Vopěnka’s Principle is a natural large cardinal axiom that has recently found applications in category theory and algebraic topology. We show that Vopěnka’s Principle and Vopěnka cardinals are relatively consistent with a broad range of other principles known to be independent of standard (ZFC) set theory, such as the Generalised Continuum Hypothesis, and the existence of a definable well-order on the universe of all sets. We achieve this by showing that they are indestructible under a broad class of forcing constructions, (...) specifically, reverse Easton iterations of increasingly directed closed partial orders. (shrink)

Using the lottery preparation, we prove that any strongly unfoldable cardinal $\kappa$ can be made indestructible by all.

We establish an equiconsistency between (1) weak indestructibility for all $\kappa +2$ -degrees of strength for cardinals $\kappa $ in the presence of a proper class of strong cardinals, and (2) a proper class of cardinals that are strong reflecting strongs. We in fact get weak indestructibility for degrees of strength far beyond $\kappa +2$, well beyond the next inaccessible limit of measurables (of the ground model). One direction is proven using forcing and the other using core model (...) techniques from inner model theory. Additionally, connections between weak indestructibility and the reflection properties associated with Woodin cardinals are discussed. This work is a part of my upcoming thesis [7]. (shrink)

Let A[ω]ω be a maximal almost disjoint family and assume P is a forcing notion. Say A is P-indestructible if A is still maximal in any P-generic extension. We investigate P-indestructibility for several classical forcing notions P. In particular, we provide a combinatorial characterization of P-indestructibility and, assuming a fragment of MA, we construct maximal almost disjoint families which are P-indestructible yet Q-destructible for several pairs of forcing notions . We close with a detailed investigation of iterated Sacks (...) indestructibility. (shrink)

We show that if the weak compactness of a cardinal is made indestructible by means of any preparatory forcing of a certain general type, including any forcing naively resembling the Laver preparation, then the cardinal was originally supercompact. We then apply this theorem to show that the hypothesis of supercompactness is necessary for certain proof schemata.

In the first part of the article, we show that if $\omega \le \kappa < \lambda$ are cardinals, ${\kappa ^{ < \kappa }} = \kappa$, and λ is weakly compact, then in $V\left[M {\left} \right]$ the tree property at $$\lambda = \left^{V\left[ {\left} \right]} $$ is indestructible under all ${\kappa ^ + }$-cc forcing notions which live in $V\left[ {{\rm{Add}}\left} \right]$, where ${\rm{Add}}\left$ is the Cohen forcing for adding λ-many subsets of κ and $\left$ is the standard Mitchell forcing for (...) obtaining the tree property at $\lambda = \left^{V\left[ {\left} \right]} $. This result has direct applications to Prikry-type forcing notions and generalized cardinal invariants. In the second part, we assume that λ is supercompact and generalize the construction and obtain a model ${V^{\rm{*}}}$, a generic extension of V, in which the tree property at ${\left^{{V^{\rm{*}}}}}$ is indestructible under all ${\kappa ^ + }$-cc forcing notions living in $V\left[ {{\rm{Add}}\left} \right]$, and in addition under all forcing notions living in ${V^{\rm{*}}}$ which are ${\kappa ^ + }$-closed and “liftable” in a prescribed sense. (shrink)

I provide indestructibility results for large cardinals consistent with V = L, such as weakly compact, indescribable and strongly unfoldable cardinals. The Main Theorem shows that any strongly unfoldable cardinal κ can be made indestructible by <κ-closed. κ-proper forcing. This class of posets includes for instance all <κ-closed posets that are either κ -c.c, or ≤κ-strategically closed as well as finite iterations of such posets. Since strongly unfoldable cardinals strengthen both indescribable and weakly compact cardinals, the Main Theorem therefore (...) makes these two large cardinal notions similarly indestructible. Finally. I apply the Main Theorem forcing extension preserving all strongly unfoldable cardinals in which every strongly unfoldable cardinal κ is indestructible by <κ-closed. κ-proper forcing. (shrink)

