- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
Superdestructibility: A Dual to Laver's Indestructibility
Journal of Symbolic Logic 63 (2):549-554 (1998)
Abstract
After small forcing, any $ -closed forcing will destroy the supercompactness and even the strong compactness of κAuthor's Profile
Links
PhilArchive
External links
(no proxy)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Through your library
- Sign in / register and customize your OpenURL resolver
- Configure custom resolver
My notes
Similar books and articles
Small forcing makes any cardinal superdestructible.Joel David Hamkins - 1998 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 63 (1):51-58.
Small Forcing Makes any Cardinal Superdestructible.Joel Hamkins - 1998 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 63 (1):51-58.
Some remarks on indestructibility and Hamkins? lottery preparation.Arthur W. Apter - 2003 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 42 (8):717-735.
Supercompactness and level by level equivalence are compatible with indestructibility for strong compactness.Arthur W. Apter - 2007 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 46 (3-4):155-163.
Indestructibility, instances of strong compactness, and level by level inequivalence.Arthur W. Apter - 2010 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 49 (7-8):725-741.
Indestructible strong compactness and level by level inequivalence.Arthur W. Apter - 2013 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 59 (4-5):371-377.
Universal partial indestructibility and strong compactness.Arthur W. Apter - 2005 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 51 (5):524-531.
Indestructibility and stationary reflection.Arthur W. Apter - 2009 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 55 (3):228-236.
Indestructible Weakly Compact Cardinals and the Necessity of Supercompactness for Certain Proof Schemata.J. D. Hamkins & A. W. Apter - 2001 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 47 (4):563-572.
Destruction or preservation as you like it.Joel David Hamkins - 1998 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 91 (2-3):191-229.
Analytics
Added to PP
2009-01-28
Downloads
63 (#262,902)
6 months
10 (#308,797)
2009-01-28
Downloads
63 (#262,902)
6 months
10 (#308,797)
Historical graph of downloads
Author's Profile
Citations of this work
Destruction or preservation as you like it.Joel David Hamkins - 1998 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 91 (2-3):191-229.
Superstrong and other large cardinals are never Laver indestructible.Joan Bagaria, Joel David Hamkins, Konstantinos Tsaprounis & Toshimichi Usuba - 2016 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 55 (1-2):19-35.
Fragility and indestructibility II.Spencer Unger - 2015 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 166 (11):1110-1122.
Strongly compact cardinals and the continuum function.Arthur W. Apter, Stamatis Dimopoulos & Toshimichi Usuba - 2021 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 172 (9):103013.
References found in this work
Strong compactness and other cardinal sins.Jussi Ketonen - 1972 - Annals of Mathematical Logic 5 (1):47.
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-68866f4b87-kftwx uwo