Co-critical points of elementary embeddings

1985 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 220-226
Author(s):  
Michael Sheard
Keyword(s):  
Critical Point ◽  
Measurable Cardinal ◽  
Elementary Embedding ◽  
Proper Class ◽  
Ground Model ◽  
Target Model ◽  
Inner Models ◽  
Inner Model ◽  
Elementary Embeddings

Probably the two most famous examples of elementary embeddings between inner models of set theory are the embeddings of the universe into an inner model given by a measurable cardinal and the embeddings of the constructible universeLinto itself given by 0#. In both of these examples, the “target model” is a subclass of the “ground model” (and in the latter case they are equal). It is not hard to find examples of embeddings in which the target model is not a subclass of the ground model: ifis a generic ultrafilter arising from forcing with a precipitous ideal on a successor cardinalκ, then the ultraproduct of the ground model viacollapsesκ. Such considerations suggest a classification of how close the target model comes to “fitting inside” the ground model.Definition 1.1. LetMandNbe inner models (transitive, proper class models) of ZFC, and letj:M→Nbe an elementary embedding. Theco-critical pointofjis the least ordinalλ, if any exist, such that there isX⊆λ, X∈NbutX∉M. Such anXis called anew subsetofλ.It is easy to see that the co-critical point ofj:M→Nis a cardinal inN.

On elementary embeddings from an inner model to the universe

2001 ◽  
Vol 66 (3) ◽  
pp. 1090-1116 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Vickers ◽  
P. D. Welch
Keyword(s):  
Measurable Cardinal ◽  
Negative Answer ◽  
Core Model ◽  
Elementary Embedding ◽  
Proper Class ◽  
The Core ◽  
Inner Model ◽  
Elementary Embeddings ◽  
The Universe ◽  
Closure Assumption

AbstractWe consider the following question of Kunen:Does Con(ZFC + ∃M a transitive inner model and a non-trivial elementary embedding j: M → V)imply Con(ZFC + ∃ a measurable cardinal)?We use core model theory to investigate consequences of the existence of such a j: M → V. We prove, amongst other things, the existence of such an embedding implies that the core model K is a model of “there exists a proper class of almost Ramsey cardinals”. Conversely, if On is Ramsey, then such a j. M are definable.We construe this as a negative answer to the question above. We consider further the consequences of strengthening the closure assumption on j to having various classes of fixed points.

On P-points over a measurable cardinal

1981 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-66
Author(s):  
A. Kanamori
Keyword(s):  
Measurable Cardinal ◽  
Focus Of Attention ◽  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Elementary Embedding ◽  
Inner Model ◽  
Measurable Cardinals ◽  
The Universe

This paper continues the study of κ-ultrafilters over a measurable cardinal κ, following the sequence of papers Ketonen [2], Kanamori [1] and Menas [4]. Much of the concern will be with p-point κ-ultrafilters, which have become a focus of attention because they epitomize situations of further complexity beyond the better understood cases, normal and product κ-ultrafilters.For any κ-ultrafilter D, let iD: V → MD ≃ Vκ/D be the elementary embedding of the universe into the transitization of the ultrapower by D. Situations of U < RKD will be exhibited when iU(κ) < iD(κ), and when iU(κ) = iD(κ). The main result will then be that if the latter case obtains, then there is an inner model with two measurable cardinals. (As will be pointed out, this formulation is due to Kunen, and improves on an earlier version of the author.) Incidentally, a similar conclusion will also follow from the assertion that there is an ascending Rudin-Keisler chain of κ-ultrafilters of length ω + 1. The interest in these results lies in the derivability of a substantial large cardinal assertion from plausible hypotheses on κ-ultrafilters.

Nonabsoluteness of elementary embeddings

1989 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 774-778
Author(s):  
Friedrich Wehrung
Keyword(s):  
Measurable Cardinal ◽  
Elementary Embedding ◽  
Minimal Support ◽  
Elementary Embeddings ◽  
Measurable Cardinals

Ifκis a measurable cardinal, let us say that a measure onκis aκ-complete nonprincipal ultrafilter onκ. IfUis a measure onκ, letjUbe the canonical elementary embedding ofVinto its Ultrapower UltU(V). Ifxis a set, say thatUmovesxwhenjU(x)≠x; say thatκmovesxwhen some measure onκmovesx. Recall Kunen's lemma (see [K]): “Every ordinal is moved only by finitely many measurable cardinals.” Kunen's proof (see [K]) and Fleissner's proof (see [KM, III, §10]) are essentially nonconstructive.The following proposition can be proved by using elementary facts about iterated ultrapowers.Proposition.Let ‹Un: n ∈ ω› be a sequence of measures on a strictly increasing sequence ‹κn: n ∈ ω› of measurable cardinals. Let U = ‹ Wα: α < ω2›, where Wωm + n= Um(m, n ∈ ω). Then, for each θ inUltU(V),if E is the (minimal) support of θ inUltU(V),then, for all m ∈ ω, Ummoves θ iff E ∩ [ωm, ω(m + 1))≠ ∅.

Strongly compact cardinals, elementary embeddings and fixed points

1984 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 808-812
Author(s):  
Yoshihiro Abe
Keyword(s):  
Fixed Points ◽  
Elementary Embedding ◽  
Inner Model ◽  
Power Set ◽  
Elementary Embeddings ◽  
Basic Facts ◽  
The Universe ◽  
Normal Ultrafilter ◽  
Strongly Compact Cardinals

J. Barbanel [1] characterized the class of cardinals fixed by an elementary embedding induced by a normal ultrafilter on Pκλ assuming that κ is supercompact. In this paper we shall prove the same results from the weaker hypothesis that κ is strongly compact and the ultrafilter is fine.We work in ZFC throughout. Our set-theoretic notation is quite standard. In particular, if X is a set, ∣X∣ denotes the cardinality of X and P(X) denotes the power set of X. Greek letters will denote ordinals. In particular γ, κ, η and γ will denote cardinals. If κ and λ are cardinals, then λ<κ is defined to be supγ<κγγ. Cardinal exponentiation is always associated from the top. Thus, for example, 2λ<κ means 2(λ<κ). V denotes the universe of all sets. If M is an inner model of ZFC, ∣X∣M and P(X)M denote the cardinality of X in M and the power set of X in M respectively.We review the basic facts on fine ultrafilters and the corresponding elementary embeddings. (For detail, see [2].)Definition. Assume κ and λ are cardinals with κ ≤ λ. Then, Pκλ = {X ⊂ λ∣∣X∣ < κ}.It is important to note that ∣Pκλ∣ = λ< κ.

Complexity of κ-ultrafilters and inner models with measurable cardinals

1984 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 833-841 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claude Sureson
Keyword(s):  
Regular Cardinal ◽  
Measurable Cardinal ◽  
Order Type ◽  
Inaccessible Cardinal ◽  
Inner Models ◽  
Inner Model ◽  
Measurable Cardinals

The purpose of this paper is to establish a connection between the complexity of κ-ultrafilters over a measurable cardinal κ, and the existence of ascending Rudin-Keisler chains of κ-ultrafilters and of inner models with several measurable cardinals.If V is a model of ZFC + “There exists a measurable cardinal κ”, then V satisfies “There exists a normal κ-ultrafilter”, that is to say a “simple” κ-ultrafilter. The only known examples of “complex” κ-ultrafilters have been constructed by Kanamori [2], Ketonen [4] and Kunen (cf. [2]) with stronger hypotheses than measurability: compactness or supercompactness. Using the notions of skies and constellations defined by Kanamori [2] for the measurable case, and which witness the complexity of a κ-ultrafilter, we shall show the necessity of such assumptions, namely:Theorem 1. If λ < κ is a strongly inaccessible cardinal, the existence of a κ-ultrafilter with more than λ constellations implies that there is an inner model with two measurable cardinals if λ = ω and λ + 1 measurable cardinals otherwise.Theorem 2. Let θ < κ be an arbitrary ordinal. If there is a κ-ultrafilter such that the order-type of its skies is greater than ωθ, then there exists an inner model with θ + 1 measurable cardinals.And as a corollary, we obtain:Theorem 3. Let μ < κ be a regular cardinal. If there exists a κ-ultrafilter containing the closed-unbounded subsets of κ and {α < κ: cf(α) = μ}, then there is an inner model with two measurable cardinals if μ = ω, and μ + 1 measurable cardinals otherwise.

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.

Many-times huge and superhuge cardinals

1984 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 112-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julius B. Barbanel ◽  
Carlos A. Diprisco ◽  
It Beng Tan
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Positive Integer ◽  
Critical Point ◽  
Order Type ◽  
Elementary Embedding ◽  
Rochester Institute Of Technology ◽  
Inner Model ◽  
Institute Of Technology ◽  
The Universe ◽  
Normal Ultrafilter

In this paper we consider various generalizations of the notion of hugeness. We remind the reader that a cardinal κ is huge if there exist a cardinal λ > κ, an inner model M which is closed under λ-sequences, and an elementary embedding i: V → M with critical point κ such that i(κ) = λ. We shall call λ a target for κ and shall write κ → (λ) to express this fact. Equivalently, κ is huge with target λ if and only if there exists a normal ultrafilter on P=κ(λ) = {X ⊆ λ:X has order type κ}. For the proof and additional facts on hugeness, see [3].We assume that the reader is familiar with the notions of measurability and supercompactness. If κ is γ-supercompact for each γ < λ, we shall say that κ is < λ-supercompact. We note that if κ → (λ), it follows immediately that κ is < λ-supercompact.Throughout the paper, n shall be used to denote a positive integer, the letters α, β, and δ shall denote ordinals, while κ, λ, γ, and η shall be reserved for cardinals. All addition is ordinal addition. V denotes the universe of all sets.All results except for Theorems 6b and 6c and Lemma 6d can be formalized in ZFC.This paper was written while the first named author was at Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, New York. We wish to thank the department of mathematics at R.I.T. for secretarial time and facilities.

