We give a new characterization of the cardinal invariant $\mathfrak {d}$ as the minimal cardinality of a family $\mathcal {D}$ of tall summable ideals such that an ultrafilter is rapid if and only if it has non-empty intersection with all the ideals in the family $\mathcal {D}$. On the other hand, we prove that in the Miller model, given any family $\mathcal {D}$ of analytic tall p-ideals such that $\vert \mathcal {D}\vert <\mathfrak {d}$, there is an ultrafilter $\mathcal {U}$ which (...) is an $\mathscr {I}$ -ultrafilter for all ideals $\mathscr {I}\in \mathcal {D}$ at the same time, yet $\mathcal {U}$ is not a rapid ultrafilter. As a corollary, we obtain that in the Miller model, given any analytic tall p-ideal $\mathscr {I}$, $\mathscr {I}$ -ultrafilters are dense in the Rudin–Blass ordering, generalizing a theorem of Bartoszyński and S. Shelah, who proved that in such model, Hausdorff ultrafilters are dense in the Rudin–Blass ordering. This theorem also shows some limitations about possible generalizations of a theorem of C. Laflamme and J. Zhu. (shrink)

We give some restrictions for the search for a model of the club principle with no Souslin trees. We show that ${\diamondsuit(2^\omega, [\omega]^\omega}$ , is almost constant on) together with CH and “all Aronszajn trees are special” is consistent relative to ZFC. This implies the analogous result for a double weakening of the club principle.

The Filter Dichotomy says that every uniform nonmeager filter on the integers is mapped by a finite-to-one function to an ultrafilter. The consistency of this principle was proved by Blass and Laflamme. A medial limit is a universally measurable function from [Formula: see text] to the unit interval [0, 1] which is finitely additive for disjoint sets, and maps singletons to 0 and ω to 1. Christensen and Mokobodzki independently showed that the Continuum Hypothesis implies the existence of medial limits. (...) We show that the Filter Dichotomy implies that there are no medial limits. (shrink)

The interplay between ultrafilters and unbounded subsets of \ with the order \ of strict eventual domination is studied. Among the tools are special kinds of non-principal ultrafilters on \. These include simple P-points; that is, ultrafilters with a base that is well-ordered with respect to the reverse of the order \ of almost inclusion. It is shown that the cofinality of such a base must be either \, the least cardinality of \-unbounded set, or \, the least cardinality of (...) a \-cofinal set. The small uncountable cardinal \ is introduced. Consequences of \ and of \ are explored; in particular, both imply \. Here \ is the reaping number, and is also the least cardinality of a \-base for a free ultrafilter. Both of these inequalities are shown to occur if there exist simple P-points of different cofinalities and there exist simple \-points and \-points), but this is a long-standing open problem. Six axioms on nonprincipal ultrafilters on \ and the relationships between them are discussed along with various models of set theory in which one or more are known to hold. The strongest of these, Axiom 1, is that for every free ultrafilter \ and for every \-unbounded \-chain C of increasing functions in \, C is also unbounded in the ultraproduct \. The other axioms replace one or both quantifiers with “there exists.” The negation of Axiom 3 in a model provides a family of normal sequentially compact spaces whose product is not countably compact. The question of whether such a family exists in ZFC, even with “normal” weakened to “regular”, is a famous unsolved problem of set-theoretic topology, known as the Scarborough–Stone problem. (shrink)

We investigate which filters onωcan contain towers, that is, a modulo finite descending sequence without any pseudointersection. We prove the following results:Many classical examples of nice tall filters contain no towers.It is consistent that tall analytic P-filters contain towers of arbitrary regular height.It is consistent that all towers generate nonmeager filters, in particular Borel filters do not contain towers.The statement “Every ultrafilter contains towers.” is independent of ZFC.Furthermore, we study many possible logical implications between the existence of towers in filters, (...) inequalities between cardinal invariants of filters $,${\rm{co}}{{\rm{f}}^{\rm{*}}}\left$,${\rm{no}}{{\rm{n}}^{\rm{*}}}\left$, and${\rm{co}}{{\rm{v}}^{\rm{*}}}\left$), and the existence of Luzin type families, that is, if${\cal F}$is a filter then${\cal X} \subseteq {[\omega ]^\omega }$is an${\cal F}$-Luzin family if$\left\{ {X \in {\cal X}:|X \setminus F| = \omega } \right\}$is countable for every$F \in {\cal F}$. (shrink)

