Advertisement

Archive for Mathematical Logic

, Volume 54, Issue 3–4, pp 463–470 | Cite as

A universal indestructibility theorem compatible with level by level equivalence

  • Arthur W. ApterEmail author
Article
  • 33 Downloads

Abstract

We prove an indestructibility theorem for degrees of supercompactness that is compatible with level by level equivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness.

Mathematics Subject Classification

03E35 03E55 

Keywords

Supercompact cardinal Level by level equivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness Indestructibility Lottery sum 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Apter A.: Diamond, square, and level by level equivalence. Arch. Math. Logic 44, 387–395 (2005)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Apter A.: Failures of GCH and the level by level equivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness. Math. Logic Q. 49, 587–597 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Apter A.: Indestructibility, strongness, and level by level equivalence. Fundam. Math. 177, 45–54 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Apter A.: Indestructibility under adding Cohen subsets and level by level equivalence. Math. Logic Q. 55, 271–279 (2009)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Apter A.: More Easton theorems for level by level equivalence. Colloq. Math. 128, 69–86 (2012)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Apter A.: Supercompactness and level by level equivalence are compatible with indestructibility for strong compactness. Arch. Math. Logic 46, 155–163 (2007)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Apter A.: Supercompactness and measurable limits of strong cardinals II: Applications to level by level equivalence. Math. Logic Q. 52, 457–463 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Apter A., Hamkins J.D.: Indestructibility and the level-by-level agreement between strong compactness and supercompactness. J. Symb. Logic 67, 820–840 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Apter A., Hamkins J.D.: Universal indestructibility. Kobe J. Math. 16, 119–130 (1999)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Apter A., Shelah S.: On the strong equality between supercompactness and strong compactness. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 349, 103–128 (1997)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hamkins J.D.: Gap forcing. Isr. J. Math. 125, 237–252 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hamkins J.D.: Gap forcing: Generalizing the Lévy–Solovay Theorem. Bull. Symb. Logic 5, 264–272 (1999)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hamkins J.D.: The lottery preparation. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 101, 103–146 (2000)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hamkins J.D.: Small forcing makes any cardinal superdestructible. J. Symb. Logic 63, 51–58 (1998)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jech T.: Set Theory: The Third Millennium Edition, Revised and Expanded. Springer, Berlin (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Laver R.: Making the supercompactness of κ indestructible under κ-directed closed forcing. Isr. J. Math. 29, 385–388 (1978)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Magidor M.: On the existence of nonregular ultrafilters and the cardinality of ultrapowers. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 249, 97–111 (1979)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Menas, T.: On strong compactness and supercompactness. Ann. Math. Logic 7, 327–359 (1974/75)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsBaruch College of CUNYNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.The CUNY Graduate Center, MathematicsNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations