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.

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.

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.

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 Large cardinals and definable well-orders on the universe

2009 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 641-654 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew D. Brooke-Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Large Cardinals ◽  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Proper Class ◽  
The Universe

AbstractWe use a reverse Easton forcing iteration to obtain a universe with a definable well-order, while preserving the GCH and proper classes of a variety of very large cardinals. This is achieved by coding using the principle , at a proper class of cardinals κ. By choosing the cardinals at which coding occurs sufficiently sparsely, we are able to lift the embeddings witnessing the large cardinal properties without having to meet any non-trivial master conditions.

scholarly journals Ramsey-like cardinals II

2011 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 541-560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victoria Gitman ◽  
P. D. Welch
Keyword(s):  
Upper Bound ◽  
Large Cardinals ◽  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Core Model ◽  
Consistency Strength ◽  
The Core ◽  
Countable Ordinal ◽  
Elementary Embeddings ◽  
Remarkable Cardinals

AbstractThis paper continues the study of the Ramsey-like large cardinals introduced in [5] and [14]. Ramsey-like cardinals are defined by generalizing the characterization of Ramsey cardinals via the existence of elementary embeddings. Ultrafilters derived from such embeddings are fully iterable and so it is natural to ask about large cardinal notions asserting the existence of ultrafilters allowing only α-many iterations for some countable ordinal α. Here we study such α-iterable cardinals. We show that the α-iterable cardinals form a strict hierarchy for α ≤ ω1, that they are downward absolute to L for , and that the consistency strength of Schindler's remarkable cardinals is strictly between 1-iterable and 2-iterable cardinals.We show that the strongly Ramsey and super Ramsey cardinals from [5] are downward absolute to the core model K. Finally, we use a forcing argument from a strongly Ramsey cardinal to separate the notions of Ramsey and virtually Ramsey cardinals. These were introduced in [14] as an upper bound on the consistency strength of the Intermediate Chang's Conjecture.

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.

The large cardinal strength of weak Vopenka’s principle

2021 ◽  
pp. 2150024
Author(s):  
Trevor M. Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Lower Bound ◽  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Proper Class ◽  
Strong Cardinal ◽  
Elementary Embeddings ◽  
Vopěnka’S Principle ◽  
Measurable Cardinals

We show that Weak Vopěnka’s Principle, which is the statement that the opposite category of ordinals cannot be fully embedded into the category of graphs, is equivalent to the large cardinal principle Ord is Woodin, which says that for every class [Formula: see text] there is a [Formula: see text]-strong cardinal. Weak Vopěnka’s Principle was already known to imply the existence of a proper class of measurable cardinals. We improve this lower bound to the optimal one by defining structures whose nontrivial homomorphisms can be used as extenders, thereby producing elementary embeddings witnessing [Formula: see text]-strongness of some cardinal.

scholarly journals Combined Maximality Principles up to large cardinals

2009 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. 1015-1046 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gunter Fuchs
Keyword(s):  
Regular Cardinal ◽  
Large Cardinals ◽  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Consistency Strength ◽  
Regular Cardinals ◽  
Maximality Principles

AbstractThe motivation for this paper is the following: In [4] I showed that it is inconsistent with ZFC that the Maximality Principle for directed closed forcings holds at unboundedly many regular cardinals κ (even only allowing κ itself as a parameter in the Maximality Principle for <κ-closed forcings each time). So the question is whether it is consistent to have this principle at unboundedly many regular cardinals or at every regular cardinal below some large cardinal κ (instead of ∞), and if so, how strong it is. It turns out that it is consistent in many cases, but the consistency strength is quite high.

Proper forcing and L(ℝ)

2001 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 801-810 ◽  
Author(s):  
Itay Neeman ◽  
Jindřich Zapletal
Keyword(s):  
Large Cardinals ◽  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Consistency Strength ◽  
Woodin Cardinals ◽  
Proper Forcing

AbstractWe present two ways in which the model L(ℝ) is canonical assuming the existence of large cardinals. We show that the theory of this model, with ordinal parameters, cannot be changed by small forcing: we show further that a set of ordinals in V cannot be added to L(ℝ) by small forcing. The large cardinal needed corresponds to the consistency strength of ADL(ℝ): roughly ω Woodin cardinals.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document