Simultaneously vanishing higher derived limits

Jeffrey Bergfalk ; Chris Lambie-Hanson

Forum of Mathematics, Pi, Tome 9 (2021)

Résumé

In 1988, Sibe Mardešić and Andrei Prasolov isolated an inverse system $\textbf {A}$ with the property that the additivity of strong homology on any class of spaces which includes the closed subsets of Euclidean space would entail that $\lim ^n\textbf {A}$ (the nth derived limit of $\textbf {A}$) vanishes for every $n>0$. Since that time, the question of whether it is consistent with the $\mathsf {ZFC}$ axioms that $\lim ^n \textbf {A}=0$ for every $n>0$ has remained open. It remains possible as well that this condition in fact implies that strong homology is additive on the category of metric spaces.We show that assuming the existence of a weakly compact cardinal, it is indeed consistent with the $\mathsf {ZFC}$ axioms that $\lim ^n \textbf {A}=0$ for all $n>0$. We show this via a finite-support iteration of Hechler forcings which is of weakly compact length. More precisely, we show that in any forcing extension by this iteration, a condition equivalent to $\lim ^n\textbf {A}=0$ will hold for each $n>0$. This condition is of interest in its own right; namely, it is the triviality of every coherent n-dimensional family of certain specified sorts of partial functions $\mathbb {N}^2\to \mathbb {Z}$ which are indexed in turn by n-tuples of functions $f:\mathbb {N}\to \mathbb {N}$. The triviality and coherence in question here generalise the classical and well-studied case of $n=1$.

Détail

DOI : 10.1017/fmp.2021.4

Bibliographie

[1] Bannister, N., Bergfalk, J. and Moore, J. T, ‘On the additivity of strong homology for locally compact separable metric spaces’, Preprint, 2020, arXiv:2008.13089.Google Scholar

[2] Barratt, M. G. and Milnor, J., ‘An example of anomalous singular homology’, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 13 (1962), 293–297.Google Scholar | DOI

[3] Baumgartner, J. E., ‘Iterated forcing’, in Surveys in Set Theory, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, vol. 87 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983), 1–59.Google Scholar

[4] Bergfalk, J., ‘Strong homology, derived limits, and set theory’, Fund. Math. 236(1) (2017), 71–82.Google Scholar | DOI

[5] Bergfalk, J., Hrušák, M. and Lambie-Hanson, C., ‘Simultaneously vanishing higher derived limits without large cardinals’, Preprint, 2021, arXiv:2102.06699.Google Scholar

[6] Bergfalk, J., Hrušák, M. and Shelah, S., ‘Ramsey theory for highly connected monochromatic subgraphs’, Acta Math. Hungar. 163(1) (2021), 309–322.Google Scholar | DOI

[7] Bergfalk, J. and Lambie-Hanson, C., ‘The cohomology of the ordinals I: Basic theory and consistency results’, Preprint, 2019, arXiv:1902.02736.Google Scholar

[8] Clausen, D. and Scholze, P., Personal communication, July 2019.Google Scholar

[9] Dow, A., Simon, P. and Vaughan, J. E., ‘Strong homology and the proper forcing axiom’, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 106(3) (1989), 821–828.Google Scholar | DOI

[10] Eda, K. and Kawamura, K., ‘The singular homology of the Hawaiian earring’, J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) 62(1) (2000), 305–310.Google Scholar | DOI

[11] Eklof, P. C. and Mekler, A. H., Almost Free Modules, revised edn, North-Holland Mathematical Library, vol. 65 (North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 2002).Google Scholar

[12] Farah, I., ‘A coherent family of partial functions on ’, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 124(9) (1996), 2845–2852.Google Scholar | DOI

[13] Goblot, R., ‘Sur les dérivés de certaines limites projectives. Applications aux modules’, Bull. Sci. Math. (2) 94 (1970), 251–255.Google Scholar

[14] Günther, B., ‘The Vietoris system in strong shape and strong homology’, Fund. Math. 141(2) (1992), 147–168.Google Scholar | DOI

[15] Jensen, C. U., Les foncteurs dérivés de et leurs applications en théorie des modules, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 254 ( Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1972).Google Scholar | DOI

[16] Kamo, S., ‘Almost coinciding families and gaps in ’, J. Math. Soc. Japan 45(2) (1993), 357–368.Google Scholar | DOI

[17] Kanamori, A., The Higher Infinite, second edn, Springer Monographs in Mathematics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003). Large cardinals in set theory from their beginnings. Google Scholar

[18] Kunen, K., Set Theory, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 102 (North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam-New York, 1980). An introduction to independence proofs. Google Scholar

[19] Lambie-Hanson, C., ‘Disjoint type graphs with no short odd cycles’, unpublished note, 2019, arXiv:2004.04189.Google Scholar

[20] Lisica, J. T., ‘Strong bonding homology and cohomology’, Topology Appl. 153(2-3) (2005), 394–447.Google Scholar | DOI

[21] Mardešić, S., Strong Shape and Homology, Springer Monographs in Mathematics ( Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2000).Google Scholar | DOI

[22] Mardešić, S. and Prasolov, A. V., ‘Strong homology is not additive’, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 307(2) (1988), 725–744.Google Scholar | DOI

[23] Milnor, J., ‘On axiomatic homology theory’, Pacific J. Math. 12 (1962), 337–341.Google Scholar | DOI

[24] Milnor, J., ‘On the Steenrod homology theory’, in Novikov Conjectures, Index Theorems and Rigidity, Vol. 1 (Oberwolfach, 1993), London Mathematical Society Lecture Notes Series, vol. 226 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995), 79–96.Google Scholar | DOI

[25] Moore, J. T., ‘The proper forcing axiom’, in Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians. Volume II (Hindustan Book Agency, New Delhi, 2010), 3–29.Google Scholar

[26] Osofsky, B. L., ‘The subscript of , projective dimension, and the vanishing of ’, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 80 (1974), 8–26.Google Scholar | DOI

[27] Prasolov, A. V. ‘Non-additivity of strong homology’, Topology Appl. 153(2-3) (2005), 493–527.Google Scholar | DOI

[28] Scholze, P., ‘Lectures on condensed mathematics’, unpublished lecture notes (2019). URL: https://www.math.uni-bonn.de/people/scholze/Condensed.pdf. Google Scholar

[29] Serre, J.-P., ‘Faisceaux algébriques cohérents’, Ann. of Math. (2) 61 (1955), 197–278.Google Scholar | DOI

[30] Shelah, S., ‘Infinite abelian groups, Whitehead problem and some constructions’, Israel J. Math. 18 (1974), 243–256.Google Scholar | DOI

[31] Todorcevic, S., ‘Directed sets and cofinal types’, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 290(2) (1985), 711–723.Google Scholar | DOI

[32] Todorcevic, S., ‘Reals and positive partition relations’, in Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, VII (Salzburg, 1983), Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 114 (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1986), 159–169.Google Scholar | DOI

[33] Todorcevic, S., Partition Problems in Topology, Contemporary Mathematics, vol. 84 (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1989).Google Scholar | DOI

[34] Todorcevic, S. ‘The first derived limit and compactly sets’, J. Math. Soc. Japan 50(4) (1998), 831–836.Google Scholar | DOI

[35] Veličković, B. and Vignati, A., In preparation.Google Scholar

[36] Weibel, C. A., An Introduction to Homological Algebra, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 38 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994).Google Scholar | DOI