Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic

Adding a Nonreflecting Weakly Compact Set

Brent Cody

Full-text: Access denied (no subscription detected)

We're sorry, but we are unable to provide you with the full text of this article because we are not able to identify you as a subscriber. If you have a personal subscription to this journal, then please login. If you are already logged in, then you may need to update your profile to register your subscription. Read more about accessing full-text

Abstract

For n<ω, we say that theΠn1-reflection principle holds at κ and write Refln(κ) if and only if κ is a Πn1-indescribable cardinal and every Πn1-indescribable subset of κ has a Πn1-indescribable proper initial segment. The Πn1-reflection principle Refln(κ) generalizes a certain stationary reflection principle and implies that κ is Πn1-indescribable of order ω. We define a forcing which shows that the converse of this implication can be false in the case n=1; that is, we show that κ being Π11-indescribable of order ω need not imply Refl1(κ). Moreover, we prove that if κ is (α+1)-weakly compact where α<κ+, then there is a forcing extension in which there is a weakly compact set Wκ having no weakly compact proper initial segment, the class of weakly compact cardinals is preserved and κ remains (α+1)-weakly compact. We also formulate several open problems and highlight places in which standard arguments seem to break down.

Article information

Source
Notre Dame J. Formal Logic, Volume 60, Number 3 (2019), 503-521.

Dates
Received: 10 January 2017
Accepted: 7 November 2017
First available in Project Euclid: 11 June 2019

Permanent link to this document
https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ndjfl/1560218426

Digital Object Identifier
doi:10.1215/00294527-2019-0014

Mathematical Reviews number (MathSciNet)
MR3985624

Subjects
Primary: 03E35: Consistency and independence results
Secondary: 03E05: Other combinatorial set theory 03E55: Large cardinals

Keywords
weak compactness reflection indescribability Easton-support iteration

Citation

Cody, Brent. Adding a Nonreflecting Weakly Compact Set. Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 60 (2019), no. 3, 503--521. doi:10.1215/00294527-2019-0014. https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ndjfl/1560218426


Export citation

References

  • [1] Bagaria, J., M. Magidor, and H. Sakai, “Reflection and indescribability in the constructible universe,” Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 208 (2015), pp. 1–11.
  • [2] Baumgartner, J. E., “Ineffability properties of cardinals, II,” pp. 87–106 in Logic, Foundations of Mathematics and Computability Theory (London, Ontario, 1975), edited by R. E. Butts and J. Hintikka, vol. 9 of University of Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1977.
  • [3] Baumgartner, J. E., A. D. Taylor, and S. Wagon, “On splitting stationary subsets of large cardinals,” Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 42 (1977), pp. 203–14.
  • [4] Cody, B., and H. Sakai, “The weakly compact reflection principle need not imply a high order of weak compactness,” to Appear in Archive for Mathematical Logic.
  • [5] Cummings, J., “Iterated forcing and elementary embeddings,” pp. 775–883 in Handbook of Set Theory, Vols. 1, 2, 3, edited by M. Foreman and A. Kanamori, Springer, Dordrecht, 2010.
  • [6] Foreman, M., “Ideals and generic elementary embeddings,” pp. 885–1147 in Handbook of Set Theory, Vols. 1, 2, 3, edited by M. Foreman and A. Kanamori, Springer, Dordrecht, 2010.
  • [7] Hamkins, J. D., “Extensions with the approximation and cover properties have no new large cardinals,” Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 180 (2003), pp. 257–77.
  • [8] Hauser, K., “Indescribable cardinals and elementary embeddings,” Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 56 (1991), pp. 439–57.
  • [9] Hellsten, A., “Diamonds on large cardinals,” Academiæ Scientiarum Fennicæ Annales Mathematica Dissertationes, no. 134, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, 2003.
  • [10] Hellsten, A., “Orders of indescribable sets,” Archive for Mathematical Logic, vol. 45 (2006), pp. 705–14.
  • [11] Hellsten, A., “Saturation of the weakly compact ideal,” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 138 (2010), pp. 3323–34.
  • [12] Jech, T. J., and W. H. Woodin, “Saturation of the closed unbounded filter on the set of regular cardinals,” Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 292 (1985), pp. 345–56.
  • [13] Jensen, R. B., “The fine structure of the constructible hierarchy,” with a section by Jack Silver, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 4 (1972), pp. 229–308. Erratum, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 4 (1972), p. 443.
  • [14] Kanamori, A., The Higher Infinite, 2nd edition, Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer, Berlin, 2003.
  • [15] Kunen, K., “Saturated ideals,” Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 43 (1978), pp. 65–76.
  • [16] Lévy, A., “The sizes of the indescribable cardinals,” pp. 205–18 in Axiomatic Set Theory (Los Angeles, 1967), edited by D. S. Scott, vol. 13 of Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1971.
  • [17] Mekler, A. H., and S. Shelah, “The consistency strength of ‘every stationary set reflects’,” Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 67 (1989), pp. 353–66.
  • [18] Sun, W. Z., “Stationary cardinals,” Archive for Mathematical Logic, vol. 32 (1993), pp. 429–42.