Remarkable cardinals were introduced by Schindler, who showed that the existence of a remarkable cardinal is equiconsistent with the assertion that the theory of L\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${L}$$\end{document} is absolute for proper forcing :176–184, 2000). Here, we study the indestructibility properties of remarkable cardinals. We show that if κ is remarkable, then there is a forcing extension in which the remarkability of κ becomes indestructible by all <κ-closed ≤κ-distributive forcing and all two-step iterations (...) of the form Add∗R˙\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${Add*\dot{\mathbb R}}$$\end{document}, where R˙\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\dot{\mathbb R}}$$\end{document} is forced to be <κ-closed and ≤κ-distributive. In the process, we introduce the notion of a remarkable Laver function and show that every remarkable cardinal carries such a function. We also show that remarkability is preserved by the canonical forcing of the GCH. (shrink)

A model in which strongness ofκ is indestructible under κ+ -weakly closed forcing notions satisfying the Prikry condition is constructed. This is applied to solve a question of Hajnal on the number of elements of {λ δ |2 δ <λ}.

We prove various theorems about the preservation and destruction of the tree property at ω2. Working in a model of Mitchell [9] where the tree property holds at ω2, we prove that ω2 still has the tree property after ccc forcing of size \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\aleph_1}$$\end{document} or adding an arbitrary number of Cohen reals. We show that there is a relatively mild forcing in this same model which destroys the tree property. Finally we (...) prove from a supercompact cardinal that the tree property at ω2 can be indestructible under ω2-directed closed forcing. (shrink)

If κ < λ are such that κ is indestructibly supercompact and λ is 2λ supercompact, it is known from [4] that {δ < κ | δ is a measurable cardinal which is not a limit of measurable cardinals and δ violates level by level equivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness}must be unbounded in κ. On the other hand, using a variant of the argument used to establish this fact, it is possible to prove that if κ < λ are (...) such that κ is indestructibly supercompact and λ is measurable, then {δ < κ | δ is a measurable cardinal which is not a limit of measurable cardinals and δ satisfies level by level equivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness}must be unbounded in κ. The two aforementioned phenomena, however, need not occur in a universe with an indestructibly supercompact cardinal and sufficiently few large cardinals. In particular, we show how to construct a model with an indestructibly supercompact cardinal κ in which if δ < κ is a measurable cardinal which is not a limit of measurable cardinals, then δ must satisfy level by level equivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness. We also, however, show how to construct a model with an indestructibly supercompact cardinal κ in which if δ < κ is a measurable cardinal which is not a limit of measurable cardinals, then δ must violate level by level equivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness. (shrink)

Various theorems for the preservation of set-theoretic axioms under forcing are proved, regarding both forcing axioms and axioms true in the Lévy collapse. These show in particular that certain applications of forcing axioms require to add generic countable sequences high up in the set-theoretic hierarchy even before collapsing everything down to ‮א‬₁. Later we give applications, among them the consistency of MM with ‮א‬ω not being Jónsson which answers a question raised in the set theory meeting at Oberwolfach in 2005.

If κ < λ are such that κ is indestructibly supercompact and λ is measurable, then we show that both A = {δ < κ | δ is a measurable cardinal which is not a limit of measurable cardinals and δ carries the maximal number of normal measures} and B = {δ < κ | δ is a measurable cardinal which is not a limit of measurable cardinals and δ carries fewer than the maximal number of normal measures} are unbounded (...) in κ. The two aforementioned phenomena, however, need not occur in a universe with an indestructibly supercompact cardinal and sufficiently few large cardinals. In particular, we show how to construct a model with an indestructibly supercompact cardinal κ in which if δ < κ is a measurable cardinal which is not a limit of measurable cardinals, then δ must carry fewer than the maximal number of normal measures. We also, however, show how to construct a model with an indestructibly supercompact cardinal κ in which if δ < κ is a measurable cardinal which is not a limit of measurable cardinals, then δ must carry the maximal number of normal measures. If we weaken the requirements on indestructibility, then this last result can be improved to obtain a model with an indestructibly supercompact cardinal κ in which every measurable cardinal δ < κ carries the maximal number of normal measures. (shrink)

In this survey paper we collect several known results on destroying tall ideals on countable sets and maximal almost disjoint families with forcing. In most cases we provide streamlined proofs of the presented results. The paper contains results of many authors as well as a preview of results of a forthcoming paper of Brendle, Guzmán, Hrušák, and Raghavan.

