A fundamental notion in a large part of mathematics is the notion of equicardinality. The language with Hartig quantifier is, roughly speaking, a first-order language in which the notion of equicardinality is expressible. Thus this language, denoted by LI, is in some sense very natural and has in consequence special interest. Properties of LI are studied in many papers. In [BF, Chapter VI] there is a short survey of some known results about LI. We feel that a more extensive exposition (...) of these results is needed. The aim of this paper is to give an overview of the present knowledge about the language LI and list a selection of open problems concerning it. After the Introduction $(\S1)$ , in $\S\S2$ and 3 we give the fundamental results about LI. In $\S4$ the known model-theoretic properties are discussed. The next section is devoted to properties of mathematical theories in LI. In $\S6$ the spectra of sentences of LI are discussed, and $\S7$ is devoted to properties of LI which depend on set-theoretic assumptions. The paper finishes with a list of open problem and an extensive bibliography. The bibliography contains not only papers we refer to but also all papers known to us containing results about the language with Hartig quantifier. Contents. $\S1$ . Introduction. $\S2$ . Preliminaries. $\S3$ . Basic results. $\S4$ . Model-theoretic properties of $LI. \S5$ . Decidability of theories with $I. \S6$ . Spectra of LI- sentences. $\S7$ . Independence results. $\S8$ . What is not yet known about LI. Bibliography. (shrink)

We ask, when is a property of a model a logical property? According to the so-called Tarski–Sher criterion this is the case when the property is preserved by isomorphisms. We relate this to model-theoretic characteristics of abstract logics in which the model class is definable. This results in a graded concept of logicality in the terminology of Sagi [46]. We investigate which characteristics of logics, such as variants of the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem, Completeness theorem, and absoluteness, are relevant from the logicality (...) point of view, continuing earlier work by Bonnay, Feferman, and Sagi. We suggest that a logic is the more logical the closer it is to first order logic. We also offer a refinement of the result of McGee that logical properties of models can be expressed in $L_{\infty \infty }$ if the expression is allowed to depend on the cardinality of the model, based on replacing $L_{\infty \infty }$ by a “tamer” logic. (shrink)

In set theory, a maximality principle is a principle that asserts some maximality property of the universe of sets or some part thereof. Set theorists have formulated a variety of maximality principles in order to settle statements left undecided by current standard set theory. In addition, philosophers of mathematics have explored maximality principles whilst attempting to prove categoricity theorems for set theory or providing criteria for selecting foundational theories. This article reviews recent work concerned with the formulation, investigation and justification (...) of maximality principles. (shrink)

We show that for all natural numbers n, the theory “ZF + DC $_{\aleph_n}$ + $\aleph_{\omega}$ is a Rowbottom cardinal carrying a Rowbottom filter” has the same consistency strength as the theory “ZFC + There exists a measurable cardinal”. In addition, we show that the theory “ZF + $\aleph_{\omega_1}$ is an ω 2-Rowbottom cardinal carrying an ω 2-Rowbottom filter and ω 1 is regular” has the same consistency strength as the theory “ZFC + There exist ω 1 measurable cardinals”. We (...) also discuss some generalizations of these results. (shrink)

This article addresses the question of fundamental entities in set theory. It takes up J. Hamkins’ claim that models of set theory are such fundamental entities and investigates it using the methodology of P. Maddy’s naturalism, Second Philosophy. In accordance with this methodology, I investigate the historical case study of the use of models in the introduction of forcing, compare this case to contemporary practice and give a systematic account of how set-theoretic practice can be said to introduce models as (...) new entities. In conclusion, I argue for a view that takes both sets and models to be fundamental entities in set theory. (shrink)

We show that the consistency of the theory “ZF + DC + Every successor cardinal is regular + Every limit cardinal is singular + Every successor cardinal satisfies the tree property” follows from the consistency of a proper class of supercompact cardinals. This extends earlier results due to the author showing that the consistency of the theory “\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${{\rm ZF} + \neg{\rm AC}_\omega}$$\end{document} + Every successor cardinal is regular + Every limit cardinal (...) is singular + Every successor cardinal satisfies the tree property” follows from hypotheses stronger in consistency strength than a supercompact limit of supercompact cardinals. A lower bound in consistency strength is provided by a result of Busche and Schindler, who showed that the consistency of the theory “ZF + Every successor cardinal is regular + Every limit cardinal is singular + Every successor cardinal satisfies the tree property” implies the consistency of ADL(R). (shrink)

