Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 35 references

Biba's trick, with applications

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that two forcing axioms force every homomorphism into a quotient algebra P(N)/I to lift to a continuous function on a nonmeager ideal, for countably 80-determined ideals I.

desk verdict Real progress on OCA lifting with a much shorter proof, but the main theorem's proof has an unjustified exponent jump that needs fixing before acceptance. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09716 v3 pith:LJFGIL56 submitted 2024-12-12 math.LO

Ilijas Farah This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.LO MSC 03E1503E5003E65
keywords liftingtheoremsquotientBooleanalgebrasanalyticidealsOCAMA(σ-linked)forcingaxiomscompletelyadditiveliftingscountablydetermined
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to show that the forcing axioms $\mathrm{OCA}_T$ and $\mathrm{MA}(\sigma\text{-linked})$ are enough to prove strong lifting theorems for homomorphisms between quotient Boolean algebras of the form $P(\mathbb{N})/I$. The main result is that whenever an ideal $I$ is countably 80-determined by closed approximations, every homomorphism $\Phi\colon P(\mathbb{N})\to P(\mathbb{N})/I$ has a continuous lifting on a nonmeager ideal. Because continuous liftings can be converted into completely additive liftings, the theorem implies that isomorphisms between quotients by nonpathological $F_\sigma$ ideals, nonpathological analytic P-ideals, and the ideals of nowhere dense, null, and zero-density subsets are all given by a single function on the integers. A second theorem shows that under $\mathrm{OCA}_T$ alone, every automorphism of $P(\mathbb{N})/I$ for a countably generated ideal $I$ is trivial. The author presents this as evidence that forcing axioms provide a coherent framework for the rigidity of quotient structures.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the stabilization trick named in the title, in which one tries to build two sets whose one-step approximations conflict and the construction is forced to stop after finitely many steps, producing one function that uniformizes all the approximations. The surrounding machinery has three parts. A closed hereditary approximation $K$ to an ideal $I$ is a closed family of finite perturbations such that $I\subseteq K\cup \mathrm{Fin}$; an ideal is countably $d$-determined when it is an intersection, up to finite errors, of $d$-fold unions of such approximations. The ideal $J_{\mathrm{cont}}(\Phi)$ collects the sets $A$ on which $\Phi$ has a continuous $K$-approximation, and a hereditary family is nonmeager exactly when it meets every perfect tree-like almost disjoint family. The equivalent axiom $\mathrm{OCA}^{\#}$ feeds the stabilization argument, and $\mathrm{MA}(\sigma\text{-linked})$ supplies the finite-combinatorial uniformization through Lemma 5.1, a finite interval-packing lemma.

What would settle it

Work through the exponent transition in Section 6: Lemma 3.4 gives nonempty intersection with perfect tree-like almost disjoint families for $J_{\mathrm{cont}}^{K_n^{16}}(\Phi)$, while Proposition 5.3 requires $J_{\mathrm{cont}}^K(\Phi)$ itself to meet every uncountable tree-like almost disjoint family; a formal check of whether $K=K_n$ can be substituted, or constructing a countably 80-determined ideal and homomorphism for which the produced ideal is nonmeager but fails that hypothesis, would settle the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the OCA lifting theorem can be sharpened from countably 3204-determined ideals under the Proper Forcing Axiom to countably 80-determined ideals under the weaker hypotheses $\mathrm{OCA}_T$ plus $\mathrm{MA}(\sigma\text{-linked})$, with a proof short enough to replace an earlier thirty-page argument. The proof splits into two parts. Under $\mathrm{OCA}_T$ alone, Proposition 3.1 shows that for a countably 16-determined ideal the ideal $J_{\mathrm{cont}}(\Phi)$ of sets on which $\Phi$ has a continuous approximation meets every perfect tree-like almost disjoint family. Under $\mathrm{OCA}_T$ plus $\mathrm{MA}(\sigma\text{-linked})$, Proposition 5.3 converts this intersection property into a continuous $K^{80}$-approximation on $J_{\mathrm{cont}}(\Phi)$. Theorem 1.4 combines these approximations, one for each closed approximation $K_n$, to obtain a single continuous lifting of $\Phi$ on a nonmeager ideal; Theorem 1 then adds the Ulam-stability step that upgrades this to a completely additive lifting.

