The lottery preparation

Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 101 (2-3):103-146 (2000)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

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 add a Cohen subset to κ, the forcing to shoot a club Cκ avoiding the measurable cardinals and the forcing to add various long Prikry sequences. The lottery preparation works best when performed after fast function forcing, which adds a new completely general kind of Laver function for any large cardinal, thereby freeing the Laver function concept from the supercompact cardinal context

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,337

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

Some remarks on indestructibility and Hamkins? lottery preparation.Arthur W. Apter - 2003 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 42 (8):717-735.
Strong Cardinals can be Fully Laver Indestructible.Arthur W. Apter - 2002 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 48 (4):499-507.
Small forcing makes any cardinal superdestructible.Joel Hamkins - 1998 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 63 (1):51-58.
Indestructibility and stationary reflection.Arthur W. Apter - 2009 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 55 (3):228-236.
Strongly unfoldable cardinals made indestructible.Thomas A. Johnstone - 2008 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 73 (4):1215-1248.
Destruction or preservation as you like it.Joel David Hamkins - 1998 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 91 (2-3):191-229.
Unfoldable cardinals and the GCH.Joel Hamkins - 2001 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 66 (3):1186-1198.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-01-16

Downloads
74 (#283,290)

6 months
14 (#229,302)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Joel David Hamkins
Oxford University

Citations of this work

Set-theoretic geology.Gunter Fuchs, Joel David Hamkins & Jonas Reitz - 2015 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 166 (4):464-501.
Resurrection axioms and uplifting cardinals.Joel David Hamkins & Thomas A. Johnstone - 2014 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 53 (3-4):463-485.
Characterizations of the weakly compact ideal on Pλ.Brent Cody - 2020 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 171 (6):102791.
Tall cardinals.Joel D. Hamkins - 2009 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 55 (1):68-86.

View all 60 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

On strong compactness and supercompactness.Telis K. Menas - 1975 - Annals of Mathematical Logic 7 (4):327-359.
Gap forcing: Generalizing the lévy-Solovay theorem.Joel David Hamkins - 1999 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 5 (2):264-272.
Destruction or preservation as you like it.Joel David Hamkins - 1998 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 91 (2-3):191-229.

View all 13 references / Add more references