During his Fall 2005 set theory seminar, Woodin asked whether V-supercompactness implies HOD-supercompactness. We show, as he predicted, that that the answer is no.

One of the standard ways of postulating large cardinal axioms is to consider elementary embeddings,j, from the universe,V, into some transitive submodel,M. See Reinhardt–Solovay [7] for more details. Ifjis not the identity, andκis the first ordinal moved byj, thenκis a measurable cardinal. Conversely, Scott [8] showed that wheneverκis measurable, there is suchjandM. If we had assumed, in addition, that, thenκwould be theκth measurable cardinal; in general, the wider we assumeMto be, the largerκmust be.

A new axiom is proposed, the Ground Axiom, asserting that the universe is not a nontrivial set forcing extension of any inner model. The Ground Axiom is first-order expressible, and any model of ZFC has a class forcing extension which satisfies it. The Ground Axiom is independent of many well-known set-theoretic assertions including the Generalized Continuum Hypothesis, the assertion V=HOD that every set is ordinal definable, and the existence of measurable and supercompact cardinals. The related Bedrock Axiom, asserting that the (...) universe is a set forcing extension of a model satisfying the Ground Axiom, is also first-order expressible, and its negation is consistent. (shrink)

If the Wholeness Axiom wa $_0$ is itself consistent, then it is consistent with v=hod. A consequence of the proof is that the various Wholeness Axioms are not all equivalent. Additionally, the theory zfc+wa $_0$ is finitely axiomatizable.

The lottery preparation, a new general kind of Laver preparation, works uniformly with supercompact cardinals, strongly compact cardinals, strong cardinals, measurable cardinals, or what have you. And like the Laver preparation, the lottery preparation makes these cardinals indestructible by various kinds of further forcing. A supercompact cardinal κ, for example, becomes fully indestructible by <κ-directed closed forcing; a strong cardinal κ becomes indestructible by κ-strategically closed forcing; and a strongly compact cardinal κ becomes indestructible by, among others, the forcing to (...) add a Cohen subset to κ, the forcing to shoot a club Cκ avoiding the measurable cardinals and the forcing to add various long Prikry sequences. The lottery preparation works best when performed after fast function forcing, which adds a new completely general kind of Laver function for any large cardinal, thereby freeing the Laver function concept from the supercompact cardinal context. (shrink)

The Lévy-Solovay Theorem [8] limits the kind of large cardinal embeddings that can exist in a small forcing extension. Here I announce a generalization of this theorem to a broad new class of forcing notions. One consequence is that many of the forcing iterations most commonly found in the large cardinal literature create no new weakly compact cardinals, measurable cardinals, strong cardinals, Woodin cardinals, strongly compact cardinals, supercompact cardinals, almost huge cardinals, huge cardinals, and so on.

In 1970, K. Kunen, working in the context of Kelley–Morse set theory, showed that the existence of a nontrivial elementary embedding j:V→V is inconsistent. In this paper, we give a finer analysis of the implications of his result for embeddings V→V relative to models of ZFC. We do this by working in the extended language , using as axioms all the usual axioms of ZFC , along with an axiom schema that asserts that j is a nontrivial elementary embedding. Without (...) additional axiomatic assumptions on j, we show that that the resulting theory is weaker than an ω-Erdös cardinal, but stronger than n-ineffables. We show that natural models of ZFC+BTEE give rise to Schindler’s remarkable cardinals. The approach to inconsistency from ZFC+BTEE forks into two paths: extensions of ZFC+BTEE+Cofinal Axiom and ZFC+BTEE+¬Cofinal Axiom, where Cofinal Axiom asserts that the critical sequence is cofinal in the ordinals. We describe near-minimal inconsistent extensions of each of these theories. The path toward inconsistency from ZFC+BTEE+¬Cofinal Axiom is paved with a sequence of theories of increasing large cardinal strength. Indeed, the extensions of the theory ZFC +“j is a nontrivial elementary embedding” form a hierarchy of axioms, ranging in strength from Con to the existence of a cardinal that is super-n-huge for every n, to inconsistency. This hierarchy is parallel to the usual hierarchy of large cardinal axioms, and can be used in the same way. We also isolate several intermediate-strength axioms which, when added to ZFC+BTEE, produce theories having strengths in the vicinity of a measurable cardinal of high Mitchell order, a strong cardinal, ω Woodin cardinals, and n-huge cardinals. We also determine precisely which combinations of axioms, of the form result in inconsistency. (shrink)

The Wholeness Axiom (WA) is an axiom schema that can be added to the axioms of ZFC in an extended language $\{\in,j\}$ , and that asserts the existence of a nontrivial elementary embedding $j:V\to V$ . The well-known inconsistency proofs are avoided by omitting from the schema all instances of Replacement for j-formulas. We show that the theory ZFC + V = HOD + WA is consistent relative to the existence of an $I_1$ embedding. This answers a question about the (...) existence of Laver sequences for regular classes of set embeddings: Assuming there is an $I_1$ -embedding, there is a transitive model of ZFC +WA + “there is a regular class of embeddings that admits no Laver sequence.”. (shrink)