Using an idea developed in joint work with Shelah, we show how to redefine Laver's notion of forcing making a supercompact cardinal $\kappa$ indestructible under $\kappa$-directed closed forcing to give a new proof of the Kimchi-Magidor Theorem in which every compact cardinal in the universe satisfies certain indestructibility properties. Specifically, we show that if K is the class of supercompact cardinals in the ground model, then it is possible to force and construct a generic extension in which the only strongly (...) compact cardinals are the elements of K or their measurable limit points, every $\kappa \in K$ is a supercompact cardinal indestructible under $\kappa$-directed closed forcing, and every $\kappa$ a measurable limit point of K is a strongly compact cardinal indestructible under $\kappa$-directed closed forcing not changing $\wp$. We then derive as a corollary a model for the existence of a strongly compact cardinal $\kappa$ which is not $\kappa^+$ supercompact but which is indestructible under $\kappa$-directed closed forcing not changing $\wp and remains non-$\kappa^+$ supercompact after such a forcing has been done. (shrink)

We improve on results and constructions by Apter, Dimitriou, Gitik, Hayut, Karagila, and Koepke concerning large cardinals, ultrafilters, and cofinalities without the axiom of choice. In particular, we show the consistency of the following statements from certain assumptions: the first supercompact cardinal can be the first uncountable regular cardinal, all successors of regular cardinals are Ramsey, every sequence of stationary sets in is mutually stationary, an infinitary Chang conjecture holds for the cardinals, and all are singular. In each of the (...) cases, our results either weaken the hypotheses or strengthen the conclusions of known proofs. (shrink)

We work with symmetric extensions based on Lévy collapse and extend a few results of Apter, Cody, and Koepke. We prove a conjecture of Dimitriou from her Ph.D. thesis. We also observe that if V is a model of $$\textsf {ZFC}$$ ZFC, then $$\textsf {DC}_{<\kappa }$$ DC < κ can be preserved in the symmetric extension of V in terms of symmetric system $$\langle {\mathbb {P}},{\mathcal {G}},{\mathcal {F}}\rangle $$ ⟨ P, G, F ⟩, if $${\mathbb {P}}$$ P is $$\kappa $$ (...) κ -distributive and $${\mathcal {F}}$$ F is $$\kappa $$ κ -complete. Further we observe that if $$\delta <\kappa $$ δ < κ and V is a model of $$\textsf {ZF}+\textsf {DC}_{\delta }$$ ZF + DC δ, then $$\textsf {DC}_{\delta }$$ DC δ can be preserved in the symmetric extension of V in terms of symmetric system $$\langle {\mathbb {P}},{\mathcal {G}},{\mathcal {F}}\rangle $$ ⟨ P, G, F ⟩, if $${\mathbb {P}}$$ P is ($$\delta +1$$ δ + 1 )-strategically closed and $${\mathcal {F}}$$ F is $$\kappa $$ κ -complete. (shrink)

Using work of Devlin and Schindler in conjunction with work on Prikry forcing in a choiceless context done by the author, we show that two choiceless cardinal patterns have consistency strength of at least one Woodin cardinal.

We show the relative consistency of ℵ1 satisfying a combinatorial property considered by David Fremlin (in the question DU from his list) in certain choiceless inner models. This is demonstrated by first proving the property is true for Ramsey cardinals. In contrast, we show that in ZFC, no cardinal of uncountable cofinality can satisfy a similar, stronger property. The questions considered by D. H. Fremlin are if families of finite subsets of ω1 satisfying a certain density condition necessarily contain all (...) finite subsets of an infinite subset of ω1, and specifically if this and a stronger property hold under MA + ¬CH. Towards this we show that if MA + ¬CH holds, then for every family ? of ℵ1 many infinite subsets of ω1, one can find a family ? of finite subsets of ω1 which is dense in Fremlins sense, and does not contain all finite subsets of any set in ?.We then pose some open problems related to the question. (shrink)

A question of Foreman and Magidor asks if it is consistent for every sequence of stationary subsets of the ℵ n ’s for 1≤n<ω to be mutually stationary. We get a positive answer to this question in the context of the negation of the Axiom of Choice. We also indicate how a positive answer to a generalized version of this question in a choiceless context may be obtained.

We construct models containing exactly one supercompact cardinal in which level by level inequivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness holds. In each model, above the supercompact cardinal, there are finitely many strongly compact cardinals, and the strongly compact and measurable cardinals precisely coincide.

We examine combinatorial aspects and consistency strength properties of almost Ramsey cardinals. Without the Axiom of Choice, successor cardinals may be almost Ramsey. From fairly mild supercompactness assumptions, we construct a model of ZF + ${\neg {\rm AC}_\omega}$ in which every infinite cardinal is almost Ramsey. Core model arguments show that strong assumptions are necessary. Without successors of singular cardinals, we can weaken this to an equiconsistency of the following theories: “ZFC + There is a proper class of regular almost (...) Ramsey cardinals”, and “ZF + DC + All infinite cardinals except possibly successors of singular cardinals are almost Ramsey”. (shrink)

Combining techniques of the first author and Shelah with ideas of Magidor, we show how to get a model in which, for fixed but arbitrary finite n, the first n strongly compact cardinals κ 1 ,..., κ n are so that κ i for i = 1,..., n is both the i th measurable cardinal and κ + i supercompact. This generalizes an unpublished theorem of Magidor and answers a question of Apter and Shelah.

We show that from a supercompact cardinal $\kappa$, there is a forcing extension $V[G]$ that has a symmetric inner model $N$ in which $\mathrm {ZF}+\lnot\mathrm {AC}$ holds, $\kappa$ and $\kappa^{+}$ are both singular, and the continuum function at $\kappa$ can be precisely controlled, in the sense that the final model contains a sequence of distinct subsets of $\kappa$ of length equal to any predetermined ordinal. We also show that the above situation can be collapsed to obtain a model of $\mathrm (...) {ZF}+\lnot\mathrm {AC}_{\omega}$ in which either $\aleph_{1}$ and $\aleph_{2}$ are both singular and the continuum function at $\aleph_{1}$ can be precisely controlled, or $\aleph_{\omega}$ and $\aleph_{\omega+1}$ are both singular and the continuum function at $\aleph_{\omega}$ can be precisely controlled. Additionally, we discuss a result in which we separate the lengths of sequences of distinct subsets of consecutive singular cardinals $\kappa$ and $\kappa^{+}$ in a model of $\mathrm {ZF}$. Some open questions concerning the continuum function in models of $\mathrm {ZF}$ with consecutive singular cardinals are posed. (shrink)

We prove three theorems concerning Laver indestructibility, strong compactness, and measurability. We then state some related open questions.

We show that the consistency of the theory “ZF + DC + Every successor cardinal is regular + Every limit cardinal is singular + Every successor cardinal satisfies the tree property” follows from the consistency of a proper class of supercompact cardinals. This extends earlier results due to the author showing that the consistency of the theory “\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${{\rm ZF} + \neg{\rm AC}_\omega}$$\end{document} + Every successor cardinal is regular + Every limit cardinal (...) is singular + Every successor cardinal satisfies the tree property” follows from hypotheses stronger in consistency strength than a supercompact limit of supercompact cardinals. A lower bound in consistency strength is provided by a result of Busche and Schindler, who showed that the consistency of the theory “ZF + Every successor cardinal is regular + Every limit cardinal is singular + Every successor cardinal satisfies the tree property” implies the consistency of ADL(R). (shrink)