Advertisement

Archive for Mathematical Logic

, Volume 56, Issue 7–8, pp 715–723 | Cite as

On the consistency strength of level by level inequivalence

  • Arthur W. ApterEmail author
Article
  • 106 Downloads

Abstract

We show that the theories “ZFC \(+\) There is a supercompact cardinal” and “ZFC \(+\) There is a supercompact cardinal \(+\) Level by level inequivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness holds” are equiconsistent.

Keywords

Supercompact cardinal Strongly compact cardinal Level by level inequivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness Nonreflecting stationary set of ordinals Equiconsistency 

Mathematics Subject Classification

03E35 03E55 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Apter, A.: Indestructible strong compactness and level by level inequivalence. Math. Log. Q. 59, 371–377 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Apter, A.: Level by level inequivalence beyond measurability. Arch. Math. Log. 50, 707–712 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Apter, A.: Level by level inequivalence, strong compactness, and GCH. Bull. Pol. Acad. Sci. Math. 60, 201–209 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Apter, A.: On level by level equivalence and inequivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness. Fundam. Math. 171, 77–92 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Apter, A.: Tallness and level by level equivalence and inequivalence. Math. Log. Q. 56, 4–12 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Apter, A., Gitman, V., Hamkins, J.D.: Inner models with large cardinal features usually obtained by forcing. Arch. Math. Log. 51, 257–283 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Apter, A., Hamkins, J.D.: Exactly controlling the non-supercompact strongly compact cardinals. J. Symb. Log. 68, 669–688 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Apter, A., Shelah, S.: On the strong equality between supercompactness and strong compactness. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 349, 103–128 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cummings, J.: A model in which GCH holds at successors but fails at limits. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 329, 1–39 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Di Prisco, C., Henle, J.: On the compactness of \(\aleph _1\) and \(\aleph _2\). J. Symb. Log. 43, 394–401 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Foreman, M.: More saturated ideals. Cabal seminar 79–81. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1019, pp. 1–27. Springer, Berlin (1983)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hamkins, J.D.: Gap forcing. Isr. J. Math. 125, 237–252 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hamkins, J.D.: Gap forcing: generalizing the Lévy–Solovay theorem. Bull. Symb. Log. 5, 264–272 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kanamori, A.: The Higher Infinite. Springer, Berlin (2009, 2003, 1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lévy, A., Solovay, R.: Measurable cardinals and the continuum hypothesis. Isr. J. Math. 5, 234–248 (1967)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsBaruch College of CUNYNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsThe CUNY Graduate CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations