For each natural number n, let C(n) be the closed and unbounded proper class of ordinals α such that Vα is a Σn elementary substructure of V. We say that κ is a C(n)-cardinal if it is the critical point of an elementary embedding j : V → M, M transitive, with j(κ) in C(n). By analyzing the notion of C(n)-cardinal at various levels of the usual hierarchy of large cardinal principles we show that, starting at the level of superstrong (...) cardinals and up to the level of rank-into-rank embeddings, C(n)-cardinals form a much finer hierarchy. The naturalness of the notion of C(n)-cardinal is exemplified by showing that the existence of C(n)-extendible cardinals is equivalent to simple reflection principles for classes of structures, which generalize the notions of supercompact and extendible cardinals. Moreover, building on results of Bagaria et al. (2010), we give new characterizations of Vopeňka’s Principle in terms of C(n)-extendible cardinals. (shrink)

Using an idea of Sargsyan, we show how to reduce the consistency strength of the assumptions employed to establish a theorem concerning a uniform level of indestructibility for both strong and supercompact cardinals.

Using an idea of Sargsyan, we show how to reduce the consistency strength of the assumptions employed to establish a theorem concerning a uniform level of indestructibility for both strong and supercompact cardinals.

The C (n)-cardinals were introduced recently by Bagaria and are strong forms of the usual large cardinals. For a wide range of large cardinal notions, Bagaria has shown that the consistency of the corresponding C (n)-versions follows from the existence of rank-into-rank elementary embeddings. In this article, we further study the C (n)-hierarchies of tall, strong, superstrong, supercompact, and extendible cardinals, giving some improved consistency bounds while, at the same time, addressing questions which had been left open. In addition, we (...) consider two cases which were not dealt with by Bagaria; namely, C (n)-Woodin and C (n)-strongly compact cardinals, for which we provide characterizations in terms of their ordinary counterparts. Finally, we give a brief account on the interaction of C (n)-cardinals with the forcing machinery. (shrink)

I analyze the hierarchy of large cardinals between a supercompact cardinal and an almost-huge cardinal. Many of these cardinals are defined by modifying the definition of a high-jump cardinal. A high-jump cardinal is defined as the critical point of an elementary embedding j:V→M\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${j: V \to M}$$\end{document} such that M is closed under sequences of length sup{j|f:κ→κ}\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\sup\{{j\,|\,f: \kappa \to \kappa}\}}$$\end{document}. Some of the other (...) cardinals analyzed include the super-high-jump cardinals, almost-high-jump cardinals, Shelah-for-supercompactness cardinals, Woodin-for-supercompactness cardinals, Vopěnka cardinals, hypercompact cardinals, and enhanced supercompact cardinals. I organize these cardinals in terms of consistency strength and implicational strength. I also analyze the superstrong cardinals, which are weaker than supercompact cardinals but are related to high-jump cardinals. Among the results, I highlight the following. Vopěnka cardinals are the same as Woodin-for-supercompactness cardinals.There are no excessively hypercompact cardinals.Furthermore, I prove some results relating high-jump cardinals to forcing, as well as analyzing Laver functions for super-high-jump cardinals. (shrink)