Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T08:34:12.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ON C(n)-EXTENDIBLE CARDINALS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2018

KONSTANTINOS TSAPROUNIS
KONSTANTINOS TSAPROUNIS*
Affiliation:
DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS UNIVERSITY OF THE AEGEAN SAMOS, GREECEE-mail:[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The hierarchies of C(n)-cardinals were introduced by Bagaria in [1] and were further studied and extended by the author in [18] and in [20]. The case of C(n)-extendible cardinals, and of their C(n)+-extendibility variant, is of particular interest since such cardinals have found applications in the areas of category theory, of homotopy theory, and of model theory (see [2], [3], and [4], respectively). However, the exact relation between these two notions had been left unclarified. Moreover, the question of whether the Generalized Continuum Hypothesis (GCH) can be forced while preserving C(n)-extendible cardinals (for n1) also remained open. In this note, we first establish results in the direction of exactly controlling the targets of C(n)-extendibility embeddings. As a corollary, we show that every C(n)-extendible cardinal is in fact C(n)+-extendible; this, in turn, clarifies the assumption needed in some applications obtained in [3]. At the same time, we underline the applicability of our arguments in the context of C(n)-ultrahuge cardinals as well, as these were introduced in [20]. Subsequently, we show that C(n)-extendible cardinals carry their own Laver functions, making them the first known example of C(n)-cardinals that have this desirable feature. Finally, we obtain an alternative characterization of C(n)-extendibility, which we use to answer the question regarding forcing the GCH affirmatively.

Keywords

03E5503E35extendible cardinalsC(n)-cardinalsLaver functionsultrahuge cardinalsGeneralized Continuum Hypothesis (GCH)
Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 83 , Issue 3 , September 2018 , pp. 1112 - 1131
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Symbolic Logic 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bagaria, J., C(n)-cardinals. Archive for Mathematical Logic, vol. 51 (2012), no. 3–4, pp. 213–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagaria, J. and Brooke-Taylor, A., On colimits and elementary embeddings, this JOURNAL, vol. 78 (2013), no. 2, pp. 562–578.Google Scholar
Bagaria, J., Casacuberta, C., Mathias, A. R. D., and Rosický, J., Definable orthogonality classes in accessible categories are small. Journal of the European Mathematical Society, vol. 17 (2015), no. 3, pp. 549–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boney, W., Model-theoretic characterizations of large cardinals, preprint, 2017, arXiv:1708.07561.Google Scholar
Brooke-Taylor, A., Indestructibility of Vopěnka’s Principle. Archive for Mathematical Logic, vol. 50 (2011), no. 5, pp. 515–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooke-Taylor, A. and Friedman, S. D., Large cardinals and gap-1 morasses. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 159 (2009), no. 1–2, pp. 71–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Y. and Gitman, V., Indestructibility properties of remarkable cardinals. Archive for Mathematical Logic, vol. 54 (2015), no. 7–8, pp. 961–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corazza, P., Laver sequences for extendible and super-almost-huge cardinals, this JOURNAL, vol. 64 (1999), no. 3, pp. 963–983.Google Scholar
Friedman, S. D., Large cardinals and L-like universes, Set Theory: Recent Trends and Applications (Andretta, A., editor), Quaderni di Matematica, vol. 17, Seconda Università di Napoli, Aracne, Rome, 2007, pp. 93–110.Google Scholar
Gitman, V. and Hamkins, J. D., A model of the generic Vopěnka principle in which the ordinals are not Mahlo. Archive for Mathematical Logic (2018), pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
Hamkins, J. D., Fragile measurability, this JOURNAL, vol. 59 (1994), no. 1, pp. 262–282.Google Scholar
Jech, T., Set Theory, The Third Millennium Edition, Springer–Verlag, Berlin, 2002.Google Scholar
Jensen, R. B., Measurable cardinals and the GCH, Axiomatic Set Theory (Jech, T., editor), Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 13 (II), American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1974, pp. 175–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanamori, A., The Higher Infinite, Springer–Verlag, Berlin, 1994.Google Scholar
Lubarsky, R. S. and Perlmutter, N. L., On extensions of supercompactness. Mathematical Logic Quarterly, vol. 61 (2015), no. 3, pp. 217–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menas, T. K., Consistency results concerning supercompactness. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 223 (1976), pp. 61–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsaprounis, K., On extendible cardinals and the GCH. Archive for Mathematical Logic, vol. 52 (2013), no. 5–6, pp. 593–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsaprounis, K., Elementary chains and C(n)-cardinals. Archive for Mathematical Logic, vol. 53 (2014), no. 1–2, pp. 89–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsaprounis, K., On resurrection axioms, this JOURNAL, vol. 80 (2015), no. 2, pp. 587–608.Google Scholar
Tsaprounis, K., Ultrahuge cardinals. Mathematical Logic Quarterly, vol. 62 (2016), no. 1–2, pp. 77–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar