I analyze the hierarchy of large cardinals between a supercompact cardinal and an almost-huge cardinal. Many of these cardinals are defined by modifying the definition of a high-jump cardinal. A high-jump cardinal is defined as the critical point of an elementary embedding j:V→M\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${j: V \to M}$$\end{document} such that M is closed under sequences of length sup{j|f:κ→κ}\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\sup\{{j\,|\,f: \kappa \to \kappa}\}}$$\end{document}. Some of the other (...) cardinals analyzed include the super-high-jump cardinals, almost-high-jump cardinals, Shelah-for-supercompactness cardinals, Woodin-for-supercompactness cardinals, Vopěnka cardinals, hypercompact cardinals, and enhanced supercompact cardinals. I organize these cardinals in terms of consistency strength and implicational strength. I also analyze the superstrong cardinals, which are weaker than supercompact cardinals but are related to high-jump cardinals. Among the results, I highlight the following. Vopěnka cardinals are the same as Woodin-for-supercompactness cardinals.There are no excessively hypercompact cardinals.Furthermore, I prove some results relating high-jump cardinals to forcing, as well as analyzing Laver functions for super-high-jump cardinals. (shrink)

A cardinal κ is nearly θ-supercompact if for every A⊆θ, there exists a transitive M⊨ZFC− closed under θ and j″θ∈N.2 This concept strictly refines the θ-supercompactness hierarchy as every θ-supercompact cardinal is nearly θ-supercompact, and every nearly 2θ<κ-supercompact cardinal κ is θ-supercompact. Moreover, if κ is a θ-supercompact cardinal for some θ such that θ<κ=θ, we can move to a forcing extension preserving all cardinals below θ++ where κ remains θ-supercompact but is not nearly θ+-supercompact. We will also show that (...) if κ is nearly θ-supercompact for some θ⩾2κ such that θ<θ=θ, then there exists a forcing extension preserving all cardinals at or above κ where κ is nearly θ-supercompact but not measurable. These types of large cardinals also come equipped with a nontrivial indestructibility result. A forcing poset is <κ-directed closed if it is γ-directed closed for all γ<κ in the sense of Jech [13, Def. 21.6]. We will prove that if κ is nearly θ-supercompact for some θ⩾κ such that θ<θ=θ, then there is a forcing extension where its near θ-supercompactness is preserved and indestructible by any further <κ-directed closed θ-c.c. forcing of size at most θ. Finally, these cardinals have high consistency strength. Specifically, we will show that if κ is nearly θ-supercompact for some θ⩾κ+ for which θ<θ=θ, then AD holds in L. In particular, if κ is nearly κ+-supercompact and 2κ=κ+, then AD holds in L. (shrink)

In this article, we introduce the notion of weakly measurable cardinal, a new large cardinal concept obtained by weakening the familiar concept of a measurable cardinal. Specifically, a cardinal κ is weakly measurable if for any collection equation image containing at most κ+ many subsets of κ, there exists a nonprincipal κ-complete filter on κ measuring all sets in equation image. Every measurable cardinal is weakly measurable, but a weakly measurable cardinal need not be measurable. Moreover, while the GCH cannot (...) fail first at a measurable cardinal, I will show that it can fail first at a weakly measurable cardinal. More generally, if κ is measurable, then we can make its weak measurability indestructible by the forcing Add for any η while forcing the GCH to hold below κ. Nevertheless, I shall prove that weakly measurable cardinals and measurable cardinals are equiconsistent. © 2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim. (shrink)

We construct two models containing exactly one supercompact cardinal in which all non-supercompact measurable cardinals are strictly taller than they are either strongly compact or supercompact. In the first of these models, level by level equivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness holds. In the other, level by level inequivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness holds. Each universe has only one strongly compact cardinal and contains relatively few large cardinals.

The C (n)-cardinals were introduced recently by Bagaria and are strong forms of the usual large cardinals. For a wide range of large cardinal notions, Bagaria has shown that the consistency of the corresponding C (n)-versions follows from the existence of rank-into-rank elementary embeddings. In this article, we further study the C (n)-hierarchies of tall, strong, superstrong, supercompact, and extendible cardinals, giving some improved consistency bounds while, at the same time, addressing questions which had been left open. In addition, we (...) consider two cases which were not dealt with by Bagaria; namely, C (n)-Woodin and C (n)-strongly compact cardinals, for which we provide characterizations in terms of their ordinary counterparts. Finally, we give a brief account on the interaction of C (n)-cardinals with the forcing machinery. (shrink)

Given a cardinal κ that is λ-supercompact for some regular cardinal λ⩾κ and assuming GCH, we show that one can force the continuum function to agree with any function F:[κ,λ]∩REG→CARD satisfying ∀α,β∈domα F. Our argument extends Woodinʼs technique of surgically modifying a generic filter to a new case: Woodinʼs key lemma applies when modifications are done on the range of j, whereas our argument uses a new key lemma to handle modifications done off of the range of j on the (...) ghost coordinates. This work answers a question of Friedman and Honzik [5]. We also discuss several related open questions. (shrink)

The equiconsistency of a measurable cardinal with Mitchell order o=κ++ with a measurable cardinal such that 2κ=κ++ follows from the results by W. Mitchell [13] and M. Gitik [7]. These results were later generalized to measurable cardinals with 2κ larger than κ++ .In Friedman and Honzik [5], we formulated and proved Eastonʼs theorem [4] in a large cardinal setting, using slightly stronger hypotheses than the lower bounds identified by Mitchell and Gitik , for a suitable μ, instead of the cardinals (...) with the appropriate Mitchell order).In this paper, we use a new idea which allows us to carry out the constructions in Friedman and Honzik [5] from the optimal hypotheses. It follows that the lower bounds identified by Mitchell and Gitik are optimal also with regard to the general behavior of the continuum function on regulars in the context of measurable cardinals. (shrink)

We determine the large cardinal consistency strength of the existence of a λ-supercompact cardinal κ such that equation image fails at λ. Indeed, we show that the existence of a λ-supercompact cardinal κ such that 2λ ≥ θ is equiconsistent with the existence of a λ-supercompact cardinal that is also θ-tall. We also prove some basic facts about the large cardinal notion of tallness with closure.

Starting from a model “κ is supercompact” + “No cardinal is supercompact up to a measurable cardinal”, we force and construct a model such that “κ is supercompact” + “No cardinal is supercompact up to a measurable cardinal” + “δ is measurable iff δ is tall” in which level by level equivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness holds. This extends and generalizes both [, Theorem 1] and the results of.

Journal of Mathematical Logic, Volume 22, Issue 02, August 2022. The Ultrapower Axiom is a combinatorial principle concerning the structure of large cardinals that is true in all known canonical inner models of set theory. A longstanding test question for inner model theory is the equiconsistency of strongly compact and supercompact cardinals. In this paper, it is shown that under the Ultrapower Axiom, the least strongly compact cardinal is supercompact. A number of stronger results are established, setting the stage for (...) a complete analysis of strong compactness and supercompactness under UA that will be carried out in the sequel to this paper. (shrink)

We show that, in terms of both implication and consistency strength, an extendible with a larger strong cardinal is stronger than an enhanced supercompact, which is itself stronger than a hypercompact, which is itself weaker than an extendible. All of these are easily seen to be stronger than a supercompact. We also study Cn‐supercompactness.