We analyze the notion of guessing model, a way to assign combinatorial properties to arbitrary regular cardinals. Guessing models can be used, in combination with inaccessibility, to characterize various large cardinal axioms, ranging from supercompactness to rank-to-rank embeddings. The majority of these large cardinal properties can be defined in terms of suitable elementary embeddings j:Vγ→Vλ. One key observation is that such embeddings are uniquely determined by the image structures j[Vγ]≺Vλ. These structures will be the prototypes guessing models. We shall show, (...) using guessing models M, how to prove for the ordinal κM=jM) many of the combinatorial properties that we can prove for the cardinal j) using the structure j[Vγ]≺Vj. κM will always be a regular cardinal, but consistently can be a successor and guessing models M with κM=ℵ2 exist assuming the proper forcing axiom. By means of these models we shall introduce a new structural property of models of PFA: the existence of a “Laver function” f:ℵ2→Hℵ2 sharing the same features of the usual Laver functions f:κ→Hκ provided by a supercompact cardinal κ. Further applications of our analysis will be proofs of the singular cardinal hypothesis and of the failure of the square principle assuming the existence of guessing models. In particular the failure of square shows that the existence of guessing models is a very strong assumption in terms of large cardinal strength. (shrink)

An inaccessible cardinal $\kappa$ is supercompact when $(\kappa, \lambda)$-ITP holds for all $\lambda\geq \kappa$. We prove that if there is a model of ZFC with infinitely many supercompact cardinals, then there is a model of ZFC where for every $n\geq 2$ and $\mu\geq \aleph_n$, we have $(\aleph_n, \mu)$-ITP.

We give a short proof of a lemma which generalizes both the main lemma from the original construction in the author’s thesis of a model with no ω2-Aronszajn trees, and also the “Key Lemma” in Hamkins’ gap forcing theorems. The new lemma directly yields Hamkins’ newer lemma stating that certain forcing notions have the approximation property.

We use a $\kappa^{+}-Mahlo$ cardinal to give a forcing construction of a model in which there is no sequence $\langle A_{\beta} : \beta \textless \omega_{2} \rangle$ of sets of cardinality $\omega_{1}$ such that $\{\lambda \textless \omega_{2} : \existsc \subset \lambda & (\bigcupc = \lambda otp(c) = \omega_{1} & \forall \beta \textless \lambda (c \cap \beta \in A_{\beta}))\}$ is stationary.

An inaccessible cardinal κ is supercompact when (κ, λ)-ITP holds for all λ ≥ κ. We prove that if there is a model of ZFC with two supercompact cardinals, then there is a model of ZFC where simultaneously \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${(\aleph_2, \mu)}$$\end{document} -ITP and \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${(\aleph_3, \mu')}$$\end{document} -ITP hold, for all \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mu\geq \aleph_2}$$\end{document} and \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} (...) \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mu'\geq \aleph_3}$$\end{document}. (shrink)

REF is the statement that every stationary subset of a cardinal reflects, unless it fails to do so for a trivial reason. The main theorem, presented in Sect. 0, is that under suitable assumptions it is consistent that REF and there is a κ which is κ+n -supercompact. The main concepts defined in Sect. 1 are PT, which is a certain statement about the existence of transversals, and the “bad” stationary set. It is shown that supercompactness (and even the failure (...) of PT) implies the existence of non-reflecting stationary sets. E.g., if REF then for manyλ ⌝ PT(λ, ℵ1). In Sect. 2 it is shown that Easton-support iteration of suitable Levy collapses yield a universe with REF if for every singular λ which is a limit of supercompacts the bad stationary set concentrates on the “right” cofinalities. In Sect. 3 the use of oracle c.c. (and oracle proper—see [Sh-b, Chap. IV] and [Sh 100, Sect. 4]) is adapted to replacing the diamond by the Laver diamond. Using this, a universe as needed in Sect. 2 is forced, where one starts, and ends, with a universe with a proper class of supercompacts. In Sect. 4 bad sets are handled in ZFC. For a regular λ {δ<+ : cfδ<λ} is good. It is proved in ZFC that ifλ=cfλ>ℵ1 then {α<+ : cfα<λ} is the union of λ sets on which there are squares. (shrink)

We introduce combinatorial principles that characterize strong compactness and supercompactness for inaccessible cardinals but also make sense for successor cardinals. Their consistency is established from what is supposedly optimal. Utilizing the failure of a weak version of a square, we show that the best currently known lower bounds for the consistency strength of these principles can be applied.

An outline is given of the proof that the consistency of a κ⁺-Mahlo cardinal implies that of the statement that I[ω₂] does not include any stationary subsets of Cof(ω₁). An additional discussion of the techniques of this proof includes their use to obtain a model with no ω₂-Aronszajn tree and to add an ω₂-Souslin tree with finite conditions.

We show that MRP + MA implies that ITP(λ, ω 2 ) holds for all cardinal λ ≥ ω 2 . This generalizes a result by Weiß who showed that PFA implies that ITP(λ, ω 2 ) holds for all cardinal λ ≥ ω 2 . Consequently any of the known methods to prove MRP + MA consistent relative to some large cardinal hypothesis requires the existence of a strongly compact cardinal. Moreover if one wants to force MRP + MA (...) with a proper forcing, it requires at least a supercompact cardinal. We also study the relationship between MRP and some weak versions of square. We show that MRP implies the failure of □(λ, ω) for all λ ≥ ω 2 and we give a direct proof that MRP + MA implies the failure of □(λ, ω 1 ) for all λ ≥ ω 2. (shrink)

We present an approach to forcing with finite sequences of models that uses models of two types. This approach builds on earlier work of Friedman and Mitchell on forcing to add clubs in cardinals larger than $\aleph_{1}$, with finite conditions. We use the two-type approach to give a new proof of the consistency of the proper forcing axiom. The new proof uses a finite support forcing, as opposed to the countable support iteration in the standard proof. The distinction is important (...) since a proof using finite supports is more amenable to generalizations to cardinals greater than $\aleph_{1}$. (shrink)