Displaying similar documents to “Choice principles in Węglorz’ models”

Linear orders and MA + ¬wKH

Zoran Spasojević (1995)

Fundamenta Mathematicae

Similarity:

I prove that the statement that “every linear order of size 2 ω can be embedded in ( ω ω , ≪ ) ” is consistent with MA + ¬ wKH.

Algebraic ramifications of the common extension problem for group-valued measures

Rüdiger Göbel, R. Shortt (1994)

Fundamenta Mathematicae

Similarity:

Let G be an Abelian group and let μ: A → G and ν: B → G be finitely additive measures (charges) defined on fields A and B of subsets of a set X. It is assumed that μ and ν agree on A ∩ B, i.e. they are consistent. The existence of common extensions of μ and ν is investigated, and conditions on A and B facilitating such extensions are given.

Wildness in the product groups

G. Hjorth (2000)

Fundamenta Mathematicae

Similarity:

Non-abelian Polish groups arising as countable products of countable groups can be tame in arbitrarily complicated ways. This contrasts with some results of Solecki who revealed a very different picture in the abelian case.

Parabolic Cantor sets

Mariusz Urbański (1996)

Fundamenta Mathematicae

Similarity:

The notion of a parabolic Cantor set is introduced allowing in the definition of hyperbolic Cantor sets some fixed points to have derivatives of modulus one. Such difference in the assumptions is reflected in geometric properties of these Cantor sets. It turns out that if the Hausdorff dimension of this set is denoted by h, then its h-dimensional Hausdorff measure vanishes but the h-dimensional packing measure is positive and finite. This latter measure can also be dynamically characterized...

The Arkhangel’skiĭ–Tall problem: a consistent counterexample

Gary Gruenhage, Piotr Koszmider (1996)

Fundamenta Mathematicae

Similarity:

We construct a consistent example of a normal locally compact metacompact space which is not paracompact, answering a question of A. V. Arkhangel’skiĭ and F. Tall. An interplay between a tower in P(ω)/Fin, an almost disjoint family in [ ω ] ω , and a version of an (ω,1)-morass forms the core of the proof. A part of the poset which forces the counterexample can be considered a modification of a poset due to Judah and Shelah for obtaining a Q-set by a countable support iteration.