One of the standard ways of postulating large cardinal axioms is to consider elementary embeddings,j, from the universe,V, into some transitive submodel,M. See Reinhardt–Solovay [7] for more details. Ifjis not the identity, andκis the first ordinal moved byj, thenκis a measurable cardinal. Conversely, Scott [8] showed that wheneverκis measurable, there is suchjandM. If we had assumed, in addition, that, thenκwould be theκth measurable cardinal; in general, the wider we assumeMto be, the largerκmust be.

Keywords: Elementary Submodel; Real Line; Order-Isomorphic.

We continue the investigation of Gregory trees and the Cantor Tree Property carried out by Hart and Kunen. We produce models of MA with the Continuum arbitrarily large in which there are Gregory trees, and in which there are no Gregory trees.

T. K. Menas [4, pp. 225-234] introduced a combinatorial property χ (μ) of a measure μ on a supercompact cardinal κ and proved that measures with this property also have the partition property. We prove here that Menas' property is not equivalent to the partition property. We also show that if α is the least cardinal greater than κ such that P κ α bears a measure without the partition property, then α is inaccessible and Π 2 1 -indescribable.

If θ is any singular cardinal of cofinality ω 1 , we produce a forcing extension in which MA holds below θ but fails at θ. The failure is due to a partial order which splits a gap of size θ in P(ω).

The separation, uniformization, and other properties of the Borel and projective hierarchies over hyperfinite sets are investigated and compared to the corresponding properties in classical descriptive set theory. The techniques used in this investigation also provide some results about countably determined sets and functions, as well as an improvement of an earlier theorem of Kunen and Miller.

We consider a well-known partial order of Prikry for producing a collapsing function of minimal degree. Assuming MA + ≠ CH, every new real constructs the collapsing map.

In this work we give a complete answer as to the possible implications between some natural properties of Lebesgue measure and the Baire property. For this we prove general preservation theorems for forcing notions. Thus we answer a decade-old problem of J. Baumgartner and answer the last three open questions of the Kunen-Miller chart about measure and category. Explicitly, in \S1: (i) We prove that if we add a Laver real, then the old reals have outer measure one. (ii) We (...) prove a preservation theorem for countable-support forcing notions, and using this theorem we prove (iii) If we add ω 2 Laver reals, then the old reals have outer measure one. From this we obtain (iv) $\operatorname{Cons}(\mathrm{ZF}) \Rightarrow \operatorname{Cons}(\mathrm{ZFC} + \neg B(m) + \neg U(m) + U(c))$ . In \S2: (i) We prove a preservation theorem, for the finite support forcing notion, of the property " $F \subseteq ^\omega\omega$ is an unbounded family." (ii) We introduce a new forcing notion making the old reals a meager set but the old members of ω ω remain an unbounded family. Using this we prove (iii) $\operatorname{Cons}(\mathrm{ZF}) \Rightarrow \operatorname{Cons}(\mathrm{ZFC} + U(m) + \neg B(c) + \neg U(c) + C(c))$ . In \S3: (i) We prove a preservation theorem, for the finite support forcing notion, of a property which implies "the union of the old measure zero sets is not a measure zero set," and using this theorem we prove (ii) $\operatorname{Cons}(\mathrm{ZF}) \Rightarrow \operatorname{Cons}(\mathrm{ZFC} + \neg U(m) + C(m) + \neg C(c))$. (shrink)

We present several generalizations of the well-known Kunen inconsistency that there is no nontrivial elementary embedding from the set-theoretic universe V to itself. For example, there is no elementary embedding from the universe V to a set-forcing extension V[G], or conversely from V[G] to V, or more generally from one set-forcing ground model of the universe to another, or between any two models that are eventually stationary correct, or from V to HOD, or conversely from HOD to V, or indeed (...) from any definable class to V, among many other possibilities we consider, including generic embeddings, definable embeddings and results not requiring the axiom of choice. We have aimed in this article for a unified presentation that weaves together some previously known unpublished or folklore results, several due to Woodin and others, along with our new contributions. (shrink)

