Skip to main content
MathOverflow

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

9
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I suppose any principle implying the Ground Axiom is destroyed by every set-sized forcing. Already I think it's an interesting question to ask what set-theoretic principles, other than the obvious ones, are always destroyed by set-sized forcing. (The "obvious" ones, to me, are things like $V=L$ or $V=L[\mu]$.) $\endgroup$
    – Will Brian
    Commented Oct 25, 2023 at 14:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is perhaps a bit silly of an example, but axioms like $V = L$ or $V = L[0^\sharp]$ imply the ground axiom—the former because there are no (proper) inner models and the latter because $0^\sharp$ cannot be added by set forcing. $\endgroup$
    – Kameryn Williams
    Commented Oct 25, 2023 at 14:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The ground axiom is due to Reitz and myself, as Jonas states in his paper. $\endgroup$
    – Joel David Hamkins
    Commented Oct 27, 2023 at 3:06
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The first main theorems about it were proved by Jonas in his dissertation, including the fact that the CCA implies GA. Interestingly, he also proved that MA and PFA etc are consistent with the ground axiom. In particular, the common slogan that what those axioms assert is that a lot of forcing has already been done is not quite correct, if what is meant is set forcing. $\endgroup$
    – Joel David Hamkins
    Commented Oct 27, 2023 at 3:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JoelDavidHamkins I was responding to Will Brian's question about principles that are always destroyed by set forcing. I guess my comment was a bit cryptic, but the idea was to come up with a principle that is always destroyed by set forcing but does not imply the Ground Axiom, so I did mean minimal in the sense you suggested. (Note that the mantle is the only definable element of the set-generic multiverse. But my example shows there are nontrivial definable subsets of the multiverse. Maybe the definability theory here is interesting...) $\endgroup$
    – Gabe Goldberg
    Commented Oct 27, 2023 at 17:39