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.

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.

Ramsey-like cardinals

2011 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 519-540 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victoria Gitman
Keyword(s):  
Large Cardinals ◽  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Elementary Embedding ◽  
Large Fragment ◽  
Weakly Compact ◽  
Elementary Embeddings ◽  
Measurable Cardinals

AbstractOne of the numerous characterizations of a Ramsey cardinal κ involves the existence of certain types of elementary embeddings for transitive sets of size κ satisfying a large fragment of ZFC. We introduce new large cardinal axioms generalizing the Ramsey elementary embeddings characterization and show that they form a natural hierarchy between weakly compact cardinals and measurable cardinals. These new axioms serve to further our knowledge about the elementary embedding properties of smaller large cardinals, in particular those still consistent with V = L.

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.

Strongly unfoldable cardinals made indestructible

2008 ◽  
Vol 73 (4) ◽  
pp. 1215-1248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas A. Johnstone
Keyword(s):  
Large Cardinals ◽  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Weakly Compact ◽  
Proper Forcing ◽  
Class Forcing

AbstractI provide indestructibility results for large cardinals consistent with V = L, such as weakly compact, indescribable and strongly unfoldable cardinals. The Main Theorem shows that any strongly unfoldable cardinal κ can be made indestructible by <κ-closed, κ-proper forcing. This class of posets includes for instance all <κ-closed posets that are either κ−-c.c. or <κ-strategically closed as well as finite iterations of such posets. Since strongly unfoldable cardinals strengthen both indescribable and weakly compact cardinals, the Main Theorem therefore makes these two large cardinal notions similarly indestructible. Finally. I apply the Main Theorem to obtain a class forcing extension preserving all strongly unfoldable cardinals in which every strongly unfoldable cardinal κ is indestructible by <κ-closed, κ-proper forcing.

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.

Forbidden intervals

2009 ◽  
Vol 74 (4) ◽  
pp. 1081-1099 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Foreman
Keyword(s):  
Critical Point ◽  
Set Theory ◽  
Large Cardinals ◽  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Elementary Embedding ◽  
Elementary Embeddings ◽  
Measurable Cardinals ◽  
Precipitous Ideals ◽  
Strongly Compact Cardinals

Many classical statements of set theory are settled by the existence of generic elementary embeddings that are analogous the elementary embeddings posited by large cardinals. [2] The embeddings analogous to measurable cardinals are determined by uniform, κ-complete precipitous ideals on cardinals κ. Stronger embeddings, analogous to those originating from supercompact or huge cardinals are encoded by normal fine ideals on sets such as [κ]<λ or [κ]λ.The embeddings generated from these ideals are limited in ways analogous to conventional large cardinals. Explicitly, if j: V → M is a generic elementary embedding with critical point κ and λ supnЄωjn(κ) and the forcing yielding j is λ-saturated then j“λ+ ∉ M. (See [2].)Ideals that yield embeddings that are analogous to strongly compact cardinals have more puzzling behavior and the analogy is not as straightforward. Some natural ideal properties of this kind have been shown to be inconsistent:Theorem 1 (Kunen). There is no ω2-saturated, countably complete uniform ideal on any cardinal in the interval [ℵω, ℵω).Generic embeddings that arise from countably complete, ω2-saturated ideals have the property that sup . So the Kunen result is striking in that it apparently allows strong ideals to exist above the conventional large cardinal limitations. The main result of this paper is that it is consistent (relative to a huge cardinal) that such ideals exist.

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

THE EIGHTFOLD WAY

2018 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. 349-371
Author(s):  
JAMES CUMMINGS ◽  
SY-DAVID FRIEDMAN ◽  
MENACHEM MAGIDOR ◽  
ASSAF RINOT ◽  
DIMA SINAPOVA
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Tree Property ◽  
Weakly Compact ◽  
Compact Cardinal ◽  
Combinatorial Properties ◽  
Mutual Independence ◽  
Stationary Set ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Weakly Compact Cardinal

AbstractThree central combinatorial properties in set theory are the tree property, the approachability property and stationary reflection. We prove the mutual independence of these properties by showing that any of their eight Boolean combinations can be forced to hold at${\kappa ^{ + + }}$, assuming that$\kappa = {\kappa ^{ < \kappa }}$and there is a weakly compact cardinal aboveκ.If in additionκis supercompact then we can forceκto be${\aleph _\omega }$in the extension. The proofs combine the techniques of adding and then destroying a nonreflecting stationary set or a${\kappa ^{ + + }}$-Souslin tree, variants of Mitchell’s forcing to obtain the tree property, together with the Prikry-collapse poset for turning a large cardinal into${\aleph _\omega }$.

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”.

There are reasonably nice logics

1991 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 300-322 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wilfrid Hodges ◽  
Saharon Shelah
Keyword(s):  
Interpolation Theorem ◽  
Strongly Compact Cardinal ◽  
Compact Cardinal ◽  
Elementary Chain ◽  
Uncountable Cardinal ◽  
Joint Embedding ◽  
Preservation Property ◽  
Strongly Compact Cardinals

A well-known question of Feferman asks whether there is a logic which extends the logic , is ℵ0-compact and satisfies the interpolation theorem. (Cf. Makowsky [M] for background and terminology.)The same question was open when ℵ1 in is replaced by any other uncountable cardinal κ. We shall show that when κ is an uncountable strongly compact cardinal and there is a strongly compact cardinal > κ, then there is such a logic. It is impossible to prove the existence of uncountable strongly compact cardinals in ZFC. However, the logic that we describe has a simple and natural definition, together with several other pleasant properties. For example it satisfies Robinson's lemma, PPP (pair preservation property, viz. the theory of the sum of two models is the sum of their theories), versions of the elementary chain lemma for chains of length < λ, and isomorphism of (suitable) ultralimits.This logic is described in §2 below; we call it 1. It is not a new logic—it was introduced in [Sh, Part II, §3] as an example of a logic which has the amalgamation and joint embedding properties. See the transparent presentation in [M]. But we shall repeat all the definitions. In [HS] we presented a logic with some of the same properties as 1, also based on a strongly compact cardinal λ; but unlike 1, it was not a sublogic of λ,λ.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document