We develop the theory of layered posets and use the notion of layering to prove a new iteration theorem is κ-cc, as long as direct limits are used sufficiently often. This iteration theorem simplifies and generalizes the various chain condition arguments for universal Kunen iterations in the literature on saturated ideals, especially in situations where finite support iterations are not possible. We also provide two applications:1 For any n≥1, a wide variety of <ωn−1-closed, ωn+1-cc posets of size ωn+1 can consistently (...) be absorbed by quotients of saturated ideals on ωn.2 For any n∈ω, the tree property at ωn+3 is consistent with Chang’s conjecture ↠. (shrink)

I offer a variant of Putnam’s “permutation argument,” originally an argument against metaphysical realism. This variant is called the “natural permutation argument.” I explain how the natural permutation argument generates a form of referential inscrutability which is not resolvable by consideration of “natural properties” in the sense of Lewis’s response to Putnam. However, unlike the classical permutation argument (which is applicable to nearly all interpretations of all first-order theories), the natural permutation argument only applies to interpretations which have some special (...) symmetries. I give an analysis of the interpretations to which the natural permutation argument does apply, and I explain how, when it fails to apply, the referential inscrutability generated by permutation arguments is resolvable by a Lewisian strategy. In order to demonstrate how these problems of referential inscrutability play out in an a priori setting relevant to philosophy, I discuss the applicability of the natural permutation argument in set-theoretic reasoning. I use the well-known Kunen inconsistency theorem to show that, in Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, the Axiom of Choice is sufficient to resolve referential inscrutability. I then explain how, as a result of a recent theorem of Daghighi–Golshani–Hamkins–Jeřábek, in certain non-well-founded set theories the natural permutation argument does yield an intractable inscrutability of reference. (shrink)

By an ω1 we mean a tree of power ω1 and height ω1. An ω1-tree is called a Kurepa tree if all its levels are countable and it has more than ω1 branches. An ω1-tree is called a Jech-Kunen tree if it has κ branches for some κ strictly between ω1 and $2^{\omega _1 }$ . In Sect. 1, we construct a model ofCH plus $2^{\omega _1 } > \omega _2$ , in which there exists a Kurepa tree with not (...) Jech-Kunen subtrees and there exists a Jech-Kunen tree with no Kurepa subtrees. This improves two results in [Ji1] by not only eliminating the large cardinal assumption for [Ji1, Theorem 2] but also handling two consistency proofs of [Ji1, Theorem 2 and Theorem 3] simultaneously. In Sect. 2, we first prove a lemma saying that anAxiom A focing of size ω1 over Silver's model will not produce a Kurepa tree in the extension, and then we apply this lemma to prove that, in the model constructed for Theorem 2 in [Ji1], there exists a Jech-Kunen tree and there are no Kurepa trees. (shrink)

We generalize the combinatorial principles Cn(κ), Cns(κ), and Princ(κ) introduced by various authors, and prove some of their properties and connections between them. We also answer a question asked by Juhász and Kunen about the relation between these principles, by showing that Cn(κ) does not imply Cn+1(κ) for any n>2. We also show the consistency of C(κ)+¬Cs(κ).

Suppose that U and U' are normal ultrafilters associated with some supercompact cardinal. How may we compare U and U'? In what ways are they similar, and in what ways are they different? Partial answers are given in [1], [2], [3], [5], [6], and [7]. In this paper, we continue this study. In [6], Menas introduced a combinatorial principle χ(U) of normal ultrafilters U associated with supercompact cardinals, and showed that normal ultrafilters satisfying this property also satisfying this property also (...) satisfy a partition property. In [5], Kunen and Pelletier showed that this partition property for U does not imply χ (U). Using results from [3], we present a different method of finding such normal ultrafilters which satisfy the partition property but do not satisfy χ (U). Our method yields a large collection of such normal ultrafilters. (shrink)

