Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T09:36:52.443Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An equiconsistency for universal indestructibility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Arthur W. Apter  and
Grigor Sargsyan
Arthur W. Apter
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Baruch college of CUNY, New York, NY 10010, USA The CUNY Graduate Center, Mathematics, 365 Fifth Av., New York, NY 10016, USA, E-mail: awapter@alum.mit.edu, URL: http://faculty.baruch.cuny.edu/apter
Grigor Sargsyan*
Affiliation:
Group in Logic and The Methodology of Science, University of California, Berkeley CA 94720, USA, E-mail: grigor@math.berkeley.edu, URL: http://math.berkeley.edu/~grigor
*
Department of Mathematics, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA, E-mail: grigor@math.ucla.edu., URL: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~grigor
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We obtain an equiconsistency for a weak form of universal indestructibility for strongness. The equiconsistency is relative to a cardinal weaker in consistency strength than a Woodin cardinal, Stewart Baldwin's notion of hyperstrong cardinal. We also briefly indicate how our methods are applicable to universal indestructibility for supercompactness and strong compactness.

Keywords

Universal indestructibilityindestructibilityequiconsistencymeasurable cardinalstrong cardinalhyperstrong cardinalWoodin cardinalstrongly compact cardinalsupercompact cardinalcore model
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 75 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 314 - 322
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2010

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] Apter, A. and Hamkins, J. D., Universal indestructibility, Kobe Journal of Mathematics, vol. 16 (1999), pp. 119–130.Google Scholar
[2] Apter, A. and Sargsyan, G., A reduction in consistency strength for universal indestructibility, Bulletin of the Polish Academy of Sciences (Mathematics), vol. 55 (2007), pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
[3] Baldwin, S., Between strong and superstrong, this Journal, vol. 51 (1986), pp. 547–559.Google Scholar
[4] Gitik, M. and Shelah, S., On certain indestructibility of strong cardinals and a question of Hajnal, Archive for Mathematical Logic, vol. 28 (1989), pp. 35–42.Google Scholar
[5] Hamkins, J. D., Gap forcing: Generalizing the Lévy-Solovay Theorem, The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, vol. 5 (1999), pp. 264–272.Google Scholar
[6] Hamkins, J. D., The lottery preparation, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 101 (2000), pp. 103–146.Google Scholar
[7] Hamkins, J. D., Gap forcing, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 125 (2001), pp. 237–252.Google Scholar
[8] Kanamori, A., The higher infinite, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1994.Google Scholar
[9] Laver, R., Making the supercompactness of κ indestructible under κ-directed closed forcing, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 29 (1978), pp. 385–388.Google Scholar
[10] Steel, J., The core model iterability problem, Lecture Notes in Logic, vol. 8, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1996.Google Scholar
[11] Zeman, M.. Inner models and large cardinals, de Gruyter Series in Logic and its Applications, vol. 5, Walter de Gruyter and Co., Berlin, 2002.Google Scholar