Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T19:35:02.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Large cardinal structures below ℵω

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Arthur W. Apter  and
James M. Henle
Arthur W. Apter
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey 07102
James M. Henle
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts 01063
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The theory of large cardinals in the absence of the axiom of choice (AC) has been examined extensively by set theorists. A particular motivation has been the study of large cardinals and their interrelationships with the axiom of determinacy (AD). Many important and beautiful theorems have been proven in this area, especially by Woodin, who has shown how to obtain, from hypermeasurability, models for the theories “ZF + DC + ∀α < ℵ1(ℵ1 → (ℵ1)α)” and . Thus, consequences of AD whose consistency strength appeared to be beyond that of the more standard large cardinal hypotheses were shown to have suprisingly weak consistency strength.

In this paper, we continue the study of large cardinals in the absence of AC and their interrelationships with AD by examining what large cardinal structures are possible on cardinals below ℵω in the absence of AC. Specifically, we prove the following theorems.

Theorem 1. Con(ZFC + κ1 < κ2are supercompact cardinals) ⇒ Con(ZF + DC + The club filter on ℵ1is a normal measure + ℵ1and ℵ2are supercompact cardinals).

Theorem 2. Con(ZF + AD) ⇒ Con(ZF + ℵ1, ℵ2and ℵ3are measurable cardinals which carry normal measures + μωis not a measure on any of these cardinals).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , September 1986 , pp. 591 - 603
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1986

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]Abramson, F., Flipping properties and equiconsistency results for large cardinals, Ph.D. Thesis Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1974.Google Scholar
[2]Apter, A., An AD-like model, this Journal, vol. 50 (1985), pp. 531–543.Google Scholar
[3]Apter, A., Some results on consecutive large cardinals, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 25 (1983), pp. 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Apter, A., Some results on consecutive large cardinals. II, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 52 (1985), pp. 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Apter, A., Successors of singular cardinals and measurability, Advances in Mathematics, vol. 55 (1985), pp. 228–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Bull, E., Successive large cardinals, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 15 (1978), pp. 161–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Di Prisco, C., Combinatorial properties and supercompact cardinals, Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1976.Google Scholar
[8]Di Prisco, C. and Henle, J., On the compactness of ℵ1, and ℵ2, this Journal, vol. 43 (1978), pp. 394–401.Google Scholar
[9]Foreman, M. and Woodin, H., The GCH can fail everywhere (to appear).Google Scholar
[10]Gitik, M., Regular cardinals in models of ZF, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 290(1985), pp. 41–68.Google Scholar
[11]Henle, J., Mathias, A. R. D. and Woodin, H., A barren extension, Methods in mathematical logic (proceedings of the sixth Latin American conference; Di Prisco, C., editor), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1130, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985, pp. 195–207.Google Scholar
[12]Jech, T., Some combinatorial properties concerning uncountable cardinals, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 5 (1973), pp. 165–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Kechris, A., personal communication.Google Scholar
[14]Kleinberg, E., Strong partition properties for infinite cardinals, this Journal, vol. 35 (1970), pp. 410–428.Google Scholar
[15]Kleinberg, E., Infinitary combinatorics and the axiom of determinateness, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 612, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16]Lévy, A. and Solovay, R., Measurable cardinals and the continuum hypothesis, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 5 (1967), pp. 234–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17]Magidor, M., On the singular cardinals problem. I, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 28 (1977), pp. 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18]Magidor, M., There are many normal ultrafilters corresponding to a supercompact cardinal, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 9 (1971), pp. 186–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19]Mitchell, W., How weak is a closed unbounded filter?Logic Colloquium '80(van Dalen, D.et al., editors), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982, pp. 209–230.Google Scholar
[20]NESTS, A modest proposal (in preparation).Google Scholar
[21]Radin, L., Adding closed cofinal sequences to large cardinals, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 23 (1982), pp. 263–283.Google Scholar
[22]Woodin, H., Handwritten notes on the closed unbounded filter.Google Scholar
[23]Woodin, H., Handwritten notes on Radin forcing and the Prikry property.Google Scholar
[24]Woodin, H., unpublished.Google Scholar