Superstrong and other large cardinals are never Laver indestructible

Archive for Mathematical Logic 55 (1-2):19-35 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

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.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,219

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

The lottery preparation.Joel David Hamkins - 2000 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 101 (2-3):103-146.
Elementary chains and C (n)-cardinals.Konstantinos Tsaprounis - 2014 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 53 (1-2):89-118.
On extendible cardinals and the GCH.Konstantinos Tsaprounis - 2013 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 52 (5-6):593-602.
Laver sequences for extendible and super-almost-huge cardinals.Paul Corazza - 1999 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 64 (3):963-983.
Strong Cardinals can be Fully Laver Indestructible.Arthur W. Apter - 2002 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 48 (4):499-507.
Unfoldable cardinals and the GCH.Joel David Hamkins - 2001 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 66 (3):1186-1198.
Strongly unfoldable cardinals made indestructible.Thomas A. Johnstone - 2008 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 73 (4):1215-1248.
C(n)-cardinals.Joan Bagaria - 2012 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 51 (3-4):213-240.
The wholeness axiom and Laver sequences.Paul Corazza - 2000 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 105 (1-3):157-260.
Tall cardinals.Joel D. Hamkins - 2009 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 55 (1):68-86.
A Cardinal Pattern Inspired by AD.Arthur W. Apter - 1996 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 42 (1):211-218.
On the indestructibility aspects of identity crisis.Grigor Sargsyan - 2009 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 48 (6):493-513.
Gap forcing: Generalizing the lévy-Solovay theorem.Joel David Hamkins - 1999 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 5 (2):264-272.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-12-24

Downloads
35 (#433,400)

6 months
11 (#196,102)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Citations of this work

The downward directed grounds hypothesis and very large cardinals.Toshimichi Usuba - 2017 - Journal of Mathematical Logic 17 (2):1750009.
Resurrection axioms and uplifting cardinals.Joel David Hamkins & Thomas A. Johnstone - 2014 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 53 (3-4):463-485.
Elementary chains and C (n)-cardinals.Konstantinos Tsaprounis - 2014 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 53 (1-2):89-118.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Set-theoretic geology.Gunter Fuchs, Joel David Hamkins & Jonas Reitz - 2015 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 166 (4):464-501.
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.
The Ground Axiom.Jonas Reitz - 2007 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 72 (4):1299 - 1317.

View all 17 references / Add more references