The tree property at κ+ states that there are no Aronszajn trees on κ+, or, equivalently, that every κ+ tree has a cofinal branch. For singular strong limit cardinals κ, there is tension between the tree property at κ+ and failure of the singular cardinal hypothesis at κ; the former is typically the result of the presence of strongly compact cardinals in the background, and the latter is impossible above strongly compacts. In this paper, we reconcile the two. We prove (...) from large cardinals that the tree property at κ+ is consistent with failure of the singular cardinal hypothesis at κ. (shrink)

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.

After small forcing, any $ -closed forcing will destroy the supercompactness and even the strong compactness of κ.

We show that given ù many supercompact cardinals, there is a generic extension in which the tree property holds at ℵ ω²+1 and the SCH fails at ℵ ω².

Assuming the existence of a supercompact cardinal and a weakly compact cardinal above it, we provide a generic extension where there are no Aronszajn trees of height ω 2 or ω 3 . On the other hand we show that some large cardinal assumptions are necessary for such a consistency result.

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.

From large cardinals we obtain the consistency of the existence of a singular cardinal κ of cofinality ω at which the Singular Cardinals Hypothesis fails, there is a bad scale at κ and κ ++ has the tree property. In particular this model has no special κ +-trees.

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 prove various theorems about the preservation and destruction of the tree property at ω2. Working in a model of Mitchell [9] where the tree property holds at ω2, we prove that ω2 still has the tree property after ccc forcing of size \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\aleph_1}$$\end{document} or adding an arbitrary number of Cohen reals. We show that there is a relatively mild forcing in this same model which destroys the tree property. Finally we (...) prove from a supercompact cardinal that the tree property at ω2 can be indestructible under ω2-directed closed forcing. (shrink)