By an ω1-tree we mean a tree of cardinality ω1 and height ω1. An ω1-tree is called a Kurepa tree if all its levels are countable and it has more than ω1 branches. An ω1-tree is called a Jech–Kunen tree if it has κ branches for some κ strictly between ω1 and 2ω1. A Kurepa tree is called an essential Kurepa tree if it contains no Jech–Kunen subtrees. A Jech–Kunen tree is called an essential Jech–Kunen tree if it is no (...) Kurepa subtrees. In this paper we prove that it is consistent with CH and 2ω1 #62; ω2 that there exist essential Kurepa trees and there are no essential Jech–Kunen trees, it is consistent with CH and 2ω1 #62; ω2 plus the existence of a Kurepa tree with 2ω1 branches that there exist essential Jech–Kunen trees and there are no essential Kurepa trees. In the second result we require the existence of a Kurepa tree with 2ω1 branches in order to avoid triviality. (shrink)

Reviewed Works:Telis K. Menas, A Combinatorial Property of $p_\kappa\lambda$.Donald H. Pelletier, The Partition Property for Certain Extendible Measures on Supercompact Cardinals.Kenneth Kunen, Donald H. Pelletier, On a Combinatorial Property of Menas Related to the Partition Property for Measures on Supercompact Cardinals.Julius B. Barbanel, Supercompact Cardinals, Trees of Normal Ultrafilters, and the Partition Property.

According to a theorem due to Kenneth Kunen, under ZFC, there is no ordinal [Formula: see text] and nontrivial elementary embedding [Formula: see text]. His proof relied on the Axiom of Choice (AC), and no proof from ZF alone is has been discovered. [Formula: see text] is the assertion, introduced by Hugh Woodin, that [Formula: see text] is an ordinal and there is an elementary embedding [Formula: see text] with critical point [Formula: see text]. And [Formula: see text] asserts that (...) [Formula: see text] holds for some [Formula: see text]. The axiom [Formula: see text] is one of the strongest large cardinals not known to be inconsistent with AC. It is usually studied assuming ZFC in the full universe [Formula: see text] (in which case [Formula: see text] must be a limit ordinal), but we assume only ZF. We prove, assuming ZF [Formula: see text] [Formula: see text] [Formula: see text] “[Formula: see text] is an even ordinal”, that there is a proper class transitive inner model [Formula: see text] containing [Formula: see text] and satisfying ZF [Formula: see text] [Formula: see text] [Formula: see text] “there is an elementary embedding [Formula: see text]”; in fact we will have [Formula: see text] ⊆[Formula: see text], where [Formula: see text] witnesses [Formula: see text] in [Formula: see text]. This result was first proved by the author under the added assumption that [Formula: see text] exists; Gabe Goldberg noticed that this extra assumption was unnecessary. If also [Formula: see text] is a limit ordinal and [Formula: see text]-DC holds in [Formula: see text], then the model [Formula: see text] will also satisfy [Formula: see text]-DC. We show that ZFC [Formula: see text] “[Formula: see text] is even” [Formula: see text] [Formula: see text] implies [Formula: see text] exists for every [Formula: see text], but if consistent, this theory does not imply [Formula: see text] exists. (shrink)

Journal of Mathematical Logic, Ahead of Print. According to a theorem due to Kenneth Kunen, under ZFC, there is no ordinal [math] and nontrivial elementary embedding [math]. His proof relied on the Axiom of Choice (AC), and no proof from ZF alone is has been discovered. [math] is the assertion, introduced by Hugh Woodin, that [math] is an ordinal and there is an elementary embedding [math] with critical point [math]. And [math] asserts that [math] holds for some [math]. The axiom (...) [math] is one of the strongest large cardinals not known to be inconsistent with AC. It is usually studied assuming ZFC in the full universe [math] (in which case [math] must be a limit ordinal), but we assume only ZF. We prove, assuming ZF [math] [math] [math] “[math] is an even ordinal”, that there is a proper class transitive inner model [math] containing [math] and satisfying ZF [math] [math] [math] “there is an elementary embedding [math]”; in fact we will have [math] ⊆[math], where [math] witnesses [math] in [math]. This result was first proved by the author under the added assumption that [math] exists; Gabe Goldberg noticed that this extra assumption was unnecessary. If also [math] is a limit ordinal and [math]-DC holds in [math], then the model [math] will also satisfy [math]-DC. We show that ZFC [math] “[math] is even” [math] [math] implies [math] exists for every [math], but if consistent, this theory does not imply [math] exists. (shrink)