Superstrong and other large cardinals are never Laver indestructible

Archive for Mathematical Logic 55 (1-2):19-35 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

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} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}QVθ{\mathbb{Q} \in V_\theta}\end{document}, the cardinal κ will exhibit none of the large cardinal properties with target θ or larger.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

    This entry is not archived by us. If you are the author and have permission from the publisher, we recommend that you archive it. Many publishers automatically grant permission to authors to archive pre-prints. By uploading a copy of your work, you will enable us to better index it, making it easier to find.

    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 106,894

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The large cardinals between supercompact and almost-huge.Norman Lewis Perlmutter - 2015 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 54 (3-4):257-289.
Indestructibility properties of remarkable cardinals.Yong Cheng & Victoria Gitman - 2015 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 54 (7-8):961-984.
Strong tree properties for two successive cardinals.Laura Fontanella - 2012 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 51 (5-6):601-620.
Indestructibility and destructible measurable cardinals.Arthur W. Apter - 2016 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 55 (1-2):3-18.
An Easton like theorem in the presence of Shelah cardinals.Mohammad Golshani - 2017 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 56 (3-4):273-287.
Rank-into-rank hypotheses and the failure of GCH.Vincenzo Dimonte & Sy-David Friedman - 2014 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 53 (3-4):351-366.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-12-24

Downloads
59 (#402,807)

6 months
13 (#267,047)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Joel David Hamkins
Oxford University

Citations of this work

The downward directed grounds hypothesis and very large cardinals.Toshimichi Usuba - 2017 - Journal of Mathematical Logic 17 (2):1750009.
Resurrection axioms and uplifting cardinals.Joel David Hamkins & Thomas A. Johnstone - 2014 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 53 (3-4):463-485.
Elementary chains and C (n)-cardinals.Konstantinos Tsaprounis - 2014 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 53 (1-2):89-118.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Set-theoretic geology.Gunter Fuchs, Joel David Hamkins & Jonas Reitz - 2015 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 166 (4):464-501.
The lottery preparation.Joel David Hamkins - 2000 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 101 (2-3):103-146.
Gap forcing: Generalizing the lévy-Solovay theorem.Joel David Hamkins - 1999 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 5 (2):264-272.
The Ground Axiom.Jonas Reitz - 2007 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 72 (4):1299 - 1317.

View all 17 references / Add more references