Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T05:08:32.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Forbidden intervals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Matthew Foreman*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, University of California Irvine, Ca 92697, USA, E-mail: [email protected]

Extract

Many classical statements of set theory are settled by the existence of generic elementary embeddings that are analogous the elementary embeddings posited by large cardinals. [2] The embeddings analogous to measurable cardinals are determined by uniform, κ-complete precipitous ideals on cardinals κ. Stronger embeddings, analogous to those originating from supercompact or huge cardinals are encoded by normal fine ideals on sets such as [κ]<λ or [κ]λ.

The embeddings generated from these ideals are limited in ways analogous to conventional large cardinals. Explicitly, if j: VM is a generic elementary embedding with critical point κ and λ supnЄωjn(κ) and the forcing yielding j is λ-saturated then jλ+M. (See [2].)

Ideals that yield embeddings that are analogous to strongly compact cardinals have more puzzling behavior and the analogy is not as straightforward. Some natural ideal properties of this kind have been shown to be inconsistent:

Theorem 1 (Kunen). There is no ω2-saturated, countably complete uniform ideal on any cardinal in the interval [ℵω, ℵω).

Generic embeddings that arise from countably complete, ω2-saturated ideals have the property that sup . So the Kunen result is striking in that it apparently allows strong ideals to exist above the conventional large cardinal limitations. The main result of this paper is that it is consistent (relative to a huge cardinal) that such ideals exist.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Foreman, Matthew, More saturated ideals, Cabal seminar 79–81, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1019, Springer, Berlin, 1983, pp. 127.Google Scholar
[2]Foreman, Matthew, Ideals and generic embeddings, Handbook of set theory, appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Foreman, Matthew and Laver, Richard, Some downwards transfer properties for ℵ2, Advances in Mathematics, vol. 67 (1988), no. 2, pp. 230238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Foreman, Matthew and Woodin, W. Hugh, The GCH can fail everywhere, Annals of Mathematics, vol. 133 (1991), no. 1, pp. 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Magidor, Menachem, On the singular cardinals problem. I, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 28 (1977), no. 1-2, pp. 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Mitchell, William, How weak is a closed unbounded ultrafilter?, Logic colloquium '80 (Prague, 1980), Studies in Logic and Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 108, North-Holland, Amsterdam-New York, 1982, pp. 209230.Google Scholar