Load-bearing premise

The argument's hidden hinge is the step in Section 6 where the nonmeager ideals obtained from the 16-approximation lemma are treated as satisfying the intersection-with-tree-like-families condition needed to start the 80-approximation proposition; if this implication is not valid, Theorem 1.4 does not follow from the lemmas as written.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Theorem 1.4 is correct, every isomorphism $\Phi\colon P(\mathbb{N})/I'\to P(\mathbb{N})/I$ where $I$ is a nonpathological $F_\sigma$ ideal, a nonpathological analytic P-ideal, or one of $\mathrm{NWD}(Q)$, $\mathrm{NULL}(Q)$, $\mathrm{ZW}$ has a completely additive lifting, so $I$ and $I'$ are Rudin–Keisler isomorphic.
  • Under $\mathrm{OCA}_T$ alone, every automorphism of $P(\mathbb{N})/I$ for a countably generated ideal $I$ is trivial, meaning it is induced by a bijection on a set whose complement belongs to $I$.
  • The earlier lifting theorem for countably 3204-determined ideals under the Proper Forcing Axiom now follows from the weaker hypotheses $\mathrm{OCA}_T$ plus $\mathrm{MA}(\sigma\text{-linked})$ and applies to the wider class of 80-determined ideals.
  • The proof of the OCA lifting theorem is shortened from roughly thirty pages to a two-proposition argument, making the method easier to adapt to further quotient-rigidity questions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The constant 80 is likely an artifact of the proof architecture rather than a natural boundary; the author makes no claim of optimality, and if the machinery is sound the same strategy should extend to all $F_{\sigma\delta}$ ideals that are strongly countably determined.
  • A metric analogue of the stabilization trick already exists, so the same two-stage strategy of uniformization followed by Ulam stability may transfer to metric structures and operator-algebra quotients; the paper mentions the metric version only in passing.
  • A natural next target is removing $\mathrm{MA}(\sigma\text{-linked})$ from Proposition 5.3; the author states that he does not know whether that is possible, and a positive answer would make Theorem 1.4 a consequence of $\mathrm{OCA}_T$ alone.
  • A sharper test of the Section 6 transition would be to see whether the exponent 80 can be reduced to 16 by combining Lemma 3.4 and Proposition 5.3 more directly; the exponent arithmetic is where the proof's main risk sits.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a new proof and a strengthening of the OCA lifting theorem. The main technical result, Theorem 1.4, asserts that under OCA_T and MA(σ-linked), every homomorphism from P(N) into P(N)/I for a countably 80-determined ideal I has a continuous lifting on a nonmeager ideal. The author derives from it rigidity consequences for quotient Boolean algebras (Theorem 1) and triviality of automorphisms of quotients over countably generated ideals (Theorem 2). The proof introduces 'Biba's trick' to simplify the structure of the earlier OCA lifting theorem, replacing roughly thirty pages of [7].

Significance. If the central theorem holds, the paper is a substantial advance: it weakens the forcing assumptions from PFA to OCA_T plus MA(σ-linked), strengthens the ideal class from countably 3204-determined to countably 80-determined, and offers a considerably shorter proof. The paper contains many detailed, apparently correct local arguments (e.g., Lemma 3.4 and Proposition 5.3 each have elaborate proofs with explicit uses of OCA# and MA(σ-linked)). The applications to rigidity are stated crisply. However, the proof of the main theorem as written contains a load-bearing gap in the transition from the local lifting lemma to the uniformization proposition.

