The mantle is the intersection of all ground models of V. We show that if there exists an extendible cardinal then the mantle is the smallest ground model of V.

A transitive model M of ZFC is called a ground if the universe V is a set forcing extension of M. We show that the grounds ofV are downward set-directed. Consequently, we establish some fundamental theorems on the forcing method and the set-theoretic geology. For instance, the mantle, the intersection of all grounds, must be a model of ZFC. V has only set many grounds if and only if the mantle is a ground. We also show that if the universe (...) has some very large cardinal, then the mantle must be a ground. (shrink)

Generalizing Woodin’s extender algebra, cf. e.g. Steel Handbook of set theory, Springer, Berlin, 2010), we isolate the long extender algebra as a general version of Bukowský’s forcing, cf. Bukovský, in the presence of a supercompact cardinal.

Assume. Let κ be a cardinal. A ‐ground is a transitive proper class W modelling such that V is a generic extension of W via a forcing of cardinality. The κ‐mantle is the intersection of all ‐grounds. We prove that certain partial choice principles in are the consequence of κ being inaccessible/weakly compact, and some other related facts.

We present a class forcing notion, uniformly definable for ordinals η, which forces the ground model to be the ηth inner mantle of the extension, in which the sequence of inner mantles has length at least η. This answers a conjecture of Fuchs, Hamkins, and Reitz [1] in the positive. We also show that forces the ground model to be the ηth iterated of the extension, where the sequence of iterated s has length at least η. We conclude by showing (...) that the lengths of the sequences of inner mantles and of iterated s can be separated to be any two ordinals you please. (shrink)

This paper explores how a pluralist view can arise in a natural way out of the day-to-day practice of modern set theory. By contrast, the widely accepted orthodox view is that there is an ultimate universe of sets V, and it is in this universe that mathematics takes place. From this view, the purpose of set theory is “learning the truth about V.” It has become apparent, however, that the phenomenon of independence—those questions left unresolved by the axioms—holds a central (...) place in the investigation. This paper introduces the notion of independence, explores the primary tool for establishing independence results, and shows how a plurality of models arises through the investigation of this phenomenon. Building on a familiar example from Euclidean geometry, a template for independence proofs is established. Applying this template in the domain of set theory leads to a consideration of forcing, the tool par excellence for constructing universes of sets. Fifty years of forcing has resulted in a profusion of universes exhibiting a wide variety of characteristics—a multiverse of set theories. Direct study of this multiverse presents technical challenges due to its second-order nature. Nonetheless, there are certain nice “local neighborhoods” of the multiverse that are amenable to first-order analysis, and set-theoretic geology studies just such a neighborhood, the collection of grounds of a given universe V of set theory. I will explore some of the properties of this collection, touching on major concepts, open questions, and recent developments. (shrink)

We analyze the hereditarily ordinal definable sets $\operatorname {HOD} $ in $M_n[g]$ for a Turing cone of reals x, where $M_n$ is the canonical inner model with n Woodin cardinals build over x and g is generic over $M_n$ for the Lévy collapse up to its bottom inaccessible cardinal. We prove that assuming $\boldsymbol \Pi ^1_{n+2}$ -determinacy, for a Turing cone of reals x, $\operatorname {HOD} ^{M_n[g]} = M_n,$ where $\mathcal {M}_{\infty }$ is a direct limit of iterates of $M_{n+1}$, (...) $\delta _{\infty }$ is the least Woodin cardinal in $\mathcal {M}_{\infty }$, $\kappa _{\infty }$ is the least inaccessible cardinal in $\mathcal {M}_{\infty }$ above $\delta _{\infty }$, and $\Lambda $ is a partial iteration strategy for $\mathcal {M}_{\infty }$. It will also be shown that under the same hypothesis $\operatorname {HOD}^{M_n[g]} $ satisfies $\operatorname {GCH} $. (shrink)

