Switch to: Citations

References in:

Tall cardinals

Mathematical Logic Quarterly 55 (1):68-86 (2009)

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. 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  
  • How large is the first strongly compact cardinal? or a study on identity crises.Menachem Magidor - 1976 - Annals of Mathematical Logic 10 (1):33-57.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   59 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  
  • 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  
  • Destruction or preservation as you like it.Joel David Hamkins - 1998 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 91 (2-3):191-229.
    The Gap Forcing Theorem, a key contribution of this paper, implies essentially that after any reverse Easton iteration of closed forcing, such as the Laver preparation, every supercompactness measure on a supercompact cardinal extends a measure from the ground model. Thus, such forcing can create no new supercompact cardinals, and, if the GCH holds, neither can it increase the degree of supercompactness of any cardinal; in particular, it can create no new measurable cardinals. In a crescendo of what I call (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  • Identity crises and strong compactness.Arthur Apter & James Cummings - 2000 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 65 (4):1895-1910.
    Combining techniques of the first author and Shelah with ideas of Magidor, we show how to get a model in which, for fixed but arbitrary finite n, the first n strongly compact cardinals κ 1 ,..., κ n are so that κ i for i = 1,..., n is both the i th measurable cardinal and κ + i supercompact. This generalizes an unpublished theorem of Magidor and answers a question of Apter and Shelah.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  • Small forcing makes any cardinal superdestructible.Joel Hamkins - 1998 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 63 (1):51-58.
    Small forcing always ruins the indestructibility of an indestructible supercompact cardinal. In fact, after small forcing, any cardinal κ becomes superdestructible--any further <κ--closed forcing which adds a subset to κ will destroy the measurability, even the weak compactness, of κ. Nevertheless, after small forcing indestructible cardinals remain resurrectible, but never strongly resurrectible.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • On measurable cardinals violating the continuum hypothesis.Moti Gitik - 1993 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 63 (3):227-240.
    Gitik, M., On measurable cardinals violating the continuum hypothesis, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 63 227-240. It is shown that an extender used uncountably many times in an iteration is reconstructible. This together with the Weak Covering Lemma is used to show that the assumption o=κ+α is necessary for a measurable κ with 2κ=κ+α.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 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 Necessary Maximality Principle for c. c. c. forcing is equiconsistent with a weakly compact cardinal.Joel D. Hamkins & W. Hugh Woodin - 2005 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 51 (5):493-498.
    The Necessary Maximality Principle for c. c. c. forcing with real parameters is equiconsistent with the existence of a weakly compact cardinal. (© 2005 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim).
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Superdestructibility: A Dual to Laver's Indestructibility.Joel David Hamkins & Saharon Shelah - 1998 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 63 (2):549-554.
    After small forcing, any $ -closed forcing will destroy the supercompactness and even the strong compactness of κ.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Strong compactness and other cardinal sins.Jussi Ketonen - 1972 - Annals of Mathematical Logic 5 (1):47.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   21 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