In this paper we prove that from large cardinals it is consistent that there is a singular strong limit cardinal $\nu $ such that the singular cardinal hypothesis fails at $\nu $ and every collection of fewer than $\operatorname {\mathrm {cf}}(\nu )$ stationary subsets of $\nu ^{+}$ reflects simultaneously. For $\operatorname {\mathrm {cf}}(\nu )> \omega $, this situation was not previously known to be consistent. Using different methods, we reduce the upper bound on the consistency strength of this situation for (...) $\operatorname {\mathrm {cf}}(\nu ) = \omega $ to below a single partially supercompact cardinal. The previous upper bound of infinitely many supercompact cardinals was due to Sharon. (shrink)

From large cardinals we obtain the consistency of the existence of a singular cardinal κ of cofinality ω at which the Singular Cardinals Hypothesis fails, there is a bad scale at κ and κ ++ has the tree property. In particular this model has no special κ +-trees.

We show that given ω many supercompact cardinals, there is a generic extension in which there are no Aronszajn trees at ℵω+1. This is an improvement of the large cardinal assumptions. The previous hypothesis was a huge cardinal and ω many supercompact cardinals above it, in Magidor—Shelah [7].

Given a regular cardinal λ and λ many supercompact cardinals, we describe a type of forcing such that in the generic extension there is a cardinal κ with cofinality λ, the Singular Cardinal Hypothesis at κ fails, and the tree property holds at κ+.

We show that given ù many supercompact cardinals, there is a generic extension in which the tree property holds at ℵ ω²+1 and the SCH fails at ℵ ω².

We present an approach to forcing with finite sequences of models that uses models of two types. This approach builds on earlier work of Friedman and Mitchell on forcing to add clubs in cardinals larger than $\aleph_{1}$, with finite conditions. We use the two-type approach to give a new proof of the consistency of the proper forcing axiom. The new proof uses a finite support forcing, as opposed to the countable support iteration in the standard proof. The distinction is important (...) since a proof using finite supports is more amenable to generalizations to cardinals greater than $\aleph_{1}$. (shrink)

We study the effects of piece selection principles on cardinal arithmetic (Shelah style). As an application, we discuss questions of Abe and Usuba. In particular, we show that if, then (a) is not (λ, 2)‐distributive, and (b) does not hold.

Assume \ is a singular limit of \ supercompact cardinals, where \ is a limit ordinal. We present two methods for arranging the tree property to hold at \ while making \ the successor of the limit of the first \ measurable cardinals. The first method is then used to get, from the same assumptions, the tree property at \ with the failure of SCH at \. This extends results of Neeman and Sinapova. The second method is also used to (...) get the tree property at the successor of an arbitrary singular cardinal, which extends some results of Magidor–Shelah, Neeman and Sinapova. (shrink)

Fontanella :193–207, 2014) showed that if \ is an increasing sequence of supercompacts and \, then the strong tree property holds at \. Building on a proof by Neeman, we show that the strong tree property at \ is consistent with \, where \ is singular strong limit of countable cofinality.

We present an alternative proof that from large cardinals, we can force the tree property at $\kappa ^+$ and $\kappa ^{++}$ simultaneously for a singular strong limit cardinal $\kappa $. The advantage of our method is that the proof of the tree property at the double successor is simpler than in the existing literature. This new approach also works to establish the result for $\kappa =\aleph _{\omega ^2}$.

Motivated by the goal of constructing a model in which there are no κ-Aronszajn trees for any regular $k>\aleph_1$, we produce a model with many singular cardinals where both the singular cardinals hypothesis and weak square fail.

We show that the consistency of the theories “ holds below ” + “there is an injection ” + “both and fail” and + “ holds below ” + “there is an injection ” + “ satisfies the tree property” follow from the appropriate supercompactness hypotheses. These provide answers in a choiceless context to certain long‐standing open questions concerning, weak square, approachability, and the tree property. There is nothing special about, and the injection into can be from any ordinal λ (...) (which means that pcf theory can fail badly in the models constructed if ). (shrink)

The strong tree property and ITP (also called the super tree property) are generalizations of the tree property that characterize strong compactness and supercompactness up to inaccessibility. That is, an inaccessible cardinal $\kappa $ is strongly compact if and only if the strong tree property holds at $\kappa $, and supercompact if and only if ITP holds at $\kappa $. We present several results motivated by the problem of obtaining the strong tree property and ITP at many successive cardinals simultaneously; (...) these results focus on the successors of singular cardinals. We describe a general class of forcings that will obtain the strong tree property and ITP at the successor of a singular cardinal of any cofinality. Generalizing a result of Neeman about the tree property, we show that it is consistent for ITP to hold at $\aleph _n$ for all $2 \leq n < \omega $ simultaneously with the strong tree property at $\aleph _{\omega +1}$ ; we also show that it is consistent for ITP to hold at $\aleph _n$ for all $3 < n < \omega $ and at $\aleph _{\omega +1}$ simultaneously. Finally, turning our attention to singular cardinals of uncountable cofinality, we show that it is consistent for the strong and super tree properties to hold at successors of singulars of multiple cofinalities simultaneously. (shrink)