Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. The Least Measurable Can Be Strongly Compact and Indestructible.Arthur Apter & Moti Gitik - 1998 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 63 (4):1404-1412.
    We show the consistency, relative to a supercompact cardinal, of the least measurable cardinal being both strongly compact and fully Laver indestructible. We also show the consistency, relative to a supercompact cardinal, of the least strongly compact cardinal being somewhat supercompact yet not completely supercompact and having both its strong compactness and degree of supercompactness fully Laver indestructible.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • A. Lévy and R. M. Solovay. Measurable cardinals and the continuum hypothesis. Israel journal of mathematics, vol. 5 (1967), pp. 234–248. [REVIEW]R. M. Solovay - 1970 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 34 (4):654-655.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   29 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   62 citations  
  • Identity crises and strong compactness III: Woodin cardinals. [REVIEW]Arthur W. Apter & Grigor Sargsyan - 2006 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 45 (3):307-322.
    We show that it is consistent, relative to n ∈ ω supercompact cardinals, for the strongly compact and measurable Woodin cardinals to coincide precisely. In particular, it is consistent for the first n strongly compact cardinals to be the first n measurable Woodin cardinals, with no cardinal above the n th strongly compact cardinal being measurable. In addition, we show that it is consistent, relative to a proper class of supercompact cardinals, for the strongly compact cardinals and the cardinals which (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 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  
  • Exactly controlling the non-supercompact strongly compact cardinals.Arthur W. Apter & Joel David Hamkins - 2003 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 68 (2):669-688.
    We summarize the known methods of producing a non-supercompact strongly compact cardinal and describe some new variants. Our Main Theorem shows how to apply these methods to many cardinals simultaneously and exactly control which cardinals are supercompact and which are only strongly compact in a forcing extension. Depending upon the method, the surviving non-supercompact strongly compact cardinals can be strong cardinals, have trivial Mitchell rank or even contain a club disjoint from the set of measurable cardinals. These results improve and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • The least measurable can be strongly compact and indestructible.Arthur W. Apter & Moti Gitik - 1998 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 63 (4):1404-1412.
    We show the consistency, relative to a supercompact cardinal, of the least measurable cardinal being both strongly compact and fully Laver indestructible. We also show the consistency, relative to a supercompact cardinal, of the least strongly compact cardinal being somewhat supercompact yet not completely supercompact and having both its strong compactness and degree of supercompactness fully Laver indestructible.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  • A Model in Which GCH Holds at Successors but Fails at Limits.James Cummings, Matthew Foreman & Menachem Magidor - 2002 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 8 (4):550-552.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • Some remarks on indestructibility and Hamkins? lottery preparation.Arthur W. Apter - 2003 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 42 (8):717-735.
    .In this paper, we first prove several general theorems about strongness, supercompactness, and indestructibility, along the way giving some new applications of Hamkins’ lottery preparation forcing to indestructibility. We then show that it is consistent, relative to the existence of cardinals κ<λ so that κ is λ supercompact and λ is inaccessible, for the least strongly compact cardinal κ to be the least strong cardinal and to have its strongness, but not its strong compactness, indestructible under κ-strategically closed forcing.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Aspects of strong compactness, measurability, and indestructibility.Arthur W. Apter - 2002 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 41 (8):705-719.
    We prove three theorems concerning Laver indestructibility, strong compactness, and measurability. We then state some related open questions.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations