2011
DOI: 10.1112/blms/bdr094
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Nonproper products

Abstract: We show that there exist two proper creature forcings having a simple (Borel) definition, whose product is not proper. We also give a new condition ensuring properness of some forcings with norms.

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

2
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A minimum spanning tree was generated using Phyloviz (v2.0) and the therein implemented goeBURST algorithm 59 . We used a 5, 12 and 25 SNPs cut-off to delineate genomic clusters 60 among the core SNP alignment using R along with the ape package and the hclust function. The patient address was plotted in a map using the online tool Microreact ( www.microreact.org ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A minimum spanning tree was generated using Phyloviz (v2.0) and the therein implemented goeBURST algorithm 59 . We used a 5, 12 and 25 SNPs cut-off to delineate genomic clusters 60 among the core SNP alignment using R along with the ape package and the hclust function. The patient address was plotted in a map using the online tool Microreact ( www.microreact.org ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We note that F = { F * * ,g : g ∈ G } ≥ Since α 1 = α 2 are in u \ w we may apply Lemma 5.3 (2) to get that nor 0 i (F 1 * F 2 ) = 0, contradicting ( * ) 7 . Thus, putting together ( * ) 3 and ( * ) 6 + ( * ) 8 we conclude that ( * ) 9 if h ∈ set(F 1 * F 2 ),x ∈ S u,i andȳ = sucx (h), η = H (ȳ u ) (for = 1, 2), then η 1 = η 2 ⇒ (g yi (α 1 ) −1 • f yi (α 1 ))(η 1 ) = (g yi (α 2 ) −1 • f yi (α 2 ))(η 2 ).…”
Section: Lemma 51mentioning
confidence: 98%
“…[Why is this possible? We can choose them to satisfy clause (a) by ( * ) 8 and clauses (b) and (c) follow: look at the choices inside ( * ) 7 .] Now we stop fixing g ∈ G. Put G 1 = {g ∈ G : ι g = 1 and m 1,g = m 2,g } and G 2 = {g ∈ G : ι g = 1 or m 1,g = m 2,g }.…”
Section: Lemma 51mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such is the case with many forcing arguments. For instance, the proofs of propernes of some forcing notions built according to the scheme of norms on possibilities have in their hearts partition theorems stating that at some situations a homogeneous tree and/or a sequence of creatures determining a condition can be found (see, e.g., Ros lanowski and Shelah [7,8], Ros lanowski, Shelah and Spinas [9], Kellner and Shelah [6,5]). A more explicit connection of partition theorems with forcing arguments is given in Shelah and Zapletal [10].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%