We prove that if λ is a strong limit singular cardinal and κ a regular uncountable cardinal < λ, then NSκλ, the non-stationary ideal over [Formula: see text], is nowhere precipitous. We also show that under the same hypothesis every stationary subset of [Formula: see text] can be partitioned into λκ disjoint stationary sets.

Let$\kappa $be a regular uncountable cardinal, anda cardinal greater than or equal to$\kappa $. Revisiting a celebrated result of Shelah, we show that ifis close to$\kappa $and(= the least size of a cofinal subset of) is greater than, thencan be represented (in the sense of pcf theory) as a pseudopower. This can be used to obtain optimal results concerning the splitting problem. For example we show that ifand, then no$\kappa $-complete ideal onis weakly-saturated.

In this paper we study the consistency strength of the theory $\mathbf\mathrm{ZFC} + (\exists\kappa \text{strong limit})(\forall\mu , and we prove the consistency of this theory relative to the consistency of the existence of a supercompact cardinal and an inaccessible above it.

This paper investigates when it is possible for a partial ordering P to force Pκ(λ) \ V to be stationary in VP. It follows from a result of Gitik that whenever P adds a new real, then Pκ(λ) \ V is stationary in VP for each regular uncountable cardinal κ in VP and all cardinals λ > κ in VP [4]. However, a covering theorem of Magidor implies that when no new ω-sequences are added, large cardinals become necessary [7]. The (...) following is equiconsistent with a proper class of ω₁-Erdős cardinals: If P is N₁-Cohen forcing, then Pκ(λ) \ V is stationary in VP, for all regular κ ≥ N₂ and all λ > κ. The following is equiconsistent with an ω₁-Erdős cardinal: If P is N₁-Cohen forcing, then PN₂ (N₃) \ V is stationary in VP. The following is equiconsistent with κ measurable cardinals: If P is κ-Cohen forcing, then Pκ + (Nκ \ V is stationary in VP. (shrink)

We study the effects of piece selection principles on cardinal arithmetic (Shelah style). As an application, we discuss questions of Abe and Usuba. In particular, we show that if, then (a) is not (λ, 2)‐distributive, and (b) does not hold.