Similar but not the same: Various versions of ♣ do not coincide

Journal of Symbolic Logic 64 (1):180 - 198 (1999)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

We consider various versions of the ♣ principle. This principle is a known consequence of $\lozenge$ . It is well known that $\lozenge$ is not sensitive to minor changes in its definition, e.g., changing the guessing requirement form "guessing exactly" to "guessing modulo a finite set". We show however, that this is not true for ♣. We consider some other variants of ♣ as well

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 99,445

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Some results about (+) proved by iterated forcing.Tetsuya Ishiu & Paul B. Larson - 2012 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 77 (2):515-531.
Guessing models and generalized Laver diamond.Matteo Viale - 2012 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 163 (11):1660-1678.
On guessing generalized clubs at the successors of regulars.Assaf Rinot - 2011 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 162 (7):566-577.
Club guessing sequences and filters.Tetsuya Ishiu - 2005 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 70 (4):1037-1071.
Guessing models and the approachability ideal.Rahman Mohammadpour & Boban Veličković - 2020 - Journal of Mathematical Logic 21 (2):2150003.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
66 (#266,416)

6 months
11 (#246,537)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Džamonja Mirna
University of East Anglia

Citations of this work

Towers and clubs.Pierre Matet - 2021 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 60 (6):683-719.
Finding generic filters by playing games.Heike Mildenberger - 2010 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 49 (1):91-118.

Add more citations