Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

There may be an n-entangled set but no n+1-entangled sets

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2509.01029 v1 pith:RBAOGSYY submitted 2025-08-31 math.LO math.GN

There may be an n-entangled set but no n+1-entangled sets

classification math.LO math.GN
keywords entangledsetstherecapturingconsistentdeltaexistenceimplies
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

In this paper we show that for every $2\leq n\in \mathbb{N}$, the statement "there is an $n$-entangled set, but there are no $n+1$-entangled sets" is consistent. We also prove some theorems which improve our understanding of entangled sets in relation to construction schemes: (1) The axiom FCA$^\Delta$ introduced in \cite{finitizationclubch} implies the existence of $n$-entangled sets which are not $n+1$-entangled. (2) $\mathfrak{m}_\mathcal{F}>\omega_1$ implies the non-existence of entangled sets. Thus, $2$-capturing schemes alone are not sufficient to build these kinds of linear orders. (3) The existence of a 2-$\Delta$-capturing scheme is consistent with MA.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Open Colorings and Baumgartner's Axiom

    math.LO 2026-01 conditional novelty 7.0

    It is consistent that MA_ℵ1 and OCA_T hold while Baumgartner's Axiom fails, witnessed by a non-reversible, non-increasing ℵ1-dense set of reals.