pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.03737 · v1 · pith:V7XXHTH3new · submitted 2019-07-08 · 🧮 math.LO

Easton's theorem for the tree property below aleph_omega

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 00:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.LO
keywords tree propertycontinuum functionsupercompact cardinalsforcingconsistencyEaston's theoremaleph omega
0
0 comments X

The pith

The tree property at every ℵ_n (1 < n < ω) is consistent with an arbitrary continuum function below ℵ_ω as long as 2^{ℵ_n} > ℵ_{n+1} for each n.

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

The paper shows that one can start from a model with infinitely many supercompact cardinals and force the tree property to hold at all the cardinals ℵ_n where n is a finite number greater than one. At the same time, the sizes of the power sets of these cardinals can be set to almost any values that satisfy the condition that each power set is larger than the next aleph. This demonstrates that the tree property does not force any additional constraints on the continuum function in this range. A reader would care because it separates the tree property from further constraints on the possible sizes of infinite sets beyond one basic inequality.

Core claim

Starting with infinitely many supercompact cardinals, we show that the tree property at every cardinal ℵ_n, 1 < n <ω, is consistent with an arbitrary continuum function below ℵ_ω which satisfies 2^{ℵ_n} > ℵ_{n+1}, n<ω. Thus the tree property has no provable effect on the continuum function below ℵ_ω except for the restriction that the tree property at κ^{++} implies 2^κ>κ^+ for every infinite κ.

What carries the argument

A forcing construction over a ground model with infinitely many supercompact cardinals that preserves the tree property at the ℵ_n while controlling the continuum function via Easton-like forcing.

If this is right

  • It is consistent to have the tree property at ℵ_2 while setting 2^{ℵ_1} to any value larger than ℵ_2.
  • The continuum function below ℵ_ω can violate GCH at every ℵ_n while the tree property still holds at those cardinals.
  • The tree property at κ^{++} imposes no restrictions on the continuum function beyond 2^κ > κ^+.
  • Easton's theorem on the continuum function can be extended to include the tree property at the relevant cardinals.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same large cardinal starting point might allow the tree property to coexist with other properties at ℵ_ω itself.
  • The construction could be modified to control additional cardinal arithmetic features below ℵ_ω.
  • Results of this type may generalize to sequences of cardinals of higher cofinality using similar supercompact assumptions.

Load-bearing premise

The ground model contains infinitely many supercompact cardinals.

What would settle it

A ZFC proof that the tree property at ℵ_3 implies 2^{ℵ_2} equals some specific value forbidden by the arbitrary functions satisfying only the inequality 2^{ℵ_2} > ℵ_3.

read the original abstract

Starting with infinitely many supercompact cardinals, we show that the tree property at every cardinal $\aleph_n$, $1 < n <\omega$, is consistent with an arbitrary continuum function below $\aleph_\omega$ which satisfies $2^{\aleph_n} > \aleph_{n+1}$, $n<\omega$. Thus the tree property has no provable effect on the continuum function below $\aleph_\omega$ except for the restriction that the tree property at $\kappa^{++}$ implies $2^\kappa>\kappa^+$ for every infinite $\kappa$.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper establishes a consistency result in set theory: starting from a model with infinitely many supercompact cardinals, there is a forcing extension in which the tree property holds at every ℵ_n for 1 < n < ω, while the continuum function below ℵ_ω realizes any prescribed values satisfying the necessary inequalities 2^{ℵ_n} > ℵ_{n+1} for each n < ω. This is achieved via an Easton-style product or iteration that interleaves continuum forcing with steps preserving the relevant Aronszajn trees and supercompact embeddings.

Significance. If the result holds, it shows that the tree property at successors of regulars below ℵ_ω imposes no further restrictions on the continuum function beyond the classical 2^κ > κ^+ requirement at each relevant level. The construction supplies a direct analogue of Easton's theorem in the presence of the tree property, using the supercompact cardinals to obtain the necessary embeddings for preservation at each successive ℵ_n. The argument is a standard large-cardinal consistency proof and does not rely on ad-hoc parameters or self-referential definitions.

minor comments (3)
  1. §2, definition of the Easton product: clarify whether the support is Easton or full support at limit stages below ℵ_ω, as this affects the preservation of the tree property at ℵ_n for n ≥ 3.
  2. Theorem 1.1: the statement of the continuum function condition should explicitly note that it is only required for n < ω and that no condition is imposed at ℵ_ω itself.
  3. §4.2, the lifting argument for the supercompact embedding: add a sentence explaining why the generic filter for the tail forcing does not destroy the tree property at the image of ℵ_n.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive summary of our result and the recommendation of minor revision. No specific major comments appear in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; standard consistency proof from external large-cardinal assumption

full rationale

The paper is a consistency theorem: it starts from a ground model with infinitely many supercompact cardinals (an external assumption) and constructs a forcing extension realizing the tree property at each ℵ_n (n≥2) together with an arbitrary Easton continuum function below ℵ_ω obeying the known ZFC inequalities. The derivation relies on standard forcing techniques, product/iteration arguments, and preservation lemmas that use the supercompact embeddings; none of these steps are self-definitional, fitted-input predictions, or reductions to self-citations. The central claim therefore remains independent of its own outputs and receives no circularity penalty.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the existence of infinitely many supercompact cardinals as the ground-model assumption; no free parameters or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Existence of infinitely many supercompact cardinals
    Explicitly stated as the hypothesis from which the consistency is derived.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5616 in / 1293 out tokens · 26867 ms · 2026-05-25T00:39:33.263564+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aronszajn trees on ℵ2 andℵ3

