Properties of subtle cardinals

1987 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 1005-1019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Henrion
Keyword(s):  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Normal Ideal ◽  
Mahlo Cardinal ◽  
Normal Ideals

Subtle cardinals were first introduced in a paper by Jensen and Kunen [JK]. They show that ifκis subtle then ◇κholds. Subtle cardinals also play an important role in [B1], where Baumgartner proposed that certain large cardinal properties should be considered as properties of their associated normal ideals. He shows that in the case of ineffables, the ideals are particularly useful, as can be seen by the following theorem,κis ineffable if and only ifκis subtle andΠ½-indescribableandthe subtle andΠ½-indescribable ideals cohere, i.e. they generate a proper, normal ideal (which in fact turns out to be the ineffable ideal).In this paper we examine properties of subtle cardinals and consider methods of forcing that destroy the property of subtlety while maintaining other properties. The following is a list of results.1) We relativize the following two facts about subtle cardinals:i) ifκisn-subtle then {α<κ:αis notn-subtle} isn-subtle, andii) ifκis (n+ 1)-subtle then {α<κ:αisn-subtle} is in the (n+ 1)-subtle filter to subsets ofκ:i′) ifAis ann-subtle subset ofκthen {α ϵ A:A∩αis notn-subtle} isn-subtle, andii′) ifAis an (n+ 1)-subtle subset ofκthen {α ϵ A:A∩αisn-subtle} is (n+ 1)-subtle.2) We show that although a stationary limit of subtles is subtle, a subtle limit of subtles is not necessarily 2-subtle.3) In §3 we use the technique of forcing to turn a subtle cardinal into aκ-Mahlo cardinal that is no longer subtle.4) In §4 we extend the results of §3 by showing how to turn an (n+ 1)-subtle cardinal into ann-subtle cardinal that is no longer (n+ 1)-subtle.

An ideal characterization of Mahlo cardinals

1989 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 467-473 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qi Feng
Keyword(s):  
Regular Cardinal ◽  
Normal Ideal ◽  
Mahlo Cardinal ◽  
Mahlo Cardinals

AbstractWe show that a cardinal κ is a (strongly) Mahlo cardinal if and only if there exists a nontrivial κ-complete κ-normal ideal on κ. Also we show that if κ is Mahlo and λ ≧ κ and λ<κ = λ then there is a nontrivial κ-complete κ-normal fine ideal on Pκ(λ). If κ is the successor of a cardinal, we consider weak κ-normality and prove that if κ = μ+ and μ is a regular cardinal then (1) μ< μ = μ if and only if there is a nontrivial κ-complete weakly κ-normal ideal on κ, and (2) if μ< μ = μ < λ<μ = λ then there is a nontrivial κ-complete weakly κ-normal fine ideal on Pκ(λ).

Combinatorics on large cardinals

1992 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 617-643 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos H. Montenegro E.
Keyword(s):  
Regular Cardinal ◽  
Ordered Set ◽  
Large Cardinals ◽  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Combinatorial Properties ◽  
A Chain ◽  
Linearly Ordered Set ◽  
Normal Ideals ◽  
The Ideal

Our framework is ZFC, and we view cardinals as initial ordinals. Baumgartner ([Bal] and [Ba2]) studied properties of large cardinals by considering these properties as properties of normal ideals and not as properties of cardinals alone. In this paper we study these combinatorial properties by defining operations which take as input one or more ideals and give as output an ideal associated with a large cardinal property. We consider four operations T, P, S and C on ideals of a regular cardinal κ, and study the structure of the collection of subsets they give, and the relationships between them.The operation T is defined using combinatorial properties based on trees 〈X, <T〉 on subsets X ⊆ κ (where α <T β → α < β). Given an ideal I, consider the property *: “every tree on κ with every branching set in I has a branch of size κ” (where a branching set is a maximal set with the same set of <T-predecessors, and a chain is a maximal <T-linearly ordered set; for definitions see §2). Now consider the collection T(I) of all subsets of κ that do not satisfy * (see Definition 2.2 and the introduction to §5). The operation T provides us with the large cardinal property (whether κ ∈ T(I) or not) and it also provides us with the ideal associated with this large cardinal property (namely T(I)); in general, we obtain different notions depending on the ideal I.