We get consistency results on I(λ, T 1 , T) under the assumption that D(T) has cardinality $>|T|$ . We get positive results and consistency results on IE(λ, T 1 , T). The interest is model-theoretic, but the content is mostly set-theoretic: in Theorems 1-3, combinatorial; in Theorems 4-7 and 11(2), to prove consistency of counterexamples we concentrate on forcing arguments; and in Theorems 8-10 and 11(1), combinatorics for counterexamples; the rest are discussion and problems. In particular: (A) By Theorems (...) 1 and 2, if $T \subseteq T_1$ are first order countable, T complete stable but ℵ 0 -unstable, $\lambda > \aleph_0$ , and $|D(T)| > \aleph_0$ , then $IE(\lambda, T_1, T) \geq \operatorname{Min}\{2^\lambda, \beth_2\}$ . (B) By Theorems 4, 5, 6 of this paper, if e.g. V = L, then in some generic extension of V not collapsing cardinals, for some first order $T \subseteq T_1, |T| = \aleph_0, |T_1| = \aleph_1, |D(T)| = \aleph_2$ and IE(ℵ 2 , T 1 , T) = 1. This paper (specifically the ZFC results) is continued in the very interesting work of Baldwin on diversity classes [B1]. Some more advances can be found in the new version of [Sh300] (see Chapter III, mainly \S7); they confirm 0.1, 0.2 and 14(1), 14(2). (shrink)

The subtle, almost ineffable, and ineffable cardinals were introduced in an unpublished 1971 manuscript of R. Jensen and K. Kunen. The concepts were extended to that of k-subtle, k-almost ineffable, and k-ineffable cardinals in 1975 by J. Baumgartner. In this paper we give a self contained treatment of the basic facts about this level of the large cardinal hierarchy, which were established by J. Baumgartner. In particular, we give a proof that the k-subtle, k-almost ineffable, and k-ineffable cardinals define three (...) properly intertwined hierarchies with the same limit, lying strictly above “total indescribability” and strictly below “arrowing ω”. The innovation here is presented in Section 2, where we take a distinctly minimalist approach. Here the subtle cardinal hierarchy is characterized by very elementary properties that do not mention closed unbounded or stationary sets. This development culminates in a characterization of the hierarchy by means of a striking universal second-order property of linear orderings. (shrink)

The following problem is studied: How large and how small can the Löwenheim and Hanf numbers of unbounded logics be in relation to the most common large cardinals? The main result is that the Löwenheim number of the logic with the Härtig-quantifier can be consistently put in between any two of the first weakly inaccessible, the first weakly Mahlo, the first weakly compact, the first Ramsey, the first measurable and the first supercompact cardinals.

Starting from cardinals κ κ is measurable, we construct a model for the theory “ZF + n < ω[DCn] + ω + 1 is a measurable cardinal”. This is the maximum amount of dependent choice consistent with the measurability of ω + 1, and by a theorem of Shelah using p.c.f. theory, is the best result of this sort possible.

§1. Introduction. Among the most remarkable discoveries in set theory in the last quarter century is the rich structure of the arithmetic of singular cardinals, and its deep relationship to large cardinals. The problem of finding a complete set of rules describing the behavior of the continuum function 2ℵα for singular ℵα's, known as the Singular Cardinals Problem, has been attacked by many different techniques, involving forcing, large cardinals, inner models, and various combinatorial methods. The work on the singular cardinals (...) problem has led to many often surprising results, culminating in a beautiful theory of Saharon Shelah called the pcf theory. The most striking result to date states that if 2ℵn < ℵω for every n = 0, 1, 2, …, then 2ℵω < ℵω4.In this paper we present a brief history of the singular cardinals problem, the present knowledge, and an introduction into Shelah's pcf theory. In Sections 2, 3 and 4 we introduce the reader to cardinal arithmetic and to the singular cardinals problems. Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 describe the main results and methods of the last 25 years and explain the role of large cardinals in the singular cardinals problem. In Section 9 we present an outline of the pcf theory.§2. The arithmetic of cardinal numbers. Cardinal numbers were introduced by Cantor in the late 19th century and problems arising from investigations of rules of arithmetic of cardinal numbers led to the birth of set theory. The operations of addition, multiplication and exponentiation of infinite cardinal numbers are a natural generalization of such operations on integers. Addition and multiplication of infinite cardinals turns out to be simple: when at least one of the numbers κ, λ is infinite then both κ + λ and κ·λ are equal to max {κ, λ}. In contrast with + and ·, exponentiation presents fundamental problems. In the simplest nontrivial case, 2κ represents the cardinal number of the power set P, the set of all subsets of κ. (Here we adopt the usual convention of set theory that the number κ is identified with a set of cardinality κ, namely the set of all ordinal numbers smaller than κ. (shrink)

This paper is perhaps an impressionistic response to accounts of the extraordinary set-theoretical activity being undertaken by W. Hugh Woodin (mathematician) and colleagues in the present moment, in the context of the mathematical ontology proposed and elaborated by Alain Badiou (philosopher). The argument presented is that the prevailing and sustained incoherence of the mathematical ontology (i.e. set theory) underscores a contemporary deficit of humanity’s symbolic organization which, in turn, yields confusion and conflict in terms of subjective orientation. But a new (...) axiom (conjectured as yet) promises to realize a coherent set theory, i.e. stable, consistent and complete. This remarkable (and completely unexpected) development offers hope for the pursuit of a modern (i.e. non-hierarchical) symbolic, and a consequent resolution of the general subjective disorientation. (shrink)

Henle, Mathias, and Woodin proved in [21] that, provided that${\omega }{\rightarrow }({\omega })^{{\omega }}$holds in a modelMof ZF, then forcing with$([{\omega }]^{{\omega }},{\subseteq }^*)$overMadds no new sets of ordinals, thus earning the name a “barren” extension. Moreover, under an additional assumption, they proved that this generic extension preserves all strong partition cardinals. This forcing thus produces a model$M[\mathcal {U}]$, where$\mathcal {U}$is a Ramsey ultrafilter, with many properties of the original modelM. This begged the question of how important the Ramseyness of$\mathcal (...) {U}$is for these results. In this paper, we show that several classes of$\sigma $-closed forcings which generate non-Ramsey ultrafilters have the same properties. Such ultrafilters include Milliken–Taylor ultrafilters, a class of rapid p-points of Laflamme,k-arrow p-points of Baumgartner and Taylor, and extensions to a class of ultrafilters constructed by Dobrinen, Mijares, and Trujillo. Furthermore, the class of Boolean algebras$\mathcal {P}({\omega }^{{\alpha }})/{\mathrm {Fin}}^{\otimes {\alpha }}$,$2\le {\alpha }<{\omega }_1$, forcing non-p-points also produce barren extensions. (shrink)

Solovay’s random-real forcing [R.M. Solovay, Real-valued measurable cardinals, in: Axiomatic Set Theory , Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1971, pp. 397–428] is the standard way of producing real-valued measurable cardinals. Following questions of Fremlin, by giving a new construction, we show that there are combinatorial, measure-theoretic properties of Solovay’s model that do not follow from the existence of real-valued measurability.

Several canonical partition theorems are obtained, including a simultaneous generalization of Neumer's lemma and the Erdos-Rado theorem. The canonical partition relation for infinite cardinals is completely determined, answering a question of Erdos and Rado. Counterexamples are given showing that in several ways these results cannot be improved.

An ordinal in a model of set theory is truly countable if its set of predecessors is countable in the real world. We classify the order types of the sets of truly countable ordinals. Models with indiscernibles and other related results are discussed.

This paper continues the study of covering properties of models closed under countable sequences. In a previous article we focused on C. Chang's Model . Our purpose is now to deal with the model N = ∪ { L [A]: A countable ⊂ Ord}. We study here relations between covering properties, satisfaction of ZF by N , and cardinality of power sets. Under large cardinal assumptions N is strictly included in Chang's Model C , it may thus be interesting to (...) obtain an analogue for N of the covering result for C . As in [13], we say that N satisfies the covering property if, for any set of ordinals X in the Universe, there exists a set Y in N such that X ⊂ Y and |Y| = |X| ℵ0 . In the first part, we show that if N does not satisfy the covering property, then for any α ω 1 , there exists an inner model with α measurable cardinals. Throughout this paper, we compare three situations: 1. V is the universe constructible from a countable sequence of ultrafilters on different measurable cardinals. 2. N does not satisfy the covering property. 3. There exist ω 1 measurable cardinals or a compact cardinal. Section 2 is devoted to the relation between satisfaction of ZF by N and the covering property. If holds, then N satisfies both ZF and the covering property. On the contrary, in case , N satisfies neither ZF nor the covering property. It is thus natural to obtain that the satisfaction of ZF by N implies the satisfaction of the covering property. Finally we study the cardinality of P ∩ N for a cardinal λ in the different cases. For example we show that if N does not satisfy the covering property, then + is inaccessible in any L [ A ] where A is a countable set of ordinals. This is not the case if holds. Let the expression “ λ + is inaccessible in N ” mean that for any α λ + | P ∩ N | ⩽ λ . If situation occurs, then there exists a measurable cardinal κ such that “ κ + is inaccessible in N ”. The large cardinal assumption is necessary since we show that the last fact implies the violation of the covering property by N. (shrink)

We will investigate patterns of resemblance of order 2 over a family of arithmetic structures on the ordinals. In particular, we will show that they determine a computable well ordering under appropriate assumptions.

We characterize the ordinals α of uncountable cofinality such that α is the standard part of a nonstandard model of ZFC (or equivalently KP).