On the least strongly compact cardinal

1980 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 225-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthur W. Apter
Keyword(s):  
Strongly Compact Cardinal ◽  
Compact Cardinal

scholarly journals TAMENESS FROM LARGE CARDINAL AXIOMS

2014 ◽  
Vol 79 (4) ◽  
pp. 1092-1119 ◽  
Author(s):  
WILL BONEY
Keyword(s):  
Large Cardinals ◽  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Strongly Compact Cardinal ◽  
Weakly Compact ◽  
Compact Cardinal ◽  
Dual Property ◽  
First Time ◽  
Strongly Compact Cardinals ◽  
Do So

AbstractWe show that Shelah’s Eventual Categoricity Conjecture for successors follows from the existence of class many strongly compact cardinals. This is the first time the consistency of this conjecture has been proven. We do so by showing that every AEC withLS(K) below a strongly compact cardinalκis <κ-tame and applying the categoricity transfer of Grossberg and VanDieren [11]. These techniques also apply to measurable and weakly compact cardinals and we prove similar tameness results under those hypotheses. We isolate a dual property to tameness, calledtype shortness, and show that it follows similarly from large cardinals.

scholarly journals WOODIN FOR STRONG COMPACTNESS CARDINALS

2019 ◽  
Vol 84 (1) ◽  
pp. 301-319
Author(s):  
STAMATIS DIMOPOULOS
Keyword(s):  
Identity Crisis ◽  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Strongly Compact Cardinal ◽  
Compact Cardinal ◽  
Strong Compactness ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Vopěnka Cardinals

AbstractWoodin and Vopěnka cardinals are established notions in the large cardinal hierarchy and it is known that Vopěnka cardinals are the Woodin analogue for supercompactness. Here we give the definition of Woodin for strong compactness cardinals, the Woodinised version of strong compactness, and we prove an analogue of Magidor’s identity crisis theorem for the first strongly compact cardinal.

On the ordering of certain large cardinals

1979 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 563-565
Author(s):  
Carl F. Morgenstern
Keyword(s):  
Measurable Cardinal ◽  
Large Cardinals ◽  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Inaccessible Cardinal ◽  
Elementary Embedding ◽  
Strongly Compact Cardinal ◽  
Weakly Compact ◽  
Compact Cardinal ◽  
The Universe ◽  
Weakly Compact Cardinal

It is well known that the first strongly inaccessible cardinal is strictly less than the first weakly compact cardinal which in turn is strictly less than the first Ramsey cardinal, etc. However, once one passes the first measurable cardinal the inequalities are no longer strict. Magidor [3] has shown that the first strongly compact cardinal may be equal to the first measurable cardinal or equal to the first super-compact cardinal (the first supercompact cardinal is strictly larger than the first measurable cardinal). In this note we will indicate how Magidor's methods can be used to show that it is undecidable whether one cardinal (the first strongly compact) is greater than or less than another large cardinal (the first huge cardinal). We assume that the reader is familiar with the ultrapower construction of Scott, as presented in Drake [1] or Kanamori, Reinhardt and Solovay [2].Definition. A cardinal κ is huge (or 1-huge) if there is an elementary embedding j of the universe V into a transitive class M such that M contains the ordinals, is closed under j(κ) sequences, j(κ) > κ and j ↾ Rκ = id. Let κ denote the first huge cardinal, and let λ = j(κ).One can see from easy reflection arguments that κ and λ are inaccessible in V and, in fact, that κ is measurable in V.

Forcing Axioms, Supercompact Cardinals, Singular Cardinal Combinatorics

2008 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-113
Author(s):  
Matteo Viale
Keyword(s):  
Large Cardinals ◽  
Singular Cardinal ◽  
Strongly Compact Cardinal ◽  
Compact Cardinal ◽  
Forcing Axioms ◽  
Supercompact Cardinals ◽  
Saturation Properties ◽  
Proper Forcing Axiom ◽  
Singular Cardinals ◽  
Proper Forcing

The purpose of this communication is to present some recent advances on the consequences that forcing axioms and large cardinals have on the combinatorics of singular cardinals. I will introduce a few examples of problems in singular cardinal combinatorics which can be fruitfully attacked using ideas and techniques coming from the theory of forcing axioms and then translate the results so obtained in suitable large cardinals properties.The first example I will treat is the proof that the proper forcing axiom PFA implies the singular cardinal hypothesis SCH, this will easily lead to a new proof of Solovay's theorem that SCH holds above a strongly compact cardinal. I will also outline how some of the ideas involved in these proofs can be used as means to evaluate the “saturation” properties of models of strong forcing axioms like MM or PFA.The second example aims to show that the transfer principle (ℵω+1, ℵω) ↠ (ℵ2, ℵ1) fails assuming Martin's Maximum MM. Also in this case the result can be translated in a large cardinal property, however this requires a familiarity with a rather large fragment of Shelah's pcf-theory.Only sketchy arguments will be given, the reader is referred to the forthcoming [25] and [38] for a thorough analysis of these problems and for detailed proofs.

The least measurable can be strongly compact and indestructible

1998 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 1404-1412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthur W. Apter ◽  
Moti Gitik
Keyword(s):  
Measurable Cardinal ◽  
Supercompact Cardinal ◽  
Strongly Compact Cardinal ◽  
Compact Cardinal ◽  
Strong Compactness

AbstractWe show the consistency, relative to a supercompact cardinal, of the least measurable cardinal being both strongly compact and fully Laver indestructible. We also show the consistency, relative to a supercompact cardinal, of the least strongly compact cardinal being somewhat supercompact yet not completely supercompact and having both its strong compactness and degree of supercompactness fully Laver indestructible.

Arthur W. Apter. On the least strongly compact cardinal. Israel journal of mathematics, vol. 35 (1980), pp. 225–233. - Arthur W. Apter. Measurability and degrees of strong compactness. The journal of symbolic logic, vol. 46 (1981), pp. 249–254. - Arthur W. Apter. A note on strong compactness and supercompactness. Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society, vol. 23 (1991), pp. 113–115. - Arthur W. Apter. On the first n strongly compact cardinals. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 123 (1995), pp. 2229–2235. - Arthur W. Apter and Saharon Shelah. On the strong equality between supercompactness and strong compactness.. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 349 (1997), pp. 103–128. - Arthur W. Apter and Saharon Shelah. Menas' result is best possible. Ibid., pp. 2007–2034. - Arthur W. Apter. More on the least strongly compact cardinal. Mathematical logic quarterly, vol. 43 (1997), pp. 427–430. - Arthur W. Apter. Laver indestructibility and the class of compact cardinals. The journal of symbolic logic, vol. 63 (1998), pp. 149–157. - Arthur W. Apter. Patterns of compact cardinals. Annals of pure and applied logic, vol. 89 (1997), pp. 101–115. - Arthur W. Apter and Moti Gitik. The least measurable can be strongly compact and indestructible. The journal of symbolic logic, vol. 63 (1998), pp. 1404–1412.

2000 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-89
Author(s):  
James W. Cummings
Keyword(s):  
Israel Journal ◽  
American Mathematical Society ◽  
London Mathematical Society ◽  
Mathematical Society ◽  
Symbolic Logic ◽  
Strongly Compact Cardinal ◽  
Compact Cardinal ◽  
Applied Logic ◽  
Strong Compactness ◽  
Strongly Compact Cardinals

Some results concerning strongly compact cardinals

1985 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 874-880
Author(s):  
Yoshihiro Abe
Keyword(s):  
Order Type ◽  
Supercompact Cardinal ◽  
Strongly Compact Cardinal ◽  
Compact Cardinal ◽  
Supercompact Cardinals ◽  
Identity Function ◽  
Power Set ◽  
Elementary Embeddings ◽  
Strongly Compact Cardinals

This paper consists of two parts. In §1 we mention the first strongly compact cardinal. Magidor proved in [6] that it can be the first measurable and it can be also the first supercompact. In [2], Apter proved that Con(ZFC + there is a supercompact limit of supercompact cardinals) implies Con(ZFC + the first strongly compact cardinal κ is ϕ(κ)-supercompact + no α < κ is ϕ(α)-supercompact) for a formula ϕ which satisfies certain conditions.We shall get almost the same conclusion as Apter's theorem assuming only one supercompact cardinal. Our notion of forcing is the same as in [2] and a trick makes it possible.In §2 we study a kind of fine ultrafilter on Pκλ investigated by Menas in [7], where κ is a measurable limit of strongly compact cardinals. He showed that such an ultrafilter is not normal in some case (Theorems 2.21 and 2.22 in [7]). We shall show that it is not normal in any case (even if κ is supercompact). We also prove that it is weakly normal in some case.We work in ZFC and much of our notation is standard. But we mention the following: the letters α,β,γ… denote ordinals, whereas κ,λ,μ,… are reserved for cardinals. R(α) is the collection of sets rank <α. φM denotes the realization of a formula φ to a class M. Except when it is necessary, we drop “M”. For example, M ⊩ “κ is φ(κ)-supercompact” means “κ is φM(κ)-supercompact in M”. If x is a set, |x| is its cardinality, Px is its power set, and . If also x ⊆ OR, denotes its order type in the natural ordering. The identity function with the domain appropriate to the context is denoted by id. For the notation concerning ultrapowers and elementary embeddings, see [11]. When we talk about forcing, “⊩” will mean “weakly forces” and “p < q” means “p is stronger than q”.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document