scholarly journals Morasses and the Lévy-collapse

1987 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Komjáth
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Present Author ◽  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Inaccessible Cardinal ◽  
Mahlo Cardinal ◽  
Counter Example ◽  
Survey Papers ◽  
Combinatorial Set ◽  
Combinatorial Set Theory

For several old problems in combinatorial set theory A. Hajnal and the present author [2] showed that on collapsing a sufficiently Mahlo cardinal to ω1 by the Lévy-collapse one gets a model where these problems are solved in the “counter-example” direction. The authors of [2] have speculated that the theorems of that paper should hold in L, and this, in fact, was shown for some of the results by Todorčević and Velleman [7,8]. The observation that collapsing a large cardinal to ω1 may give rise to L-like constructions is not new. As it was shown long ago by Silver and Rowbottom, there is a Kurepa-tree if a strongly inaccessible cardinal is Lévy-collapsed to ω1. In [5] it is proved that even Silver's W holds in that model. Here we show that even a quagmire exists there, but not necessarily a morass. To be more exact, we show that if κ < λ are the first two strongly inaccessible cardinals, first λ is Lévy-collapsed to κ+, and then κ is Lévy-collapsed to then there is no ω1-morass with built-in diamond in the resulting model (GCH is assumed). If λ is Mahlo, there is not even a morass.Our notations are standard. For excellent survey papers on morass-like principles and their uses in combinatorial set theory see [4,5,6].

Saturated ideals and the singular cardinal hypothesis

1992 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 970-974 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yo Matsubara
Keyword(s):  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Inaccessible Cardinal ◽  
Elementary Embedding ◽  
Normal Ideal ◽  
Singular Cardinal ◽  
Strongly Compact Cardinal ◽  
Compact Cardinal ◽  
Singular Cardinal Hypothesis ◽  
Generic Filter ◽  
Generic Ultrapowers

The large cardinal-like properties of saturated ideals have been investigated by various authors, including Foreman [F], and Jech and Prikry [JP], among others. One of the most interesting consequences of a strongly compact cardinal is the following theorem of Solovay [So2]: if a strongly compact cardinal exists then the singular cardinal hypothesis holds above it. In this paper we discuss the question of relating the existence of saturated ideals and the singular cardinal hypothesis. We will show that the existence of “strongly” saturated ideals implies the singular cardinal hypothesis. As a biproduct we will present a proof of the above mentioned theorem of Solovay using generic ultrapowers. See Jech and Prikry [JP] for a nice exposition of generic ultrapowers. We owe a lot to the work of Foreman [F]. We would like to express our gratitude to Noa Goldring for many helpful comments and discussions.Throughout this paper we assume that κ is a strongly inaccessible cardinal and λ is a cardinal >κ. By an ideal on κλ we mean a κ-complete fine ideal on Pκλ. For I an ideal on κλ let PI denote the poset of I-positive subsets of κλ.Definition. Let I be an ideal on κλ. We say that I is a bounding ideal if 1 ⊩-PI “δ(δ is regular cardinal ”.We can show that if a normal ideal is “strongly” saturated then it is bounding.Theorem 1. If 1 is an η-saturated normal ideal onκλ, where η is a cardinal <λsuch that there are fewer thanκmany cardinals betweenκand η (i.e. η < κ+κ), then I is bounding.Proof. Let I be such an ideal on κλ. By the work of Foreman [F] and others, we know that every λ+-saturated normal ideal is precipitous. Suppose G is a generic filter for our PI. Let j: V → M be the corresponding generic elementary embedding. By a theorem of Foreman [F, Lemma 10], we know that Mλ ⊂ M in V[G]. By η-saturation, cofinalities ≥η are preserved; that is, if cfvα ≥ η, then cfvα = cfv[G]α. From j ↾ Vκ being the identity on Vκ and M being λ-closed in V[G], we conclude that cofinalities <κ are preserved. Therefore if cfvα ≠ cfv[G]α then κ ≤ cfvα < η.