The consistency strength of the free-subset property for ωω

1984 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 1198-1204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Koepke
Keyword(s):  
Measurable Cardinal ◽  
Core Model ◽  
Reverse Direction ◽  
Ground Model ◽  
Consistency Strength ◽  
The Core ◽  
Inner Model ◽  
Free Subset ◽  
Coherent Sequence ◽  
Measurable Cardinals

A subset X of a structure S is called free in S if ∀x ∈ Xx ∉ S[X − {x}]; here, S[Y] is the substructure of S generated from Y by the functions of S. For κ, λ, μ cardinals, let Frμ(κ, λ) be the assertion:for every structure S with κ ⊂ S which has at most μ functions and relations there is a subset X ⊂ κ free in S of cardinality ≥ λ.We show that Frω(ωω, ω), the free-subset property for ωω, is equiconsistent with the existence of a measurable cardinal (2.2,4.4). This answers a question of Devlin [De].In the first section of this paper we prove some combinatorial facts about Frμ(κ, λ); in particular the first cardinal κ such that Frω(κ, ω) is weakly inaccessible or of cofinality ω (1.2). The second section shows that, under Frω(ωω, ω), ωω is measurable in an inner model. For the convenience of readers not acquainted with the core model κ, we first deduce the existence of 0# (2.1) using the inner model L. Then we adapt the proof to the core model and obtain that ωω is measurable in an inner model. For the reverse direction, we essentially apply a construction of Shelah [Sh] who forced Frω(ωω, ω) over a ground model which contains an ω-sequence of measurable cardinals. We show in §4 that indeed a coherent sequence of Ramsey cardinals suffices. In §3 we obtain such a sequence as an endsegment of a Prikry sequence.

Forcing the failure of CH by adding a real

1984 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 1185-1189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saharon Shelah ◽  
Hugh Woodin
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Measurable Cardinal ◽  
Inaccessible Cardinal ◽  
Inner Models ◽  
Inner Model ◽  
Independence Results ◽  
Measurable Cardinals

We prove several independence results relevant to an old question in the folklore of set theory. These results complement those in [Sh, Chapter XIII, §4]. The question is the following. Suppose V ⊨ “ZFC + CH” and r is a real not in V. Must V[r] ⊨ CH? To avoid trivialities assume = .We answer this question negatively. Specifically we find pairs of models (W, V) such that W ⊨ ZFC + CH, V = W[r], r a real, = and V ⊨ ¬CH. Actually we find a spectrum of such pairs using ZFC up to “ZFC + there exist measurable cardinals”. Basically the nicer the pair is as a solution, the more we need to assume in order to construct it.The relevant results in [Sh, Chapter XIII] state that if a pair (of inner models) (W, V) satisfies (1) and (2) then there is an inaccessible cardinal in L; if in addition V ⊨ 2ℵ0 > ℵ2 then 0# exists; and finally if (W, V) satisfies (1), (2) and (3) with V ⊨ 2ℵ0 > ℵω, then there is an inner model with a measurable cardinal.Definition 1. For a pair (W, V) we shall consider the following conditions:(1) V = W[r], r a real, = , W ⊨ ZFC + CH but CH fails in V.(2) W ⊨ GCH.(3) W and V have the same cardinals.

Between strong and superstrong

1986 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 547-559 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stewart Baldwin
Keyword(s):  
Critical Point ◽  
Large Cardinals ◽  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Elementary Embedding ◽  
Proper Class ◽  
Consistency Strength ◽  
Strong Cardinal ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Strong Cardinals

Definition. A cardinal κ is strong iff for every x there is an elementary embedding j:V → M with critical point κ such that x ∈ M.κ is superstrong iff ∃j:V → M with critical point κ such that Vj(κ) ∈ M.These definitions are natural weakenings of supercompactness and hugeness respectively and display some of the same relations. For example, if κ is superstrong then Vκ ⊨ “∃ proper class of strong cardinals”, but the smallest superstrong cardinal is less than the smallest strong cardinal (if both types exist). (See [SRK] and [Mo] for the arguments involving supercompact and huge, which translate routinely to strong and superstrong.)Given any two types of large cardinals, a typical vague question which is often asked is “How large is the gap in consistency strength?” In one sense the gap might be considered relatively small, since the “higher degree” strong cardinals described below (a standard trick that is nearly always available) and the Shelah and Woodin hierarchies of cardinals (see [St] for a definition of these) seem to be (at least at this point in time) the only “natural” large cardinal properties lying between strong cardinals and superstrong cardinals in consistency strength.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document