What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The problem that this paper attempts to solve is about the relationship between Martin's Axiom (MA) and the Weak Kurepa Hypothesis (wKH). Specifically, the author tries to answer a question raised by Honzik, Lambie - Hanson and Stejskalová: whether it is possible to make the Weak Kurepa Hypothesis fail on $\omega_1$ while keeping Martin's Axiom valid on $\omega_2$. ### Background of the problem - **Kurepa tree**: A tree of height $\omega_1$ with more than $\omega_1$ cofinal branches. - **Weak Kurepa tree**: Relax the requirements for the Kurepa tree, allowing some of its levels to have $\omega_1$ many elements. - **Kurepa Hypothesis (KH)**: There exists a Kurepa tree. - **Weak Kurepa Hypothesis (wKH)**: There exists a weak Kurepa tree. - **Martin's Axiom (MA)**: A compactness principle in set theory, usually used to handle certain types of forcing extensions. ### Research motivation Researchers already know that appropriate forcing axioms (such as the Proper Forcing Axiom) can lead to the failure of the Weak Kurepa Hypothesis, and the latter can lead to the failure of the Continuum Hypothesis (CH). Therefore, exploring the compatibility between Martin's Axiom and the Weak Kurepa Hypothesis is a natural and important question. ### Main contributions of the paper The author proves the following conclusion: \[ \text{Suppose } \kappa \text{ is a Mahlo cardinal, then in the } \kappa - \text{c.c. generic extension, } \kappa=\omega_2, \text{ and wKH does not hold, and no c.c.c. forcing can force wKH to hold.} \] ### Method overview The author proves the above conclusion by constructing a model, in which: 1. **Collapsing Mahlo cardinals**: Use pure side - condition forcing to collapse the Mahlo cardinal $\kappa$ to $\omega_2$. 2. **Analyzing c.c.c. forcing**: Consider a c.c.c. forcing $Q$, and assume it adds a weak Kurepa tree $T$. 3. **Key lemma**: Use a key lemma to prove that in this case it is impossible to add new Suslin sub - trees, thus leading to a contradiction. ### Conclusion This paper successfully answers the question raised by Honzik et al., showing that under appropriate large - cardinal assumptions, Martin's Axiom and the negation of the Weak Kurepa Hypothesis can hold simultaneously. This provides important insights for further understanding compactness and forcing techniques in set theory.

Martin's Axiom and Weak Kurepa Hypothesis

Remark on the Failure of Martin's Axiom

The grounded Martin's axiom

Martin's Axiom is Consistent with the Existence of Nowhere Trivial Automorphisms

On the Consistency Strength of MM($ω_1$)

Distinguishing Martin's axiom from its restrictions

The Axiom of Choice in the $κ$-Mantle

The $κ$-Strongly Proper Forcing Axiom

There is No Standard Model of ZFC and ZFC_2 with Henkin semantics.Generalized Lob's Theorem.Strong Reflection Principles and Large Cardinal Axioms.Consistency Results in Topology

On forcing axioms and weakenings of the Axiom of Choice

On Roitman's principles $\mathsf{MH}$ and $Δ$

Echeloned saturation and forcing axioms

Failure of an higher analogue of Mho

An isomorphism theorem for models of weak König’s lemma without primitive recursion

Strong tree properties, Kurepa trees, and guessing models

On a Question of Hamkins and Löwe on the modal logic of collapse forcing

Axiom $\mathcal{A}$ and supercompactness

On the consistency strength of the proper forcing axiom

Marginalia to a Theorem of Asperó and Schindler

Joint Laver diamonds and grounded forcing axioms

The Ultrapower Axiom implies GCH above a supercompact cardinal