Indestructibility, instances of strong compactness, and level by level inequivalence

Archive for Mathematical Logic 49 (7-8):725-741 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Suppose λ > κ is measurable. We show that if κ is either indestructibly supercompact or indestructibly strong, then A = {δ < κ | δ is measurable, yet δ is neither δ + strongly compact nor a limit of measurable cardinals} must be unbounded in κ. The large cardinal hypothesis on λ is necessary, as we further demonstrate by constructing via forcing two models in which ${A = \emptyset}$ . The first of these contains a supercompact cardinal κ and is such that no cardinal δ > κ is measurable, κ’s supercompactness is indestructible under κ-directed closed, (κ +, ∞)-distributive forcing, and every measurable cardinal δ < κ is δ + strongly compact. The second of these contains a strong cardinal κ and is such that no cardinal δ > κ is measurable, κ’s strongness is indestructible under < κ-strategically closed, (κ +, ∞)-distributive forcing, and level by level inequivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness holds. The model from the first of our forcing constructions is used to show that it is consistent, relative to a supercompact cardinal, for the least cardinal κ which is both strong and has its strongness indestructible under κ-directed closed, (κ +, ∞)-distributive forcing to be the same as the least supercompact cardinal, which has its supercompactness indestructible under κ-directed closed, (κ +, ∞)-distributive forcing. It further follows as a corollary of the first of our forcing constructions that it is possible to build a model containing a supercompact cardinal κ in which no cardinal δ > κ is measurable, κ is indestructibly supercompact, and every measurable cardinal δ < κ which is not a limit of measurable cardinals is δ + strongly compact

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,610

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Level by level inequivalence beyond measurability.Arthur W. Apter - 2011 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 50 (7-8):707-712.
Indestructible strong compactness and level by level inequivalence.Arthur W. Apter - 2013 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 59 (4-5):371-377.
Some remarks on indestructibility and Hamkins? lottery preparation.Arthur W. Apter - 2003 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 42 (8):717-735.
Tallness and level by level equivalence and inequivalence.Arthur W. Apter - 2010 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 56 (1):4-12.
Failures of SCH and Level by Level Equivalence.Arthur W. Apter - 2006 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 45 (7):831-838.
On the indestructibility aspects of identity crisis.Grigor Sargsyan - 2009 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 48 (6):493-513.
Diamond, square, and level by level equivalence.Arthur W. Apter - 2005 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 44 (3):387-395.
An equiconsistency for universal indestructibility.Arthur W. Apter & Grigor Sargsyan - 2010 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 75 (1):314-322.
Level by level equivalence and strong compactness.Arthur W. Apter - 2004 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 50 (1):51.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-23

Downloads
60 (#266,503)

6 months
6 (#508,040)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Indestructibility and the linearity of the Mitchell ordering.Arthur W. Apter - 2024 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 63 (3):473-482.
Indestructibility and destructible measurable cardinals.Arthur W. Apter - 2016 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 55 (1-2):3-18.

Add more citations

References found in this work

[Omnibus Review].Thomas Jech - 1992 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 57 (1):261-262.
Strong axioms of infinity and elementary embeddings.Robert M. Solovay - 1978 - Annals of Mathematical Logic 13 (1):73.
The lottery preparation.Joel David Hamkins - 2000 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 101 (2-3):103-146.
Gap forcing: Generalizing the lévy-Solovay theorem.Joel David Hamkins - 1999 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 5 (2):264-272.

View all 12 references / Add more references