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)

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)

Let k be an infinite cardinal. A subset of $(^k k)^n $ is a $\Sigma _1^1 $ -subset if it is the projection p[T] of all cofinal branches through a subtree T of $(lt;kk)^{n + 1} $ of height k. We define $\Sigma _k^1 - ,\Pi _k^1 $ - and $\Delta _k^1$ subsets of $(^k k)^n $ as usual. Given an uncountable regular cardinal k with k = k (...) there is a shrink)

In this paper we investigate strong logics of first and second order that have certain absoluteness properties. We begin with an investigation of first order logic and the strong logics ω-logic and β-logic, isolating two facets of absoluteness, namely, generic invariance and faithfulness. It turns out that absoluteness is relative in the sense that stronger background assumptions secure greater degrees of absoluteness. Our aim is to investigate the hierarchies of strong logics of first and second order that are generically invariant (...) and faithful against the backdrop of the strongest large cardinal hypotheses. We show that there is a close correspondence between the two hierarchies and we characterize the strongest logic in each hierarchy. On the first-order side, this leads to a new presentation of Woodin's Ω-logic. On the second-order side, we compare the strongest logic with full second-order logic and argue that the comparison lends support to Quine's claim that second-order logic is really set theory in sheep's clothing. (shrink)

In 1985 the second author showed that if there is a proper class of measurable Woodin cardinals and $V^{B1} $ and $V^{B2} $ are generic extensions of V satisfying CH then $V^{B1} $ and $V^{B2} $ agree on all $\Sigma _1^2 $ -statements. In terms of the strong logic Ω-logic this can be reformulated by saying that under the above large cardinal assumption ZFC + CH is Ω-complete for $\Sigma _1^2 $ Moreover. CH is the unique $\Sigma _1^2 $ -statement (...) with this feature in the sense that any other $\Sigma _1^2 $ -statement with this feature is Ω-equivalent to CH over ZFC. It is natural to look for other strengthenings of ZFC that have an even greater degree of Ω-completeness. For example, one can ask for recursively enumerable axioms A such that relative to large cardinal axioms ZFC + A is Ω-complete for all of third-order arithmetic. Going further, for each specifiable segment $V_\lambda $ of the universe of sets (for example, one might take $V_\lambda $ to be the least level that satisfies there is a proper class of huge cardinals), one can ask for recursively enumerable axioms A such that relative to large cardinal axioms ZFC + A is Ω-complete for the theory of $V_\lambda $ . If such theories exist, extend one another, and are unique in the sense that any other such theory B with the same level of Ω-completeness as A is actually Ω-equivalent to A over ZFC, then this would show that there is a unique Ω-complete picture of the successive fragments of the universe of sets and it would make for a very strong case for axioms complementing large cardinal axioms. In this paper we show that uniqueness must fail. In particular, we show that if there is one such theory that Ω-implies CH then there is another that Ω-implies¬CH. (shrink)

In this commemorative article, the work of Richard Laver is surveyed in its full range and extent.

The multiverse view in set theory, introduced and argued for in this article, is the view that there are many distinct concepts of set, each instantiated in a corresponding set-theoretic universe. The universe view, in contrast, asserts that there is an absolute background set concept, with a corresponding absolute set-theoretic universe in which every set-theoretic question has a definite answer. The multiverse position, I argue, explains our experience with the enormous range of set-theoretic possibilities, a phenomenon that challenges the universe (...) view. In particular, I argue that the continuum hypothesis is settled on the multiverse view by our extensive knowledge about how it behaves in the multiverse, and as a result it can no longer be settled in the manner formerly hoped for. (shrink)

This paper explores several topics related to Woodin’s HOD conjecture. We improve the large cardinal hypothesis of Woodin’s HOD dichotomy theorem from an extendible cardinal to a strongly compact cardinal. We show that assuming there is a strongly compact cardinal and the HOD hypothesis holds, there is no elementary embedding from HOD to HOD, settling a question of Woodin. We show that the HOD hypothesis is equivalent to a uniqueness property of elementary embeddings of levels of the cumulative hierarchy. We (...) prove that the HOD hypothesis holds if and only if every regular cardinal above the first strongly compact cardinal carries an ordinal definable [Formula: see text]-Jónsson algebra. We show that if the HOD hypothesis holds and HOD satisfies the Ultrapower Axiom, then every supercompact cardinal is supercompact in HOD. (shrink)

We show that the theory, consisting of the usual axioms of but with the power set axiom removed—specifically axiomatized by extensionality, foundation, pairing, union, infinity, separation, replacement and the assertion that every set can be well‐ordered—is weaker than commonly supposed and is inadequate to establish several basic facts often desired in its context. For example, there are models of in which ω1 is singular, in which every set of reals is countable, yet ω1 exists, in which there are sets of (...) reals of every size, but none of size, and therefore, in which the collection axiom fails; there are models of for which the Łoś theorem fails, even when the ultrapower is well‐founded and the measure exists inside the model; there are models of for which the Gaifman theorem fails, in that there is an embedding of models that is Σ1‐elementary and cofinal, but not elementary; there are elementary embeddings of models whose cofinal restriction is not elementary. Moreover, the collection of formulas that are provably equivalent in to a Σ1‐formula or a Π1‐formula is not closed under bounded quantification. Nevertheless, these deficits of are completely repaired by strengthening it to the theory, obtained by using collection rather than replacement in the axiomatization above. These results extend prior work of Zarach. (shrink)

We extend the results of Hamkins and Thomas concerning the malleability of automorphism tower heights of groups by forcing. We show that any reasonable sequence of ordinals can be realized as the automorphism tower heights of a certain group in consecutive forcing extensions or ground models, as desired. For example, it is possible to increase the height of the automorphism tower by passing to a forcing extension, then increase it further by passing to a ground model, and then decrease it (...) by passing to a further forcing extension, and so on, transfinitely. We make sense of the limit models occurring in such a sequence of models. At limit stages, the automorphism tower height will always be 1. (shrink)

The stable core, an inner model of the form $\langle L[S],\in, S\rangle $ for a simply definable predicate S, was introduced by the first author in [8], where he showed that V is a class forcing extension of its stable core. We study the structural properties of the stable core and its interactions with large cardinals. We show that the $\operatorname {GCH} $ can fail at all regular cardinals in the stable core, that the stable core can have a discrete (...) proper class of measurable cardinals, but that measurable cardinals need not be downward absolute to the stable core. Moreover, we show that, if large cardinals exist in V, then the stable core has inner models with a proper class of measurable limits of measurables, with a proper class of measurable limits of measurable limits of measurables, and so forth. We show this by providing a characterization of natural inner models $L[C_1, \dots, C_n]$ for specially nested class clubs $C_1, \dots, C_n$, like those arising in the stable core, generalizing recent results of Welch [29]. (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)

Given a cardinal κ that is λ-supercompact for some regular cardinal λ⩾κ and assuming GCH, we show that one can force the continuum function to agree with any function F:[κ,λ]∩REG→CARD satisfying ∀α,β∈domα F. Our argument extends Woodinʼs technique of surgically modifying a generic filter to a new case: Woodinʼs key lemma applies when modifications are done on the range of j, whereas our argument uses a new key lemma to handle modifications done off of the range of j on the (...) ghost coordinates. This work answers a question of Friedman and Honzik [5]. We also discuss several related open questions. (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)