major comments (3)
  1. [§6, proof of Theorem 1.4] The step 'By Proposition 5.3, Φ has a continuous K_n^{80} approximation on J_cont' is not justified by the preceding lines. Lemma 3.4 yields that J_cont^{K_n^{16}}(Φ) meets every perfect tree-like almost disjoint family. Proposition 5.3, applied with K = K_n^{16}, would require J_cont^{K_n^{16}} to meet every uncountable tree-like almost disjoint family and would conclude the existence of a continuous (K_n^{16})^{80} = K_n^{1280}-approximation on J_cont^{K_n^{16}}, not a K_n^{80}-approximation on J_cont. Applying Proposition 5.3 with K = K_n^{80} would require J_cont^{K_n^{80}} to meet every uncountable tree-like family, which Lemma 3.4 does not give. The paper does not explain how a K_n^{1280}-approximation can be converted into a K_n^{80}-approximation, nor how the domain J_cont^{K_n^{16}} is replaced by J_cont. This gap is load-bearing because it is precisely the connection between the local lifting lemma and the uniformization proposition.
  2. [§6, application of Lemma 3.5] The sentence 'Lemma 3.5 applied with B_n = K_n^{80} implies that Φ has a continuous lifting on a relatively comeager subset X of J_cont' does not follow from the stated Lemma 3.5, which asserts an equivalence between a global continuous lifting and the existence of global Borel B_n-approximations. No local version of Lemma 3.5 is stated or proved, and the manuscript does not specify how the approximations obtained on J_cont are used to produce a single continuous lifting on a nonmeager ideal. This needs to be made precise, especially because the final appeal to Corollary 2.2 requires the existence of approximations on J_cont^2 = J_cont.
  3. [Proposition 5.3 and Lemma 3.4] Proposition 5.3 and Lemma 3.4 have mismatched hypotheses: Proposition 5.3 assumes that J_cont^K intersects every uncountable tree-like almost disjoint family, whereas Lemma 3.4 only establishes intersection with every perfect tree-like almost disjoint family. The proof of Proposition 5.3 appears to use only perfect tree-like families (in Claim 2, the constructed A(h) is perfect), so the author should either weaken the assumption of Proposition 5.3 to 'every perfect tree-like almost disjoint family' and state the corresponding version, or supply an argument that the perfect case implies the uncountable case.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains an incomplete sentence: 'In the assumptions of this theorem.'
  2. [Lemma 3.3] In the proof of Lemma 3.3, the symbol K_1 is used without the full superscript; it should be K^{Φ*,A,K}_1 or an explanation of the shorthand.
  3. [Theorem 4.1, Claim 2] In Claim 2 of the proof of Theorem 4.1, the notation 'J^K_cont' appears but K is not defined in that context.
  4. [Lemma 5.2] In Lemma 5.2, the condition 'G ∩ ˜Y_n = ∅ for all n /∈ X' appears to be a typo; the intended set is likely G ∩ Y_n, not G ∩ ˜Y_n.
  5. [Proposition 5.3] In the proof of Proposition 5.3, the definition of the sets V_m is hard to parse; a short explanatory sentence would improve readability.
  6. [Section 1.1] In Section 1.1, the sentence 'No care is taken to assure the optimality of this constant' before Lemma 1.3 is informal; consider clarifying that the constants 16, 80, and 3204 are artifacts of the proof.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main theorems are new set-theoretic derivations; self-citations are prior independent theorems, and the §6 exponent issue is a correctness gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

This is a set-theoretic lifting theorem with no fitted parameters, no data fitting, and no prediction that is reverse-engineered from its inputs. Theorem 1.4 is derived from Proposition 3.1 and Proposition 5.3, and those propositions are genuinely new arguments rather than restatements of the countably-80-determined hypothesis: Proposition 3.1 obtains a local intersection property for J_cont from OCA_T, while Proposition 5.3 uses OCA# and MA(σ-linked) to uniformize such intersection information into a K^{80}-approximation. The paper does rely on the author's prior work ([1], [7], [8]) for OCA#⇔OCA_T, for nonmeager hereditary-set facts, and for the later completely-additive-lifting step, but these are prior theorems with independent proofs and are not assumptions that already contain Theorem 1.4 or Theorem 1. The self-citation of [1, Theorem 3.3] is load-bearing in the sense that the proof uses the OCA# formulation, but it is exactly the kind of established external mathematical support that does not constitute circularity: the equivalence is a general fact about open coloring axioms, not a disguised form of the rigidity conclusion being proved. The paper also openly states in §7 that whether MA(σ-linked) can be removed is unknown, which is a limitation rather than a circular move. The apparent problem in §6 is a possible exponent mismatch: Lemma 3.4 is quoted as producing J^{K_n^{16}}_{cont}, while Proposition 5.3 as stated would require J^K_cont for the approximation K whose 80th power is output; the transition seems to conflate K_n^{16} with K_n, and this affects the correctness of the proof as written. That is a foundational or proof-validity concern, not a circular reduction, because the conclusion is not identified with the hypothesis by definition or by a fitted parameter. Accordingly, no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters fitted to data. The constants 16, 80, 3204 are fixed integers in the theorem statements, not tuned. The axioms are standard forcing axioms plus cited background results. No new entities (particles, dimensions, etc.) are introduced.