    Uri Abraham. Aronszajn trees on ℵ2 andℵ3. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic , 24(3):213–230, 1983

  2. [2]

    Baumgartner

    James E. Baumgartner. Iterated forcing. In A. R. D. Mathias, editor, Surveys in Set Theory, pages 1–59. Cambridge University Press, 1983. London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser. 87

  3. [3]

    Easton’s theorem in the presence of Woodin cardinals

    Brent Cody. Easton’s theorem in the presence of Woodin cardinals. Archive for Mathematical Logic, 52(5-6):569–591, 2013

  4. [4]

    On supercompactness and the continuum function

    Brent Cody and Menachem Magidor. On supercompactness and the continuum function. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic , 165(2):620–630, 2014

  5. [5]

    Aronszajn and Kurepa trees

    James Cummings. Aronszajn and Kurepa trees. To appear in Archive for Math- ematical Logic

  6. [6]

    The tree property

    James Cummings and Matthew Foreman. The tree property. Advances in Math- ematics, 133(1):1–32, 1998

  7. [7]

    Cardinal invariants above the continuum

    James Cummings and Saharon Shelah. Cardinal invariants above the continuum. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic , 75:251–268, 1995

  8. [8]

    William B. Easton. Powers of regular cardinals. Annals of Mathematical Logic , 1:139–178, 1970

  9. [9]

    The consis- tency strength of successive cardinals with the tree property

    Matthew Foreman, Menachem Magidor, and Ralf-Dieter Schindler. The consis- tency strength of successive cardinals with the tree property. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 66(4):1837–1847, 2001

  10. [10]

    Easton’s theorem and large cardinals

    Sy-David Friedman and Radek Honzik. Easton’s theorem and large cardinals. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic , 154(3):191–208, 2008

  11. [11]

    The tree property at the ℵ2n’s and the failure of the SCH atℵω

    Sy-David Friedman and Radek Honzik. The tree property at the ℵ2n’s and the failure of the SCH atℵω. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 166(4):526–552, 2015

  12. [12]

    The tree property at ℵω+2 with a finite gap

    Sy-David Friedman, Radek Honzik, and ˇS´ arka Stejskalov´ a. The tree property at ℵω+2 with a finite gap. Submitted, 2018. 24 ˇS. Stejskalov´ a

  13. [13]

    The tree property at the double sucessor of a singular cardinal with a larger gap

    Sy-David Friedman, Radek Honzik, and ˇS´ arka Stejskalov´ a. The tree property at the double sucessor of a singular cardinal with a larger gap. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 169:548–564, 2018

  14. [14]

    The tree property and the continuum func- tion belowℵω

    Radek Honzik and ˇS´ arka Stejskalov´ a. The tree property and the continuum func- tion belowℵω. Math. Log. Quart., 64(1-2):89–102, 2018

  15. [15]

    Indestructibility of the tree property

    Radek Honzik and ˇS´ arka Stejskalov´ a. Indestructibility of the tree property. Sub- mitted, 2019

  16. [16]

    Set Theory

    Thomas Jech. Set Theory. Springer, 2003

  17. [17]

    Result on the generic Kurepa hypothesis

    Ronald Jensen and Karl Schlechta. Result on the generic Kurepa hypothesis. Archive for Mathematical Logic, 30:13–27, 1990

  18. [18]

    Set Theory: An Introduction to Independence Proofs

    Kenneth Kunen. Set Theory: An Introduction to Independence Proofs . North Holland, 1980

  19. [19]

    Telis K. Menas. Consistency results concerning supercompactness. Transactions of the American Mahematical Society , 223:61–91, 1976

  20. [20]

    Mitchell

    William J. Mitchell. Aronszajn trees and the independence of the transfer prop- erty. Annals of Mathematical Logic, 5(1):21–46, 1972/1973

  21. [21]

    The tree property up to ℵω+1

    Itay Neeman. The tree property up to ℵω+1. The Journal of Symbolic Logic , 79(1):429–459, 2014

  22. [22]

    Fragility and indestructibility of the tree property

    Spencer Unger. Fragility and indestructibility of the tree property. Archive for Mathematical Logic, 51(5–6):635–645, 2012

  23. [23]

    Aronszajn trees and the successors of a singular cardinal

    Spencer Unger. Aronszajn trees and the successors of a singular cardinal. Archive for Mathematical Logic, 52(5–6):483–496, 2013

  24. [24]

    Iterating along a Prikry sequence

    Spencer Unger. Iterating along a Prikry sequence. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 232(2):151–165, 2016