2017
DOI: 10.1002/malq.201500086
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Local Ramsey theory: an abstract approach

Abstract: Given a topological Ramsey space (R,≤,r), we extend the notion of semiselective coideal to sets H⊆R and study conditions for scriptH that will enable us to make the structure (R,H,≤,r) a Ramsey space (not necessarily topological) and also study forcing notions related to scriptH which will satisfy abstract versions of interesting properties of the corresponding forcing notions in the realm of Ellentuck's space (cf. ). This extends results from to the most general context of topological Ramsey spaces. As appli… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
20
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
1
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In particular, our space E 2 provides an alternate method for proving Theorem 31 of [1], due to Blass, where it is shown that G 2 has the best partition properties that a non-p-point can have. We further remark that minor modifications to the arguments in [3] in conjunction with our theorems that E k is a topological Ramsey space and that P( k )/Fin ⊗k is forcing equivalent to (E k , ⊆ Fin ⊗k ) yield that these forcings P( )/Fin ⊗k have 'complete combinatorics' in the sense of Blass. The details will be included in a forthcoming paper of the author.…”
mentioning
confidence: 85%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In particular, our space E 2 provides an alternate method for proving Theorem 31 of [1], due to Blass, where it is shown that G 2 has the best partition properties that a non-p-point can have. We further remark that minor modifications to the arguments in [3] in conjunction with our theorems that E k is a topological Ramsey space and that P( k )/Fin ⊗k is forcing equivalent to (E k , ⊆ Fin ⊗k ) yield that these forcings P( )/Fin ⊗k have 'complete combinatorics' in the sense of Blass. The details will be included in a forthcoming paper of the author.…”
mentioning
confidence: 85%
“…The maximal nodes in Figure 1 is technically the set { i m : m < 20}, which indicates the structure of ↓≤3 . By Fin ⊗3 , we denote Fin ⊗ Fin ⊗2 , which consists of all subsets F ⊆ 3 such that for all but finitely many 3 with {(i, j, k) ∈ 3 : i < j < k}, we abuse notation and let Fin ⊗3 on [ ] 3 denote the collection of all subsets F ⊆ [ ] 3 such that {(i, j, k) : {i, j, k} ∈ F } is in Fin ⊗3 as defined on 3 . It is routine to check that (E 3 , ⊆ Fin ⊗3 ) is forcing equivalent to P( 3 )/Fin ⊗3 .…”
Section: A4 If Depth B (A) < ∞ and If O ⊆ Ar |A|+1 Then There Ismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The third is R,≤ * where ≤ * is some -closed partial order which coarsens ≤ such that the separative quotients of R,≤ and R,≤ * are isomorphic. These forcings were shown to have many properties in common with Mathias forcing in [8,29]. Similarly to [ ] ,⊆ * , forcing with R,≤ * adds a new ultrafilter on a countable base set as follows: By Axiom A.2, relativizing below some member of R if necessary, the collection AR 1 of all first approximations to members of R is a countable set.…”
Section: Forcing With Topological Ramsey Spaces and The Ultrafilters They Generatementioning
confidence: 99%
“…So fix s ∈ [a,q] such that either [a,s] ġ ∈ S or [a,s] ġ ∈ S. Without loss of generality, assume the former.Since 1 is inaccessible in M, fix a g ∈ R that is P-generic over M such that g ∈ [a,s]. But P also has the Mathias property (see Theorem 6.24 in[8]). So every…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This question was answered positively in [2], and here we present an extension of this answer to the forcing localized on a semiselective coideal. In [3], this result was generalized to the corresponding notion analogous to Mathias forcing in a topological Ramsey space.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%