\infty}$, where $\mathcal{E}$ is the $σ$-ideal generated by closed sets of measure zero.

Cardinal invariants related to density

TL;DR

The paper investigates density-based variants of splitting and reaping defined via asymptotic density, focusing on invariants , , the independence number , and the -independence , and their relation to the -ideal . It develops -centered forcing methods to preserve density-based cardinals and employs Hechler forcing, Cohen forcing, and Mathias forcing to separate these invariants, establishing Con, Con, and Con, along with and . It also demonstrates the consistency of strict inequalities involving via Hechler and Dual Hechler models, and proves Con in a Cohen-model under CH. Together, these results extend density-based invariants beyond classical splitting/reaping and clarify their interplay with the ideal , while showcasing robust forcing techniques to separate these cardinals.

Abstract

We investigate some variants of the splitting, reaping, and independence numbers defined using asymptotic density. Specifically, we give a proof of Con(), Con() and Con(). This answers two questions raised in arXiv:1808.02442v3. Besides, we prove the consistency of non and cov, where is the -ideal generated by closed sets of measure zero.
Paper Structure (4 sections, 26 theorems, 83 equations, 3 figures)

This paper contains 4 sections, 26 theorems, 83 equations, 3 figures.

Key Result

Lemma 2.2

Let $\mathbb{P}$ be a $\sigma$-centered forcing notion. Let $\dot{x}$ be a $\mathbb{P}$-name for an element of $[\omega]^\omega$. There are sets $\{X_i\}_{i\in \omega}$ such that for all $A \in [\omega]^\omega$, if for all $i\in \omega$ there are infinitely many $n \in \omega$ such that Then

Figures (3)

  • Figure 1: Inequalities between $\mathfrak{s}_{1/2}, \mathfrak{s}_{1/2 \pm \epsilon}, \mathfrak{s}_{1/2}^{w}, \mathfrak{s}_{1/2}^{\infty}$ and other well-known cardinal characteristics. $\dashrightarrow$ means $\leq$, and $\rightarrow$ means $\leq$, consistently $<$.
  • Figure 2: Dual diagram. $\dashrightarrow$ means $\leq$, and $\rightarrow$ means $\leq$, consistently $<$.
  • Figure 3: Behavior in the Hechler and Dual Hechler model

Theorems & Definitions (61)

  • Definition 1.1
  • Definition 1.2
  • Definition 1.3
  • Definition 1.4
  • Definition 1.5
  • Definition 2.1
  • Lemma 2.2
  • proof
  • Lemma 2.3
  • proof
  • ...and 51 more