- 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
Switch to: Citations
References in:
On a class of maximality principles
Archive for Mathematical Logic 57 (5-6):713-725 (2018)
Add references
You must login to add references.
|
|
|
The resurrection axioms are forms of forcing axioms that were introduced recently by Hamkins and Johnstone, who developed on earlier ideas of Chalons and Veličković. In this note, we introduce a stronger form of resurrection and show that it gives rise to families of axioms which are consistent relative to extendible cardinals, and which imply the strongest known instances of forcing axioms, such as Martin’s Maximum++. In addition, we study the unbounded resurrection postulates in terms of consistency lower bounds, obtaining, (...) |
|
|
|
|
|
We show that L absoluteness for semi-proper forcings is equiconsistent with the existence of a remarkable cardinal, and hence by [6] with L absoluteness for proper forcings. By [7], L absoluteness for stationary set preserving forcings gives an inner model with a strong cardinal. By [3], the Bounded Semi-Proper Forcing Axiom is equiconsistent with the Bounded Proper Forcing Axiom , which in turn is equiconsistent with a reflecting cardinal. We show that Bounded Martin's Maximum is much stronger than BSPFA in (...) |
|
|
In this note we will discuss a new reflection principle which follows from the Proper Forcing Axiom. The immediate purpose will be to prove that the bounded form of the Proper Forcing Axiom implies both that 2ω = ω2 and that [Formula: see text] satisfies the Axiom of Choice. It will also be demonstrated that this reflection principle implies that □ fails for all regular κ > ω1. |
|
|
In [P. Larson, Martin’s Maximum and the axiom , Ann. Pure App. Logic 106 135–149], we modified a coding device from [W.H. Woodin, The Axiom of Determinacy, Forcing Axioms, and the Nonstationary Ideal, Walter de Gruyter & Co, Berlin, 1999] and the consistency proof of Martin’s Maximum from [M. Foreman, M. Magidor, S. Shelah, Martin’s Maximum. saturated ideals, and non-regular ultrafilters. Part I, Annal. Math. 127 1–47] to show that from a supercompact limit of supercompact cardinals one could force Martin’s (...) |
|
|
The Necessary Maximality Principle for c. c. c. forcing with real parameters is equiconsistent with the existence of a weakly compact cardinal. (© 2005 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim). |
|
|
We introduce the resurrection axioms, a new class of forcing axioms, and the uplifting cardinals, a new large cardinal notion, and prove that various instances of the resurrection axioms are equiconsistent over ZFC with the existence of an uplifting cardinal. |
|
|
In this paper, following an idea of Christophe Chalons. I propose a new kind of forcing axiom, the Maximality Principle, which asserts that any sentence varphi holding in some forcing extension $V^P$ and all subsequent extensions $V^{P\ast Q}$ holds already in V. It follows, in fact, that such sentences must also hold in all forcing extensions of V. In modal terms, therefore, the Maximality Principle is expressed by the scheme $(\lozenge \square \varphi) \Rightarrow \square \varphi$ , and is equivalent to (...) |
|
|
|
|
|
If the Bounded Proper Forcing Axiom BPFA holds, then Mouse Reflection holds at N₂ with respect to all mouse operators up to the level of Woodin cardinals in the next ZFC-model. This yields that if Woodin's ℙ max axiom (*) holds, then BPFA implies that V is closed under the "Woodin-in-the-next-ZFC-model" operator. We also discuss stronger Mouse Reflection principles which we show to follow from strengthenings of BPFA, and we discuss the theory BPFA plus "NS ω1 is precipitous" and strengthenings (...) |
|
|
We show that Bounded Forcing Axioms (for instance, Martin's Axiom, the Bounded Proper Forcing Axiom, or the Bounded Martin's Maximum) are equivalent to principles of generic absoluteness, that is, they assert that if a $\Sigma_1$ sentence of the language of set theory with parameters of small transitive size is forceable, then it is true. We also show that Bounded Forcing Axioms imply a strong form of generic absoluteness for projective sentences, namely, if a $\Sigma^1_3$ sentence with parameters is forceable, then (...) |
|
|
In this paper, following an idea of Christophe Chalons, I propose a new kind of forcing axiom, the Maximality Principle, which asserts that any sentence φ holding in some forcing extension $V\P$ and all subsequent extensions V\P*\Qdot holds already in V. It follows, in fact, that such sentences must also hold in all forcing extensions of V. In modal terms, therefore, the Maximality Principle is expressed by the scheme $\implies\necessaryφ$, and is equivalent to the modal theory S5. In this article, (...) |
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-7c76586df8-l2pxr uwo