We survey the use of extra-set-theoretic hypotheses, mainly the continuum hypothesis, in the C*-algebra literature. The Calkin algebra emerges as a basic object of interest.

We show that many countable support iterations of proper forcings preserve Souslin trees. We establish sufficient conditions in terms of games and we draw connections to other preservation properties. We present a proof of preservation properties in countable support iterations in the so-called Case A that does not need a division into forcings that add reals and those who do not.

We prove that for [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] there is a forcing extension with exactly n near-coherence classes of non-principal ultrafilters. We introduce localized versions of Matet forcing and we develop Ramsey spaces of names. The evaluation of some of the new forcings is based on a relative of Hindman’s theorem due to Blass 1987.

In this paper we study the question assuming MA+⌝CH does Sacks forcing or Laver forcing collapse cardinals? We show that this question is equivalent to the question of what is the additivity of Marczewski's ideals 0. We give a proof that it is consistent that Sacks forcing collapses cardinals. On the other hand we show that Laver forcing does not collapse cardinals.

We show that in the models of u < ∂ from [14] there are infinitely many near-coherence classes of ultrafilters, thus answering Banakh's and Blass' Question 30 of [3] negatively. By an unpublished result of Canjar, there are at least two classes in these models.

We propose a reformulation of the ideal $\mathcal {N}$ of Lebesgue measure zero sets of reals modulo an ideal J on $\omega $, which we denote by $\mathcal {N}_J$. In the same way, we reformulate the ideal $\mathcal {E}$ generated by $F_\sigma $ measure zero sets of reals modulo J, which we denote by $\mathcal {N}^*_J$. We show that these are $\sigma $ -ideals and that $\mathcal {N}_J=\mathcal {N}$ iff J has the Baire property, which in turn is equivalent to (...) $\mathcal {N}^*_J=\mathcal {E}$. Moreover, we prove that $\mathcal {N}_J$ does not contain co-meager sets and $\mathcal {N}^*_J$ contains non-meager sets when J does not have the Baire property. We also prove a deep connection between these ideals modulo J and the notion of nearly coherence of filters (or ideals). We also study the cardinal characteristics associated with $\mathcal {N}_J$ and $\mathcal {N}^*_J$. We show their position with respect to Cichoń’s diagram and prove consistency results in connection with other very classical cardinal characteristics of the continuum, leaving just very few open questions. To achieve this, we discovered a new characterization of $\mathrm {add}(\mathcal {N})$ and $\mathrm {cof}(\mathcal {N})$. We also show that, in Cohen model, we can obtain many different values to the cardinal characteristics associated with our new ideals. (shrink)

We prove several theorems about the cardinal $\mathfrak{g}$ associated with groupwise density. With respect to a natural ordering of families of nond-ecreasing maps fromω toω, all families of size $< \mathfrak{g}$ are below all unbounded families. With respect to a natural ordering of filters onω, all filters generated by $< \mathfrak{g}$ sets are below all non-feeble filters. If $\mathfrak{u}< \mathfrak{g}$ then $\mathfrak{b}< \mathfrak{u}$ and $\mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{d} = \mathfrak{c}$ . (The definitions of these cardinals are recalled in the introduction.) Finally, (...) some consequences deduced from $\mathfrak{u}< \mathfrak{g}$ by Laflamme are shown to be equivalent to $\mathfrak{u}< \mathfrak{g}$. (shrink)