If κ < λ are such that κ is a strong cardinal whose strongness is indestructible under κ -strategically closed forcing and λ is weakly compact, then we show thatA = {δ < κ | δ is a non-weakly compact Mahlo cardinal which reflects stationary sets}must be unbounded in κ. This phenomenon, however, need not occur in a universe with relatively few large cardinals. In particular, we show how to construct a model where no cardinal is supercompact up to a (...) Mahlo cardinal in which the least supercompact cardinal κ is also the least strongly compact cardinal, κ 's strongness is indestructible under κ -strategically closed forcing, κ 's supercompactness is indestructible under κ -directed closed forcing not adding any new subsets of κ, and δ is Mahlo and reflects stationary sets iff δ is weakly compact. In this model, no strong cardinal δ < κ is indestructible under δ -strategically closed forcing. It therefore follows that it is relatively consistent for the least strong cardinal κ whose strongness is indestructible under κ -strategically closed forcing to be the same as the least supercompact cardinal, which also has its supercompactness indestructible under κ -directed closed forcing not adding any new subsets of κ. (shrink)

Can a supercompact cardinal κ be Laver indestructible when there is a level-by-level agreement between strong compactness and supercompactness? In this article, we show that if there is a sufficiently large cardinal above κ, then no, it cannot. Conversely, if one weakens the requirement either by demanding less indestructibility, such as requiring only indestructibility by stratified posets, or less level-by-level agreement, such as requiring it only on measure one sets, then yes, it can.

Suppose that κ is indestructibly supercompact and there is a measurable cardinal λ > κ. It then follows that A1 = {δ < κ∣δ is measurable, δ is not a limit of measurable cardinals, and δ is not δ+ supercompact} is unbounded in κ. If in addition λ is 2λ supercompact, then A2 = {δ < κ∣δ is measurable, δ is not a limit of measurable cardinals, and δ is δ+ supercompact} is unbounded in κ as well. The large cardinal (...) hypotheses on λ are necessary, as we further demonstrate by constructing via forcing two distinct models in which either equation image or equation image. In each of these models, there is an indestructibly supercompact cardinal κ, and a restricted large cardinal structure above κ. If we weaken the indestructibility requirement on κ to indestructibility under partial orderings which are both κ-directed closed and -distributive, then it is possible to construct a model containing a supercompact cardinal κ witnessing this degree of indestructibility in which every measurable cardinal δ < κ is δ+ supercompact. (shrink)

We establish two theorems concerning strongly compact cardinals and universal indestructibility for degrees of supercompactness. In the first theorem, we show that universal indestructibility for degrees of supercompactness in the presence of a strongly compact cardinal is consistent with the existence of a proper class of measurable cardinals. In the second theorem, we show that universal indestructibility for degrees of supercompactness is consistent in the presence of two non-supercompact strongly compact cardinals, each of which exhibits a significant (...) amount of indestructibility for its strong compactness. (shrink)

Let φ1 stand for the statement V = HOD and φ2 stand for the Ground Axiom. Suppose Ti for i = 1, …, 4 are the theories “ZFC + φ1 + φ2,” “ZFC + ¬φ1 + φ2,” “ZFC + φ1 + ¬φ2,” and “ZFC + ¬φ1 + ¬φ2” respectively. We show that if κ is indestructibly supercompact and λ > κ is inaccessible, then for i = 1, …, 4, Ai = df{δ κ is inaccessible. We show it is also (...) the case that if κ is indestructibly supercompact, then Vκ⊨T1, so by reflection, B1 = df{δ κ is inaccessible, we demonstrate that it is possible to construct a model in which κ is indestructibly supercompact and for every inaccessible cardinal δ < κ, Vδ⊨T1. It is thus not possible to prove in ZFC that Bi = df{δ < κ∣δ is an inaccessible limit of inaccessible cardinals and Vδ⊨Ti} for i = 2, …, 4 is unbounded in κ if κ is indestructibly supercompact. © 2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim. (shrink)