assumptions (9)
  • standard math ZFC
    The ambient set theory; all arguments are ZFC theorems relative to additional axioms.
  • domain assumption OCA_T (Open Coloring Axiom, Definition 1.13)
    The central forcing axiom assumed in Theorems 1, 2, 1.4 and Propositions 3.1, 5.3.
  • domain assumption MA(σ-linked) (Martin's Axiom for σ-linked posets, Section 1.4)
    Used in Lemma 1.12 to partition ∆(Z) and in Proposition 5.3 for the uniformization modulo I.
  • domain assumption OCA# (Definition 1.15) is equivalent to OCA_T ([1, Theorem 3.3])
    The proofs in §4 and §5 run through OCA#; the equivalence is imported from [1] and not reproved.
  • standard math Theorem 1.6 (Jalali-Naini and Talagrand characterization of nonmeager hereditary sets)
    Cited from [13] and [27] via [7, Theorem 3.10.1]; used throughout to identify nonmeager ideals.
  • standard math Jankov-von Neumann uniformization theorem (Kechris 18.A)
    Used in Lemma 2.9, Lemma 3.5, and Proposition 5.3 to obtain C-measurable selectors.
  • domain assumption Ulam-stability results converting continuous liftings to completely additive liftings ([7, Theorem 1.9.1], [16], [15])
    Used in the proof of Theorem 1 to upgrade liftings; these are prior results, not derived here.
  • domain assumption The consequence of OCA_T that every subset of N of cardinality ℵ1 is ≤*-bounded ([29])
    Used in Claim 5 of Theorem 4.1.
  • standard math Kunen's theorem on box products ([18]) used in Theorem 4.1
    Cites [18] to find n and m such that every α is ≤* below some β in X_n; used in the Fin × ∅ case.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Biba's trick, with applications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LJFGIL56

@misc{pith2026241209716,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Biba's trick, with applications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LJFGIL56}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09716}
}
read the original abstract

We give another bit of evidence that forcing axioms provide proper framework for rigidity of quotient structures, by improving the OCA lifting theorem proved by the author in late 20th century and greatly simplifying its proof. In the assumptions of this theorem. We also extend the conclusion of author's 2004 lifting theorem from a lifting result for countably 3204-determined ideals to one for countably 80-determined ideals and weaken its assumptions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [7]

    I. Farah. Analytic quotients: theory of liftings for quotients over analytic ideals on the inte- gers. Number 702 in Memoirs AMS, vol. 148. 2000

    work page 2000

  2. [8]

    I. Farah. Luzin gaps. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 356:2197–2239, 2004

    work page 2004

  3. [1]

    De Bondt, I

    B. De Bondt, I. Farah, and A. Vignati. Trivial isomorphisms between reduced products.Israel J. Math. , to appear. BIBA’S TRICK, WITH APPLICATIONS 25

    work page

  4. [2]

    De Bondt and A

    B. De Bondt and A. Vignati. A metric lifting theorem. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.11127 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  5. [3]

    A. Dow. A non-trivial copy of βN \N . Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. , 142(8):2907–2913, 2014

    work page 2014

  6. [4]

    A. Dow. Autohomeomorphisms of pre-images of N∗. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09319 , 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  7. [5]

    A. Dow. Non-trivial copies of N∗. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.03471 , 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  8. [6]

    Dow and K.P

    A. Dow and K.P. Hart. The measure algebra does not always embed. Fundamenta Mathe- maticae, 163:163–176, 2000

    work page 2000

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Farah, S

    I. Farah, S. Ghasemi, A. Vaccaro, and A. Vignati. Corona rigidity. Bull. Symb. Logic , to appear

  2. [10]

    Foreman, M

    M. Foreman, M. Magidor, and S. Shelah. Martin’s maximum, saturated ideals and nonregular ultrafilters, I. Ann. of Math. (2) , 127:1–47, 1988

