WOODIN FOR STRONG COMPACTNESS CARDINALS

Woodin 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.

TAMENESS FROM LARGE CARDINAL AXIOMS

We 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 ${\omega _1}$-STRONGLY COMPACT CARDINALS

An uncountable cardinal κ is called ${\omega _1}$ -strongly compact if every κ-complete ultrafilter on any set I can be extended to an ${\omega _1}$ -complete ultrafilter on I. We show that the first ${\omega _1}$ -strongly compact cardinal, ${\kappa _0}$ , cannot be a successor cardinal, and that its cofinality is at least the first measurable cardinal. We prove that the Singular Cardinal Hypothesis holds above ${\kappa _0}$ . We show that the product of Lindelöf spaces is κ-Lindelöf if and only if $\kappa \ge {\kappa _0}$ . Finally, we characterize ${\kappa _0}$ in terms of second order reflection for relational structures and we give some applications. For instance, we show that every first-countable nonmetrizable space has a nonmetrizable subspace of size less than ${\kappa _0}$ .

MRP, tree properties and square principles

We show that MRP + MA implies that ITP(λ,ω2) holds for all cardinal λ ≥ ω2. This generalizes a result by Weiβ who showed that PFA implies that ITP(λ, ω2) holds for all cardinal λ ≥ ω2. Consequently any of the known methods to prove MRP + MA consistent relative to some large cardinal hypothesis requires the existence of a strongly compact cardinal. Moreover if one wants to force MRP + MA with a proper forcing, it requires at least a supercompact cardinal. We also study the relationship between MRP and some weak versions of square. We show that MRP implies the failure of □(λ, ω) for all λ ≥ ω2 and we give a direct proof that MRP + MA implies the failure of □(λ, ω1) for all λ ≥ ω2.

Regular ultrafilters and finite square principles

We show that many singular cardinals λ above a strongly compact cardinal have regular ultrafilters D that violate the finite square principle introduced in [3]. For such ultrafilters D and cardinals λ there are models of size λ for which Mλ/D is not λ++-universal and elementarily equivalent models M and N of size λ for which Mλ/D and Nλ/D are non-isomorphic. The question of the existence of such ultrafilters and models was raised in [1].

Weak square bracket relations for Pκ(λ)

We study the partition relation that is a weakening of the usual partition relation . Our main result asserts that if κ is an uncountable strongly compact cardinal and , then does not hold.

Forcing Axioms, Supercompact Cardinals, Singular Cardinal Combinatorics

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.

Strong compactness and stationary sets

We construct a model in which there is a strongly compact cardinal κ such thai the set S(κ, κ+) ={ a Є Pκκ+: o.t.(a) = (a⋂ κ)+}is non-stationary.

Exactly controlling the non-supercompact strongly compact cardinals

We summarize the known methods of producing a non-supercompact strongly compact cardinal and describe some new variants. Our Main Theorem shows how to apply these methods to many cardinals simultaneously and exactly control which cardinals are supercompact and which are only strongly compact in a forcing extension. Depending upon the method, the surviving non-supercompact strongly compact cardinals can be strong cardinals, have trivial Mitchell rank or even contain a club disjoint from the set of measurable cardinals. These results improve and unify Theorems 1 and 2 of [5], due to the first author.