Using an idea developed in joint work with Shelah, we show how to redefine Laver's notion of forcing making a supercompact cardinal $\kappa$ indestructible under $\kappa$-directed closed forcing to give a new proof of the Kimchi-Magidor Theorem in which every compact cardinal in the universe satisfies certain indestructibility properties. Specifically, we show that if K is the class of supercompact cardinals in the ground model, then it is possible to force and construct a generic extension in which the only (...) strongly compact cardinals are the elements of K or their measurable limit points, every $\kappa \in K$ is a supercompact cardinal indestructible under $\kappa$-directed closed forcing, and every $\kappa$ a measurable limit point of K is a strongly compact cardinal indestructible under $\kappa$-directed closed forcing not changing $\wp$. We then derive as a corollary a model for the existence of a strongly compact cardinal $\kappa$ which is not $\kappa^+$ supercompact but which is indestructible under $\kappa$-directed closed forcing not changing $\wp and remains non-$\kappa^+$ supercompact after such a forcing has been done. (shrink)

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. (shrink)

We investigate the indestructibility properties of strongly compact cardinals in universes where strong compactness suffers from identity crisis. We construct an iterative poset that can be used to establish Kimchi–Magidor theorem from (in The independence between the concepts of compactness and supercompactness, circulated manuscript), i.e., that the first n strongly compact cardinals can be the first n measurable cardinals. As an application, we show that the first n strongly compact cardinals can be the first n measurable cardinals while the (...) strong compactness of each strongly compact cardinal is indestructible under Levy collapses (our theorem is actually more general, see Sect. 3). A further application is that the class of strong cardinals can be nonempty yet coincide with the class of strongly compact cardinals while strong compactness of any strongly compact cardinal κ is indestructible under κ-directed closed posets that force GCH at κ. (shrink)

If are such that δ is indestructibly supercompact and γ is measurable, then it must be the case that level by level inequivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness fails. We prove a theorem which points to this result being best possible. Specifically, we show that relative to the existence of cardinals such that κ1 is λ‐supercompact and λ is inaccessible, there is a model for level by level inequivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness containing a supercompact cardinal in which κ’s (...) strong compactness, but not supercompactness, is indestructible under κ‐directed closed forcing. In this model, κ is the least strongly compact cardinal, and no cardinal is supercompact up to an inaccessible cardinal. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to examine Merleau-Ponty’s idea of a “psychoanalysis of Nature”. My thesis is that in order to understand the creation of a Merleau-Pontean psychoanalysis, we need to ultimately understand the place of Schelling in Merleau-Ponty’s late thought. Through his dialogue with Schelling, Merleau-Ponty will be able to formulate not only a psychoanalysis of Nature, but also fulfil the ultimate task of phenomenology itself; namely, of identifying “what resists phenomenology—natural being, the ‘barbarous’ source Schelling spoke of” (...) and situating it precisely at the heart of phenomenology. The plan for studying this natural psychoanalysis is threefold. First, I provide an overview of the role psychoanalysis plays in the 1951 lecture, “Man and Adversity,” focusing especially on this lecture as a turning point in his thinking. Second, I chart how Merleau-Ponty’s psychoanalysis is informed by the various ways in which the unconscious is formulated in his thought, leading eventually to a dialogue with Schelling. Accordingly, in the final part of the paper, I trace the role of Schelling’s thought in the creation of a Merleau-Pontean psychoanalysis. As I argue, what distinguishes this psychoanalysis is the centrality of Schelling’s idea of the “barbaric principle,” which manifests itself as the notion of an unconscious indexing an “excess of Being” resistant to classical phenomenology. (shrink)

We construct a model for the level by level equivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness in which the least supercompact cardinal κ has its strong compactness indestructible under adding arbitrarily many Cohen subsets. There are no restrictions on the large cardinal structure of our model.