On splitting stationary subsets of large cardinals

1977 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
James E. Baumgartner ◽  
Alan D. Taylor ◽  
Stanley Wagon
Keyword(s):  
Large Cardinals ◽  
Normal Ideal ◽  
Weakly Compact ◽  
Uncountable Cardinal ◽  
Stationary Set ◽  
Stationary Subsets ◽  
Open Question ◽  
Mahlo Cardinals ◽  
Normal Ideals

AbstractLet κ denote a regular uncountable cardinal and NS the normal ideal of nonstationary subsets of κ. Our results concern the well-known open question whether NS fails to be κ+-saturated, i.e., are there κ+ stationary subsets of κ with pairwise intersections nonstationary? Our first observation is:Theorem. NS isκ+-saturated iff for every normal ideal J on κ there is a stationary set A ⊆ κsuch that J = NS∣A = {X ⊆ κ: X ∩ A ∈ NS}.Turning our attention to large cardinals, we extend the usual (weak) Mahlo hierarchy to define “greatly Mahlo” cardinals and obtain the following:Theorem. If κ is greatly Mahlo then NS is notκ+-saturated.Theorem. If κ is ordinal Π11-indescribable (e.g., weakly compact), ethereal (e.g., subtle), or carries aκ-saturated ideal, thenκis greatly Mahlo. Moreover, there is a stationary set of greatly Mahlo cardinals below any ordinal Π11-indescribable cardinal.These methods apply to other normal ideals as well; e.g., the subtle ideal on an ineffable cardinal κ is not κ+-saturated.

Normality and

1991 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 1064-1067
Author(s):  
R. Zrotowski
Keyword(s):  
Boolean Algebra ◽  
Partial Answer ◽  
Normal Ideal ◽  
Mahlo Cardinal ◽  
One To One ◽  
Made In

AbstractThe main result of this paper is that if κ is not a weakly Mahlo cardinal, then the following two conditions are equivalent:1. is κ+-complete.2. is a prenormal ideal.Our result is a generalization of an announcement made in [Z]. We say that is selective iff for every -function f: κ → κ there is a set X ∈ such that f∣(κ − X) is one-to-one. Our theorem provides a positive partial answer to a question of B. Wȩglorz from [BTW, p. 90], viz.: is every selective ideal with κ+-complete, isomorphic to a normal ideal?The theorem is also true for fine ideals on [λ]<κ for any κ ≤ λ, i.e. if κ is not a weakly Mahlo cardinal then the Boolean algebra is λ+-complete iff is a prenormal ideal (in the sense of [λ/<κ).

On BF-algebras

2007 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrzej Walendziak
Keyword(s):  
Normal Ideal

AbstractIn this paper we introduce the notion of BF-algebras, which is a generalization of B-algebras. We also introduce the notions of an ideal and a normal ideal in BF-algebras. We investigate the properties and characterizations of them.

Shelah's work on non-semi-proper iterations, II

2001 ◽  
Vol 66 (4) ◽  
pp. 1865-1883 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chaz Schlindwein
Keyword(s):  
Closed Subset ◽  
Stationary Subset ◽  
Finite Support ◽  
Countable Support ◽  
Final Model ◽  
Axiom A ◽  
Mahlo Cardinal ◽  
The One ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Special Case

