Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Bounded forcing axioms as principles of generic absoluteness.Joan Bagaria - 2000 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 39 (6):393-401.
    We show that Bounded Forcing Axioms (for instance, Martin's Axiom, the Bounded Proper Forcing Axiom, or the Bounded Martin's Maximum) are equivalent to principles of generic absoluteness, that is, they assert that if a $\Sigma_1$ sentence of the language of set theory with parameters of small transitive size is forceable, then it is true. We also show that Bounded Forcing Axioms imply a strong form of generic absoluteness for projective sentences, namely, if a $\Sigma^1_3$ sentence with parameters is forceable, then (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   36 citations  
  • Unfoldable cardinals and the GCH.Joel Hamkins - 2001 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 66 (3):1186-1198.
    Unfoldable cardinals are preserved by fast function forcing and the Laver-like preparations that fast functions support. These iterations show, by set-forcing over any model of ZFC, that any given unfoldable cardinal κ can be made indestructible by the forcing to add any number of Cohen subsets to κ.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Forcing closed unbounded sets.Uri Abraham & Saharon Shelah - 1983 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 48 (3):643-657.
    We discuss the problem of finding forcing posets which introduce closed unbounded subsets to a given stationary set.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   30 citations  
  • Semiproper forcing axiom implies Martin maximum but not PFA+.Saharon Shelah - 1987 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 52 (2):360-367.
    We prove that MM (Martin maximum) is equivalent (in ZFC) to the older axiom SPFA (semiproper forcing axiom). We also prove that SPFA does not imply SPFA + or even PFA + (using the consistency of a large cardinal).
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Hierarchies of forcing axioms I.Itay Neeman & Ernest Schimmerling - 2008 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 73 (1):343-362.
    We prove new upper bound theorems on the consistency strengths of SPFA (θ), SPFA(θ-linked) and SPFA(θ⁺-cc). Our results are in terms of (θ, Γ)-subcompactness, which is a new large cardinal notion that combines the ideas behind subcompactness and Γ-indescribability. Our upper bound for SPFA(c-linked) has a corresponding lower bound, which is due to Neeman and appears in his follow-up to this paper. As a corollary, SPFA(c-linked) and PFA(c-linked) are each equiconsistent with the existence of a $\Sigma _{1}^{2}$ -indescribable cardinal. Our (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • On coherent families of finite-to-one functions.Piotr Koszmider - 1993 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 58 (1):128-138.
    We consider the existence of coherent families of finite-to-one functions on countable subsets of an uncountable cardinal κ. The existence of such families for κ implies the existence of a winning 2-tactic for player TWO in the countable-finite game on κ. We prove that coherent families exist on κ = ωn, where n ∈ ω, and that they consistently exist for every cardinal κ. We also prove that iterations of Axiom A forcings with countable supports are Axiom A.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • The bounded proper forcing axiom.Martin Goldstern & Saharon Shelah - 1995 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 60 (1):58-73.
    The bounded proper forcing axiom BPFA is the statement that for any family of ℵ 1 many maximal antichains of a proper forcing notion, each of size ℵ 1 , there is a directed set meeting all these antichains. A regular cardinal κ is called Σ 1 -reflecting, if for any regular cardinal χ, for all formulas $\varphi, "H(\chi) \models`\varphi'"$ implies " $\exists\delta . We investigate several algebraic consequences of BPFA, and we show that the consistency strength of the bounded (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   22 citations  
  • Diamond (on the regulars) can fail at any strongly unfoldable cardinal.Mirna Džamonja & Joel David Hamkins - 2006 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 144 (1-3):83-95.
    If κ is any strongly unfoldable cardinal, then this is preserved in a forcing extension in which κ fails. This result continues the progression of the corresponding results for weakly compact cardinals, due to Woodin, and for indescribable cardinals, due to Hauser.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 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  
  • Generalizations of the Kunen inconsistency.Joel David Hamkins, Greg Kirmayer & Norman Lewis Perlmutter - 2012 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 163 (12):1872-1890.
    We present several generalizations of the well-known Kunen inconsistency that there is no nontrivial elementary embedding from the set-theoretic universe V to itself. For example, there is no elementary embedding from the universe V to a set-forcing extension V[G], or conversely from V[G] to V, or more generally from one set-forcing ground model of the universe to another, or between any two models that are eventually stationary correct, or from V to HOD, or conversely from HOD to V, or indeed (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Indestructible Strong Unfoldability.Joel David Hamkins & Thomas A. Johnstone - 2010 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 51 (3):291-321.
    Using the lottery preparation, we prove that any strongly unfoldable cardinal $\kappa$ can be made indestructible by all.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Chains of end elementary extensions of models of set theory.Andres Villaveces - 1998 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 63 (3):1116-1136.
    Large cardinals arising from the existence of arbitrarily long end elementary extension chains over models of set theory are studied here. In particular, we show that the large cardinals obtained in this fashion (`unfoldable cardinals') lie in the boundary of the propositions consistent with `V = L' and the existence of 0 ♯ . We also provide an `embedding characterisation' of the unfoldable cardinals and study their preservation and destruction by various forcing constructions.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Superstrong and other large cardinals are never Laver indestructible.Joan Bagaria, Joel David Hamkins, Konstantinos Tsaprounis & Toshimichi Usuba - 2016 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 55 (1-2):19-35.
    Superstrong cardinals are never Laver indestructible. Similarly, almost huge cardinals, huge cardinals, superhuge cardinals, rank-into-rank cardinals, extendible cardinals, 1-extendible cardinals, 0-extendible cardinals, weakly superstrong cardinals, uplifting cardinals, pseudo-uplifting cardinals, superstrongly unfoldable cardinals, Σn-reflecting cardinals, Σn-correct cardinals and Σn-extendible cardinals are never Laver indestructible. In fact, all these large cardinal properties are superdestructible: if κ exhibits any of them, with corresponding target θ, then in any forcing extension arising from nontrivial strategically <κ-closed forcing Q∈Vθ\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • A simple maximality principle.Joel Hamkins - 2003 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 68 (2):527-550.
    In this paper, following an idea of Christophe Chalons. I propose a new kind of forcing axiom, the Maximality Principle, which asserts that any sentence varphi holding in some forcing extension $V^P$ and all subsequent extensions $V^{P\ast Q}$ holds already in V. It follows, in fact, that such sentences must also hold in all forcing extensions of V. In modal terms, therefore, the Maximality Principle is expressed by the scheme $(\lozenge \square \varphi) \Rightarrow \square \varphi$ , and is equivalent to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   28 citations  
  • A characterization of Martin's axiom in terms of absoluteness.Joan Bagaria - 1997 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 62 (2):366-372.
    Martin's axiom is equivalent to the statement that the universe is absolute under ccc forcing extensions for Σ 1 sentences with a subset of $\kappa, \kappa , as a parameter.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations