Results 1  10
of
29
Counterexamples to the unique and cofinal branches hypotheses
 The Journal of Symbolic Logic
, 2006
"... Abstract. We produce counterexamples to the unique and cofinal branches hypotheses, assuming (slightly less than) the existence of a cardinal which is strong past a Woodin cardinal. Martin–Steel [3] introduced the notion of an iteration tree, and with it the question of iterability: the existence of ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. We produce counterexamples to the unique and cofinal branches hypotheses, assuming (slightly less than) the existence of a cardinal which is strong past a Woodin cardinal. Martin–Steel [3] introduced the notion of an iteration tree, and with it the question of iterability: the existence
Comment.Math.Univ.Carolin. 46,4 (2005)721–734 721
"... A tree pibase for R ∗ without cofinal branches ..."
Aronszajn trees and failure of the singular cardinal hypothesis
 J. Math. Log
"... Abstract. The tree property at κ + states that there are no Aronszajn trees on κ +, or, equivalently, that every κ + tree has a cofinal branch. For singular strong limit cardinals κ, there is tension between the tree property at κ + and failure of the singular cardinal hypothesis at κ; the former is ..."
Abstract

Cited by 13 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. The tree property at κ + states that there are no Aronszajn trees on κ +, or, equivalently, that every κ + tree has a cofinal branch. For singular strong limit cardinals κ, there is tension between the tree property at κ + and failure of the singular cardinal hypothesis at κ; the former
Is coverage a good measure of testing effectiveness
, 2010
"... Abstract. Most approaches to testing use branch coverage to decide on the quality of a given test suite. The intuition is that covering branches relates directly to uncovering faults. The empirical study reported here applied random testing to 14 Eiffel classes for a total of 2520 hours and recorde ..."
Abstract

Cited by 11 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. Most approaches to testing use branch coverage to decide on the quality of a given test suite. The intuition is that covering branches relates directly to uncovering faults. The empirical study reported here applied random testing to 14 Eiffel classes for a total of 2520 hours
Iterated Forcing with ${}^{\omega}\omega$bounding and Semiproper Preorders
"... Assume the Continuum Hypothesis (CH) in the ground model. If we iteratively force with preorders which are $\omega\omega$bounding and semiproper taking suitable limits, then so is the final preorder constructed. Therefore we may show that the Cofinal Branch Principle (CBP) of [F] is strictly weaker ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
Assume the Continuum Hypothesis (CH) in the ground model. If we iteratively force with preorders which are $\omega\omega$bounding and semiproper taking suitable limits, then so is the final preorder constructed. Therefore we may show that the Cofinal Branch Principle (CBP) of [F] is strictly
Extender based forcings, fresh sets and Aronszajn trees
, 2011
"... Extender based forcings are studied with respect of adding branches to Aronszajn trees. We construct a model with no Aronszajn tree over ℵω+2 from the optimal assumptions. This answers a question of Friedman and Halilovic ́ [1]. The reader interested only in Friedman and Halilovic ́ question may ski ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
skip the first section and go directly to the second. 1 No branches to κ+ Aronszajn trees. We deal here with Extender Based Prikry forcing, Long and short extenders Prikry forcing. Let us refer to [2] for definitions. Theorem 1.1 Extender based Prikry forcing over κ cannot add a cofinal branch to a κ
Souslin Trees Which Are Hard To Specialise
"... . We construct some + Souslin trees which cannot be specialised by any forcing which preserves cardinals and cofinalities. For a regular cardinal we use the principle, for singular we use squares and diamonds. 1. Introduction We start by recalling a few basic definitions concerning trees. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
= f x 2 T : ht T (x) = ff g. (c) ht(T ) is the least ff such that T ff = ;. (d) T ff = S fi!ff T fi . (e) A cofinal branch of T is a set B ` T such that B is linearly ordered by ! T , and 8ff ! ht(T ) 9b 2 B ht T (b) ff. 3. T is a tree iff ht(T ) = and jT ff j ! for all ff ! . 4. T is a
On The Consistency Of The Definable Tree Property On ℵ1
, 1998
"... In this paper we prove the equiconsistency of "Every ! 1 \Gammatree which is first order definable over (H!1 ; ") has a cofinal branch" with the existence of a \Pi 1 1 reflecting cardinal. We also prove that the addition of MA to the definable tree property increases the consistency ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In this paper we prove the equiconsistency of "Every ! 1 \Gammatree which is first order definable over (H!1 ; ") has a cofinal branch" with the existence of a \Pi 1 1 reflecting cardinal. We also prove that the addition of MA to the definable tree property increases the consistency
Is Coverage a Good Measure of Testing Effectiveness? An Assessment Using Branch Coverage and Random Testing
"... Most approaches to testing use branch coverage to decide on the quality of a given test suite. The intuition is that covering branches relates directly to uncovering faults. In this article we present an empirical study that applied random testing to 14 Eiffel classes for a total of 2520 hours and r ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
Most approaches to testing use branch coverage to decide on the quality of a given test suite. The intuition is that covering branches relates directly to uncovering faults. In this article we present an empirical study that applied random testing to 14 Eiffel classes for a total of 2520 hours
Results 1  10
of
29