    1988

  3. [11]

    D.H. Fremlin. Notes on farah P99. preprint, University of Essex, available at http://www.essex.ac.uk/maths/staff/fremlin/preprints.htm, June 1999

    1999

  4. [12]

    X. He, H. Zhang, and S. Zhang. The Borel complexity of ideal limit points. Top. Appl. , 312:108061, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Jalali-Naini

    S.-A. Jalali-Naini. The monotone subsets of Cantor space, filters and descriptive set theory . PhD thesis, Oxford, 1976

    1976

  6. [14]

    W. Just. A weak version of AT from OCA. MSRI Publications, 26:281–291, 1992

    1992

  7. [15]

    Kanovei and M

    V. Kanovei and M. Reeken. On Ulam’s problem concerning the stability of approximate homomorphisms. Tr. Mat. Inst. Steklova , 231:249–283, 2000

    2000

  8. [16]

    Kanovei and M

    V. Kanovei and M. Reeken. New Radon–Nikodym ideals. Mathematika, 47:219–227, 2002

    2002

  9. [17]

    A.S. Kechris. Classical descriptive set theory , volume 156 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, 1995

    1995

  10. [18]

    K. Kunen. Some comments on box products. In A. Hajnal et al., editors, Infinite and finite sets, Keszthely (Hungary), 1973 , volume 10 of Coll. Math. Soc. J¨ anos Bolyai, pages 1011–

    1973

  11. [19]

    K. Kunen. Set theory, volume 34 of Studies in Logic (London). College Publications, London, 2011

    2011

  12. [20]

    Laflamme

    C. Laflamme. Forcing with filters and complete combinatorics.Ann. Pure Appl. Logic, 42:125– 163, 1989

    1989

  13. [21]

    M. Magidor. Some set theories are more equal. In P. Koellner, editor, Exploring the Frontiers of Incompleteness. to appear

  14. [22]

    K. Mazur. Fσ-ideals and ω1ω∗ 1 -gaps in the Boolean algebra P(ω)/I. Fundamenta Mathemat- icae, 138:103–111, 1991

    1991

  15. [23]

    J.T. Moore. Some remarks on the open coloring axiom. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic, 172(5):102912, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    S. Shelah. Proper Forcing. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 940. Springer, 1982

    1982

  17. [25]

    Shelah and J

    S. Shelah and J. Stepr¯ ans. PF A implies all automorphisms are trivial. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 104:1220–1225, 1988

    1988

  18. [26]

    S. Solecki. Analytic ideals and their applications. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic , 99:51–72, 1999

    1999

  19. [27]

    Talagrand

    M. Talagrand. Compacts de fonctions mesurables et filters nonmesurables. Studia Mathemat- ica, 67:13–43, 1980

    1980

  20. [28]

    Talagrand

    M. Talagrand. Maharam’s problem. Annals of Math. , 168(3):981–1009, 2008

    2008

  21. [29]

    Todorcevic

    S. Todorcevic. Partition Problems in Topology , volume 84 of Contemporary mathematics . American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 1989

    1989

  22. [30]

    Velickovic

    B. Velickovic. Definable automorphisms of P(ω)/ Fin. Proceedings of the American Mathe- matical Society, 96:130–135, 1986

    1986

  23. [31]

    Veliˇ ckovi´ c

    B. Veliˇ ckovi´ c. OCA and automorphisms ofP(ω)/ Fin. Top. Appl., 49:1–13, 1993

    1993

  24. [32]

    M. Viale. Category forcings, MM +++, and generic absoluteness for the theory of strong forcing axioms. J. Amer. Math. Soc. , 29(3):675–728, 2016

    2016

  25. [33]

    A. Vignati. Rigidity conjectures for continuous quotients. In Ann. Sci. Ec. Norm. Super. , volume 55, pages 1687–1738, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Vignati and D

    A. Vignati and D. Yilmaz. The weak extension principle. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.20791 , 2024. 26 ILIJAS F ARAH Department of Mathematics and Statistics, York University, 4700 Keele Street, North York, Ontario, Canada, M3J 1P3, and Matemati ˇcki Institut SANU, Kneza Mi- haila...

    2024

  27. [1016]

    North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1975

    1975

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.