This paper reconstructs Steel’s multiverse project in his ‘Gödel’s program’ (Steel [2014]), first by comparing it to those of Hamkins [2012] and Woodin [2011], then by detailed analysis what’s presented in Steel’s brief text. In particular, we reconstruct his notion of a ‘natural’ theory, describe his multiverse axioms and his translation function, and assess the resulting status of the Continuum Hypothesis. In the end, we reconceptualize the defect that Steel thinks CH might suffer from and isolate what it would take (...) to remove it while working within his framework. As our goal is to present as coherent and compelling a philosophical and mathematical story as we can, we allow ourselves to augment Steel’s story in places (e.g., in the treatment of Amalgamation) and to depart from it in others (e.g., the removal of ‘meaning’ from the account). The relevant mathematics is laid out in the appendices. (shrink)

Pluralist mathematical realism, the view that there exists more than one mathematical universe, has become an influential position in the philosophy of mathematics. I argue that, if mathematical pluralism is true (and we have good reason to believe that it is), then mathematical realism cannot (easily) be justified by arguments from the indispensability of mathematics to science. This is because any justificatory chain of inferences from mathematical applications in science to the total body of mathematical theorems can cover at most (...) one mathematical universe. Indispensability arguments may thus lose their central role in the debate about mathematical ontology. (shrink)

We study various classes of maximality principles, \\), introduced by Hamkins :527–550, 2003), where \ defines a class of forcing posets and \ is an infinite cardinal. We explore the consistency strength and the relationship of \\) with various forcing axioms when \. In particular, we give a characterization of bounded forcing axioms for a class of forcings \ in terms of maximality principles MP\\) for \ formulas. A significant part of the paper is devoted to studying the principle MP\\) (...) where \ and \ defines the class of stationary set preserving forcings. We show that MP\\) has high consistency strength; on the other hand, if \ defines the class of proper forcings or semi-proper forcings, then by Hamkins, MP\\) is consistent relative to \. (shrink)

We investigate the logical structure of intuitionistic Kripke-Platek set theory , and show that the first-order logic of is intuitionistic first-order logic IQC.

We analyze the precise modal commitments of several natural varieties of set-theoretic potentialism, using tools we develop for a general model-theoretic account of potentialism, building on those of Hamkins, Leibman and Löwe [14], including the use of buttons, switches, dials and ratchets. Among the potentialist conceptions we consider are: rank potentialism, Grothendieck–Zermelo potentialism, transitive-set potentialism, forcing potentialism, countable-transitive-model potentialism, countable-model potentialism, and others. In each case, we identify lower bounds for the modal validities, which are generally either S4.2 or S4.3, (...) and an upper bound of S5, proving in each case that these bounds are optimal. The validity of S5 in a world is a potentialist maximality principle, an interesting set-theoretic principle of its own. The results can be viewed as providing an analysis of the modal commitments of the various set-theoretic multiverse conceptions corresponding to each potentialist account. (shrink)

The dream solution of the continuum hypothesis would be a solution by which we settle the continuum hypothesis on the basis of a newly discovered fundamental principle of set theory, a missing axiom, widely regarded as true. Such a dream solution would indeed be a solution, since we would all accept the new axiom along with its consequences. In this article, however, I argue that such a dream solution to $\mathrm {CH}$ is unattainable.

We analyze the effect of replacing several natural uses of definability in set theory by the weaker model-theoretic notion of algebraicity. We find, for example, that the class of hereditarily ordinal algebraic sets is the same as the class of hereditarily ordinal definable sets; that is, $\mathrm{HOA}=\mathrm{HOD}$. Moreover, we show that every algebraic model of $\mathrm{ZF}$ is actually pointwise definable. Finally, we consider the implicitly constructible universe Imp—an algebraic analogue of the constructible universe—which is obtained by iteratively adding not only (...) the sets that are definable over what has been built so far, but also those that are algebraic over the existing structure. While we know that $\mathrm{Imp}$ can differ from $L$, the subtler properties of this new inner model are just now coming to light. Many questions remain open. (shrink)

We introduce a variant of Martin's axiom, called the grounded Martin's axiom, or math formula, which asserts that the universe is a c.c.c. forcing extension in which Martin's axiom holds for posets in the ground model. This principle already implies several of the combinatorial consequences of math formula. The new axiom is shown to be consistent with the failure of math formula and a singular continuum. We prove that math formula is preserved in a strong way when adding a Cohen (...) real and that adding a random real to a model of math formula preserves math formula. We also consider the analogous variant of the proper forcing axiom. (shrink)

Given a countable model of set theory, we study the structure of its generic multiverse, the collection of its forcing extensions and ground models, ordered by inclusion. Mostowski showed that any finite poset embeds into the generic multiverse while preserving the nonexistence of upper bounds. We obtain several improvements of his result, using what we call the blockchain construction to build generic objects with varying degrees of mutual genericity. The method accommodates certain infinite posets, and we can realize these embeddings (...) via a wide variety of forcing notions, while providing control over lower bounds as well. We also give a generalization to class forcing in the context of second-order set theory, and exhibit some further structure in the generic multiverse, such as the existence of exact pairs. (shrink)

It is shown that the boldface maximality principle for subcomplete forcing,, together with the assumption that the universe has only set many grounds, implies the existence of a well‐ordering of definable without parameters. The same conclusion follows from, assuming there is no inner model with an inaccessible limit of measurable cardinals. Similarly, the bounded subcomplete forcing axiom, together with the assumption that does not exist, for some, implies the existence of a well‐ordering of which is Δ1‐definable without parameters, and ‐definable (...) using a subset of ω1 as a parameter. This well‐order is in. Enhanced versions of bounded forcing axioms are introduced that are strong enough to have the implications of mentioned above, and along the way, a bounded forcing axiom for countably closed forcing is proposed. (shrink)

In contrast to the robust mutual interpretability phenomenon in set theory, Ali Enayat proved that bi-interpretation is absent: distinct theories extending ZF are never bi-interpretable and models of ZF are bi-interpretable only when they are isomorphic. Nevertheless, for natural weaker set theories, we prove, including Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory $\mathrm {ZFC}^{-}$ without power set and Zermelo set theory Z, there are nontrivial instances of bi-interpretation. Specifically, there are well-founded models of $\mathrm {ZFC}^{-}$ that are bi-interpretable, but not isomorphic—even $\langle H_{\omega _1},\in (...) \rangle $ and $ \langle H_{\omega _2},\in \rangle $ can be bi-interpretable—and there are distinct bi-interpretable theories extending $\mathrm {ZFC}^{-}$. Similarly, using a construction of Mathias, we prove that every model of ZF is bi-interpretable with a model of Zermelo set theory in which the replacement axiom fails. (shrink)

In this article, we discuss a simple argument that modal metaphysics is misconceived, and responses to it. Unlike Quine's, this argument begins with the simple observation that there are different candidate interpretations of the predicate ‘could have been the case’. This is analogous to the observation that there are different candidate interpretations of the predicate ‘is a member of’. The argument then infers that the search for metaphysical necessities is misguided in much the way the ‘set-theoretic pluralist’ claims that the (...) search for the true axioms of set theory is. We show that the obvious responses to this argument fail. However, a new response has emerged that purports to prove, from higher-order logical principles, that metaphysical possibility is the broadest kind of possibility applying to propositions, and is to that extent special. We distill two lines of reasoning from the literature, and argue that their import depends on premises that any ‘modal pluralist’ should deny. Both presuppose that there is a unique typed hierarchy, which is what the modal pluralist, in the context of higher-order logic, should disavow. In other words, both presupposes that there is a unique candidate for what higher-order claims could mean. We consider the worry that, in a higher-order setting, modal pluralism faces an insuperable problem of articulation, collapses into modal monism, is vulnerable to the Russell-Myhill paradox, or even contravenes the truism that there is a unique actual world, and argue that these worries are misplaced. We also sketch the bearing of the resulting ‘Higher-Order Pluralism’ on the theory of content. One theme of the discussion is that, if Higher-Order Pluralism is correct, then there is no fixed metatheory from which to characterize higher-order reality. (shrink)

We introduce and study some variants of a notion of canonical set theoretical truth. By this, we mean truth in a transitive proper class model M of ZFC that is uniquely characterized by some $$\in$$ ∈ -formula. We show that there are interesting statements that hold in all such models, but do not follow from ZFC, such as the ground model axiom and the nonexistence of measurable cardinals. We also study a related concept in which we only require M to (...) be fixed up to elementary equivalence. We show that this theory-canonicity also goes beyond provability in ZFC, but it does not rule out measurable cardinals and it does not fix the size of the continuum. (shrink)

We introduce and consider the inner-model reflection principle, which asserts that whenever a statement \varphi(a) in the first-order language of set theory is true in the set-theoretic universe V, then it is also true in a proper inner model W \subset A. A stronger principle, the ground-model reflection principle, asserts that any such \varphi(a) true in V is also true in some non-trivial ground model of the universe with respect to set forcing. These principles each express a form of width (...) reflection in contrast to the usual height reflection of the Lévy–Montague reflection theorem. They are each equiconsistent with ZFC and indeed \Pi_2-conservative over ZFC, being forceable by class forcing while preserving any desired rank-initial segment of the universe. Furthermore, the inner-model reflection principle is a consequence of the existence of sufficient large cardinals, and lightface formulations of the reflection principles follow from the maximality principle MP and from the inner-model hypothesis IMH. We also consider some questions concerning the expressibility of the principles. (shrink)

We address Steel’s Programme to identify a ‘preferred’ universe of set theory and the best axioms extending $\mathsf {ZFC}$ by using his multiverse axioms $\mathsf {MV}$ and the ‘core hypothesis’. In the first part, we examine the evidential framework for $\mathsf {MV}$, in particular the use of large cardinals and of ‘worlds’ obtained through forcing to ‘represent’ alternative extensions of $\mathsf {ZFC}$. In the second part, we address the existence and the possible features of the core of $\mathsf {MV}_T$ (where (...) T is $\mathsf {ZFC}$ +Large Cardinals). In the last part, we discuss the hypothesis that the core is Ultimate-L, and examine whether and how, based on this fact, the Core Universist can justify V=Ultimate-L as the best (and ultimate) extension of $\mathsf {ZFC}$. To this end, we take into account several strategies, and assess their prospects in the light of $\mathsf {MV}$ ’s evidential framework. (shrink)

Superstrong cardinals are never Laver indestructible. Similarly, almost huge cardinals, huge cardinals, superhuge cardinals, rank-into-rank cardinals, extendible cardinals, 1-extendible cardinals, 0-extendible cardinals, weakly superstrong cardinals, uplifting cardinals, pseudo-uplifting cardinals, superstrongly unfoldable cardinals, Σn-reflecting cardinals, Σn-correct cardinals and Σn-extendible cardinals are never Laver indestructible. In fact, all these large cardinal properties are superdestructible: if κ exhibits any of them, with corresponding target θ, then in any forcing extension arising from nontrivial strategically <κ-closed forcing Q∈Vθ\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} (...) \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mathbb{Q} \in V_\theta}$$\end{document}, the cardinal κ will exhibit none of the large cardinal properties with target θ or larger. (shrink)

A central area of current philosophical debate in the foundations of mathematics concerns whether or not there is a single, maximal, universe of set theory. Universists maintain that there is such a universe, while Multiversists argue that there are many universes, no one of which is ontologically privileged. Often model-theoretic constructions that add sets to models are cited as evidence in favour of the latter. This paper informs this debate by developing a way for a Universist to interpret talk that (...) seems to necessitate the addition of sets to V. We argue that, despite the prima facie incoherence of such talk for the Universist, she nonetheless has reason to try and provide interpretation of this discourse. We present a method of interpreting extension-talk (V-logic), and show how it captures satisfaction in `ideal' outer models and relates to impredicative class theories. We provide some reasons to regard the technique as philosophically virtuous, and argue that it opens new doors to philosophical and mathematical discussions for the Universist. (shrink)