Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Arthur Apter (2005)
Diamond, square, and level by level equivalenceArchive for Mathematical Logic, 44
V. Gitman, P. Welch (2011)
Ramsey-like cardinals IIThe Journal of Symbolic Logic, 76
(1974)
Strongly compact cardinals and the GCH
W. Mitchell (1979)
Ramsey cardinals and constructibilityJournal of Symbolic Logic, 44
Natasha Dobrinen, S. Friedman (2008)
Internal consistency and global co-stationarity of the ground modelJournal of Symbolic Logic, 73
J.E. Baumgartner (1984)
Handbook of Set Theoretic Topology
M. Magidor (1976)
How large is the first strongly compact cardinal? or a study on identity crisesAnnals of Mathematical Logic, 10
M. Foreman (2009)
Smoke and mirrors: Combinatorial properties of small cardinals equiconsistent with huge cardinalsAdvances in Mathematics, 222
R. Laver (1978)
Making the supercompactness of κ indestructible under κ-directed closed forcingIsrael Journal of Mathematics, 29
(2009)
Aspects of HOD, supercompactness, and set theoretic geology
Arthur Apter (2002)
On level by level equivalence and inequivalence between strong compactness and supercompactnessFundamenta Mathematicae, 171
Jonas Reitz (2006)
The ground axiomJournal of Symbolic Logic, 72
Arthur Apter (2010)
Tallness and level by level equivalence and inequivalenceMathematical Logic Quarterly, 56
Arthur Apter (2011)
Level by level inequivalence beyond measurabilityArchive for Mathematical Logic, 50
J. Hamkins (1998)
The Lottery PreparationAnn. Pure Appl. Log., 101
Arthur Apter, S. Shelah (1995)
On the strong equality between supercompactness and strong compactnessTransactions of the American Mathematical Society, 349
K. Kunen (1970)
Some applications of iterated ultrapowers in set theoryAnnals of Mathematical Logic, 1
A. Brooke-Taylor (2007)
Large cardinals and definable well-orders on the universeThe Journal of Symbolic Logic, 74
J. Hamkins (1994)
Fragile measurabilityJournal of Symbolic Logic, 59
Azriel Levy, R. Solovay (1967)
Measurable cardinals and the continuum hypothesisIsrael Journal of Mathematics, 5
K. Potthoff (1974)
Boolean ultrapowersArchiv für mathematische Logik und Grundlagenforschung, 16
S. Friedman (2006)
Internal Consistency and the Inner Model HypothesisBulletin of Symbolic Logic, 12
V. Gitman (2008)
Ramsey-like cardinalsThe Journal of Symbolic Logic, 76
J. Baumgartner (1984)
Applications of the Proper Forcing Axiom
Natasha Dobrinen, S. Friedman (2010)
The consistency strength of the tree property at the double successor of a measurable cardinaFundamenta Mathematicae, 208
R.M. Solovay (1974)
Proceedings of the Tarski Symposium, Proceedings Symposia Pure Mathematics, volume XXV, University of California, Berkeley, 1971
J.D. Hamkins (2005)
The ground axiomOberwolfach Rep., 55
P. Welch (2004)
On unfoldable cardinals, ω-closed cardinals, and the beginning of the inner model hierarchyArchive for Mathematical Logic, 43
We construct a variety of inner models exhibiting features usually obtained by forcing over universes with large cardinals. For example, if there is a supercompact cardinal, then there is an inner model with a Laver indestructible supercompact cardinal. If there is a supercompact cardinal, then there is an inner model with a supercompact cardinal κ for which 2 κ = κ +, another for which 2 κ = κ ++ and another in which the least strongly compact cardinal is supercompact. If there is a strongly compact cardinal, then there is an inner model with a strongly compact cardinal, for which the measurable cardinals are bounded below it and another inner model W with a strongly compact cardinal κ, such that $${H^{V}_{\kappa^+} \subseteq {\rm HOD}^W}$$ . Similar facts hold for supercompact, measurable and strongly Ramsey cardinals. If a cardinal is supercompact up to a weakly iterable cardinal, then there is an inner model of the Proper Forcing Axiom and another inner model with a supercompact cardinal in which GCH + V = HOD holds. Under the same hypothesis, there is an inner model with level by level equivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness, and indeed, another in which there is level by level inequivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness. If a cardinal is strongly compact up to a weakly iterable cardinal, then there is an inner model in which the least measurable cardinal is strongly compact. If there is a weakly iterable limit δ of <δ-supercompact cardinals, then there is an inner model with a proper class of Laver-indestructible supercompact cardinals. We describe three general proof methods, which can be used to prove many similar results.
Archive for Mathematical Logic – Springer Journals
Published: Dec 22, 2011
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.