One of the main goals in the theory of forcing iteration is to formulate preservation theorems for not collapsing ω1 which are as general as possible. This line leads from c.c.c. forcings using finite support iterations to Axiom A forcings and proper forcings using countable support iterations to semi-proper forcings using revised countable support iterations, and more recently, in work of Shelah, to yet more general classes of posets. In this paper we concentrate on a special case of the very general iteration theorem of Shelah from [5, chapter XV]. The class of posets handled by this theorem includes all semi-proper posets and also includes, among others, Namba forcing.In [5, chapter XV] Shelah shows that, roughly, revised countable support forcing iterations in which the constituent posets are either semi-proper or Namba forcing or P[W] (the forcing for collapsing a stationary co-stationary subset ofwith countable conditions) do not collapse ℵ1. The iteration must contain sufficiently many cardinal collapses, for example, Levy collapses. The most easily quotable combinatorial application is the consistency (relative to a Mahlo cardinal) of ZFC + CH fails + whenever A ∪ B = ω2 then one of A or B contains an uncountable sequentially closed subset. The iteration Shelah uses to construct this model is built using P[W] to “attack” potential counterexamples, Levy collapses to ensure that the cardinals collapsed by the various P[W]'s are sufficiently well separated, and Cohen forcings to ensure the failure of CH in the final model.In this paper we give details of the iteration theorem, but we do not address the combinatorial applications such as the one quoted above.These theorems from [5, chapter XV] are closely related to earlier work of Shelah [5, chapter XI], which dealt with iterated Namba and P[W] without allowing arbitrary semi-proper forcings to be included in the iteration. By allowing the inclusion of semi-proper forcings, [5, chapter XV] generalizes the conjunction of [5, Theorem XI.3.6] with [5, Conclusion XI.6.7].

The consistency problem for positive comprehension principles

1989 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 1401-1418 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Forti ◽  
R. Hinnion
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Difficult Problem ◽  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Positive Theory ◽  
Construction Principle ◽  
Short Summary ◽  
Free Construction ◽  
Unpublished Thesis ◽  
Consistency Problem ◽  
Original Construction

Since Gilmore showed that some theory with a positive comprehension scheme is consistent when the axiom of extensionality is dropped and inconsistent with it (see [1] and [2]), the problem of the consistency of various positive comprehension schemes has been investigated. We give here a short classification, which shows clearly the importance of the axiom of extensionality and of the abstraction operator in these consistency problems. The most difficult problem was to show the consistency of the comprehension scheme for positive formulas, with extensionality but without abstraction operator. In his unpublished thesis, Set theory in which the axiom of foundation fails [3], Malitz solved partially this problem but he needed to assume the existence of some unusual kind of large cardinal; as his original construction is very interesting and his thesis is unpublished, we give a short summary of it. M. Forti solved the problem completely by working in ZF with a free-construction principle (sometimes called an anti-foundation axiom), instead of ZF with the axiom of foundation, as Malitz did.This permits one to obtain the consistency of this positive theory, relative to ZF. In his general investigations about “topological set theories” (to be published), E. Weydert has independently proved the same result. The authors are grateful to the Mathematisches Forshungsinstitut Oberwolfach for giving them the opportunity of discussing these subjects and meeting E. Weydert during the meeting “New Foundations”, March 1–7, 1987.

scholarly journals Laver sequences for extendible and super-almost-huge cardinals

1999 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 963-983 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Corazza
Keyword(s):  
Critical Point ◽  
Upper Bound ◽  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Strong Cardinal ◽  
Regular Class ◽  
Strong Cardinals ◽  
Extendible Cardinals

AbstractVersions of Laver sequences are known to exist for supercompact and strong cardinals. Assuming very strong axioms of infinity, Laver sequences can be constructed for virtually any globally defined large cardinal not weaker than a strong cardinal; indeed, under strong hypotheses. Laver sequences can be constructed for virtually any regular class of embeddings. We show here that if there is a regular class of embeddings with critical point κ, and there is an inaccessible above κ, then it is consistent for there to be a regular class that admits no Laver sequence. We also show that extendible cardinals are Laver-generating, i.e., that assuming only that κ is extendible, there is an extendible Laver sequence at κ. We use the method of proof to answer a question about Laver-closure of extendible cardinals at inaccessibles. Finally, we consider Laver sequences for super-almost-huge cardinals. Assuming slightly more than super-almost-hugeness, we show that there are super-almost-huge Laver sequences, improving the previously known upper bound for such Laver sequences. We also describe conditions under which the canonical construction of a Laver sequence fails for super-almost-huge cardinals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document