Suppose that \(\kappa \) is indestructibly supercompact and there is a measurable cardinal \(\lambda > \kappa \). It then follows that \(A_0 = \{\delta is a measurable cardinal and the Mitchell ordering of normal measures over \(\delta \) is nonlinear \(\}\) is unbounded in \(\kappa \). If the Mitchell ordering of normal measures over \(\lambda \) is also linear, then by reflection (and without any use of indestructibility), \(A_1= \{\delta is a measurable cardinal and the Mitchell ordering of normal (...) measures over \(\delta \) is linear \(\}\) is unbounded in \(\kappa \) as well. The large cardinal hypothesis on \(\lambda \) is necessary. We demonstrate this by constructing via forcing two models in which \(\kappa \) is supercompact and \(\kappa \) exhibits an indestructibility property slightly weaker than full indestructibility but sufficient to infer that \(A_0\) is unbounded in \(\kappa \) if \(\lambda > \kappa \) is measurable. In one of these models, for every measurable cardinal \(\delta \), the Mitchell ordering of normal measures over \(\delta \) is linear. In the other of these models, for every measurable cardinal \(\delta \), the Mitchell ordering of normal measures over \(\delta \) is nonlinear. (shrink)

Say that κ\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\kappa}$$\end{document}’s measurability is destructible if there exists a κ\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\kappa}$$\end{document}. It then follows that A1={δ<κ∣δ\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${A_{1} = \{\delta < \kappa \mid \delta}$$\end{document} is measurable, δ is not a limit of measurable cardinals, δ is not δ+ strongly compact, and δ’s measurability is destructible when forcing with partial orderings having rank below λδ} is unbounded (...) in κ\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\kappa}$$\end{document}. On the other hand, under the same hypotheses, A2={δ<κ∣δ\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${A_{2} = \{\delta < \kappa \mid \delta}$$\end{document} is measurable, δ is not a limit of measurable cardinals, δ is not δ+ strongly compact, and δ′s measurability is indestructible when forcing with either Add or Add} is unbounded in κ\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\kappa}$$\end{document} as well. The large cardinal hypothesis on λ is necessary, as we further demonstrate by constructing via forcing two distinct models in which either A1=∅\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${A_{1} = \emptyset}$$\end{document} or A2=∅\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${A_{2} = \emptyset}$$\end{document}. In each of these models, both of which have restricted large cardinal structures above κ\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\kappa}$$\end{document}, every measurable cardinal δ which is not a limit of measurable cardinals is δ+ strongly compact, and there is an indestructibly supercompact cardinal κ\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\kappa}$$\end{document}. In the model in which A1=∅\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${A_{1} = \emptyset}$$\end{document}, every measurable cardinal δ which is not a limit of measurable cardinals is <λδ strongly compact and has its <λδ strong compactness indestructible when forcing with δ-directed closed partial orderings having rank below λδ. The choice of the least beth fixed point above δ is arbitrary, and other values of λδ are also possible. (shrink)

In her Paroles suffoquØes, Sarah Kofman writes that Robert Antelme’s The Human Race shows us that the abject dispossession suffered by the deportees signifies the indestructibility of alterity, its absolute character, by establishing the possibility of a new kind of “we,” he founds without founding – for this “we” is always already undone, destabilized – the possibility of a new ethics. Of a new humanism. 1 By way of an apparently rhetorical, though necessary question, Kofman continues: in spite of (...) everything that calls humanism into question “after the death of God and the end of man that is its correlate,” she writes, “I nonetheless want to conserve it, while giving it a completely different meaning, displacing and transforming it. I keep it because what other, new ‘word’ could have as much hold on the old humanism?” 2 At once prophetic and contemporary, this question is surprising, if not disarming. Following the death of God, it is said, ‘Man’ takes the stage, his emergence the necessary event of history. Yet the end of man is the ‘correlate’ of the death of God. The space occupied by divinity, or the sacred, has withdrawn. Humanism attests to a mimesis of the transcendental theme, and unwittingly confirms the emptiness of a sign without origin. Humanismannounces nothing new: the nihilism at the heart of onto-theology emerges fully. Its hypocrisy and pretension fatally exposed, humanism may now – and ought to be – discarded as a ‘metaphysics of the subject,’ a regime of negativity, exclusion and violence. (shrink)

We show that if \ is \\)-hypermeasurable for some cardinal \ with \ \le \mu \) and GCH holds, then we can extend the universe by a cofinality-preserving forcing to obtain a model \ in which the \\)-hypermeasurability of \ is indestructible by the Cohen forcing at \ of any length up to \ is \\)-hypermeasurable in \). The preservation of hypermeasurability is useful for subsequent arguments. The construction of \ is based on the ideas of Woodin and Cummings :1–39, (...) 1992) for preservation of measurability, but suitably generalised and simplified to achieve a more general result. Unlike the Laver preparation :385–388, 1978) for a supercompact cardinal, our preparation non-trivially increases the value of \, which is equal to \ in \ is still true in \ if we start with GCH). (shrink)

We prove two theorems concerning indestructibility properties of the first two strongly compact cardinals when these cardinals are in addition the first two measurable cardinals. Starting from two supercompact cardinals $\kappa _1 < \kappa _2$, we force and construct a model in which $\kappa _1$ and $\kappa _2$ are both the first two strongly compact and first two measurable cardinals, $\kappa _1$ ’s strong compactness is fully indestructible, and $\kappa _2$ ’s strong compactness is indestructible under $\mathrm {Add}$ for (...) any ordinal $\delta $. This provides an answer to a strengthened version of a question of Sargsyan found in [17, Question 5]. We also investigate indestructibility properties that may occur when the first two strongly compact cardinals are not only the first two measurable cardinals, but also exhibit nontrivial degrees of supercompactness. (shrink)

We obtain an equiconsistency for a weak form of universal indestructibility for strongness. The equiconsistency is relative to a cardinal weaker in consistency strength than a Woodin cardinal. Stewart Baldwin's notion of hyperstrong cardinal. We also briefly indicate how our methods are applicable to universal indestructibility for supercompactness and strong compactness.

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 11, Issue 7, Page 30-31, July 2011.

.In this paper, we first prove several general theorems about strongness, supercompactness, and indestructibility, along the way giving some new applications of Hamkins’ lottery preparation forcing to indestructibility. We then show that it is consistent, relative to the existence of cardinals κ<λ so that κ is λ supercompact and λ is inaccessible, for the least strongly compact cardinal κ to be the least strong cardinal and to have its strongness, but not its strong compactness, indestructible under κ-strategically closed (...) forcing. (shrink)

I use generic embeddings induced by generic normal measures on that can be forced to exist if κ is an indestructibly weakly compact cardinal. These embeddings can be applied in order to obtain the forcing axioms in forcing extensions. This has consequences in : The Singular Cardinal Hypothesis holds above κ, and κ has a useful Jónsson-like property. This in turn implies that the countable tower works much like it does when κ is a Woodin limit of Woodin cardinals. One (...) consequence is that every set of reals in the Chang model is Lebesgue measurable and has the Baire Property, the Perfect Set Property and the Ramsey Property. So indestructible weak compactness has effects on cardinal arithmetic high up and also on the structure of sets of real numbers, down low, similar to supercompactness. (shrink)

In contemporary reflection on the foundations of ethics, natural law theory continues to play an important role despite opposing objections. In an approach to moral issues, paying attention to cultural differences and historical changes is appropriate, but it is also important to take a stance on the existence of basic moral common sense shared by diverse times, places, and cultures. As defined by medieval thinkers, synderesis represents the core of this moral common sense that cannot err, incline towards error, or (...) be corrupted. (shrink)

For any ordinal δ, let λδ be the least inaccessible cardinal above δ. We force and construct a model in which the least supercompact cardinal κ is indestructible under κ-directed closed forcing and in which every measurable cardinal δ < κ is < λδ strongly compact and has its < λδ strong compactness indestructible under δ-directed closed forcing of rank less than λδ. In this model, κ is also the least strongly compact cardinal. We also establish versions of this result (...) in which κ is the least strongly compact cardinal but is not supercompact. (shrink)

We prove an indestructibility theorem for degrees of supercompactness that is compatible with level by level equivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness.