Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Indestructibility and level by level equivalence and inequivalence.Arthur W. Apter - 2007 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 53 (1):78-85.
    If κ < λ are such that κ is indestructibly supercompact and λ is 2λ supercompact, it is known from [4] that {δ < κ | δ is a measurable cardinal which is not a limit of measurable cardinals and δ violates level by level equivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness}must be unbounded in κ. On the other hand, using a variant of the argument used to establish this fact, it is possible to prove that if κ < λ are (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Indestructibility and measurable cardinals with few and many measures.Arthur W. Apter - 2008 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 47 (2):101-110.
    If κ < λ are such that κ is indestructibly supercompact and λ is measurable, then we show that both A = {δ < κ | δ is a measurable cardinal which is not a limit of measurable cardinals and δ carries the maximal number of normal measures} and B = {δ < κ | δ is a measurable cardinal which is not a limit of measurable cardinals and δ carries fewer than the maximal number of normal measures} are unbounded (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Indestructibility and the level-by-level agreement between strong compactness and supercompactness.Arthur W. Apter & Joel David Hamkins - 2002 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 67 (2):820-840.
    Can a supercompact cardinal κ be Laver indestructible when there is a level-by-level agreement between strong compactness and supercompactness? In this article, we show that if there is a sufficiently large cardinal above κ, then no, it cannot. Conversely, if one weakens the requirement either by demanding less indestructibility, such as requiring only indestructibility by stratified posets, or less level-by-level agreement, such as requiring it only on measure one sets, then yes, it can.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   20 citations  
  • Identity crises and strong compactness : II. Strong cardinals.Arthur W. Apter & James Cummings - 2001 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 40 (1):25-38.
    . From a proper class of supercompact cardinals, we force and obtain a model in which the proper classes of strongly compact and strong cardinals precisely coincide. In this model, it is the case that no strongly compact cardinal \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} $\kappa$\end{document} is \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} $2^\kappa = \kappa^+$\end{document} supercompact.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  • Strong axioms of infinity and elementary embeddings.Robert M. Solovay - 1978 - Annals of Mathematical Logic 13 (1):73.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   121 citations  
  • Saturated ideals.Kenneth Kunen - 1978 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 43 (1):65-76.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   43 citations  
  • The lottery preparation.Joel David Hamkins - 2000 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 101 (2-3):103-146.
    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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   63 citations  
  • Gap forcing: Generalizing the lévy-Solovay theorem.Joel David Hamkins - 1999 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 5 (2):264-272.
    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.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   43 citations  
  • On certain indestructibility of strong cardinals and a question of Hajnal.Moti Gitik & Saharon Shelah - 1989 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 28 (1):35-42.
    A model in which strongness ofκ is indestructible under κ+ -weakly closed forcing notions satisfying the Prikry condition is constructed. This is applied to solve a question of Hajnal on the number of elements of {λ δ |2 δ <λ}.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   55 citations