Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. (1 other version)[Omnibus Review].Thomas Jech - 1992 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 57 (1):261-262.
    Reviewed Works:John R. Steel, A. S. Kechris, D. A. Martin, Y. N. Moschovakis, Scales on $\Sigma^1_1$ Sets.Yiannis N. Moschovakis, Scales on Coinductive Sets.Donald A. Martin, John R. Steel, The Extent of Scales in $L$.John R. Steel, Scales in $L$.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   219 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  
  • 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  
  • Tall cardinals.Joel D. Hamkins - 2009 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 55 (1):68-86.
    A cardinal κ is tall if for every ordinal θ there is an embedding j: V → M with critical point κ such that j > θ and Mκ ⊆ M. Every strong cardinal is tall and every strongly compact cardinal is tall, but measurable cardinals are not necessarily tall. It is relatively consistent, however, that the least measurable cardinal is tall. Nevertheless, the existence of a tall cardinal is equiconsistent with the existence of a strong cardinal. Any tall cardinal (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • Perfect trees and elementary embeddings.Sy-David Friedman & Katherine Thompson - 2008 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 73 (3):906-918.
    An important technique in large cardinal set theory is that of extending an elementary embedding j: M → N between inner models to an elementary embedding j*: M[G] → N[G*] between generic extensions of them. This technique is crucial both in the study of large cardinal preservation and of internal consistency. In easy cases, such as when forcing to make the GCH hold while preserving a measurable cardinal (via a reverse Easton iteration of α-Cohen forcing for successor cardinals α), the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • The negation of the singular cardinal hypothesis from o(K)=K++.Moti Gitik - 1989 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 43 (3):209-234.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   39 citations  
  • The negation of the singular cardinal hypothesis from< i> o(< i> K_)=< i> K< sup>++.Moti Gitik - 1989 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 43 (3):209-234.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   30 citations  
  • Easton’s theorem and large cardinals.Sy-David Friedman & Radek Honzik - 2008 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 154 (3):191-208.
    The continuum function αmaps to2α on regular cardinals is known to have great freedom. Let us say that F is an Easton function iff for regular cardinals α and β, image and α<β→F≤F. The classic example of an Easton function is the continuum function αmaps to2α on regular cardinals. If GCH holds then any Easton function is the continuum function on regular cardinals of some cofinality-preserving extension V[G]; we say that F is realised in V[G]. However if we also wish (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations