Small Definably-large Cardinals
We study the definably-Mahlo, definably-weakly-compact, and the definably-indescribable cardinals, which are the definable versions of, respectively, Mahlo, weakly-compact, and indescribable cardinals. We study their strength as large cardinals and we show that the relationship between them is almost the same as the relationship between Mahlo, weakly-compact and indescribable cardinals.
KeywordsExtension Property Tree Property Large Cardinal Measurable Cardinal Satisfaction Relation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- P. Aczel and W. Richter, “Inductive definitions and analogues of large cardinals” in W. Hodges, Ed. Conference in Mathematical Logic-London’70 (Proceedings of a Conference; Bedford College, London 1970), (Springer, Berlin, 1972).Google Scholar
- P. Aczel and W. Richter: “Inductive definitions and reflecting properties of admissible ordinals” in J.E. Fenstad and P.G. Hinman, Eds. Generalized Recursion Theory (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1974).Google Scholar
- J. Baeten: “Filters and ultrafilters over definable subsets of admissible ordinals” in G.H. Müller and M.M. Richter, eds. Models and sets (Aachen, 1983) (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984).Google Scholar
- J. Baeten: Filters and ultrafilters over definable subsets of admissible ordinals, (Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica, CWI, Amsterdam, 1986).Google Scholar
- J. Bagaria and R. Bosch: “Generic absoluteness under projective forcing”, forthcoming.Google Scholar
- K. Devlin: “Indescribability properties and small large cardinals” in G.H. Müller, A. Oberschel and K. Potthoff, eds. ISILC Logic Conference. Proceedings of the International Summer Institute and Logic Colloquium, Kiel, 1974 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1975).Google Scholar
- M. Kaufmann: “On existence of Σn end extensions” in M. Lerman, J.H. Schmerl and R.I. Soare, Eds. Logic Year 1979–80 (Springer, Berlin, 1981).Google Scholar
- M. Kaufman and E. Kranakis: “Definable ultrapowers over admissible ordinals”, Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, 30 (1984), 97–118.Google Scholar
- E. Kranakis and I. Phillips, “Partitions and homogeneous sets for admissible ordinals” in G.H. Müller and M.M. Richter, eds. Models and sets (Aachen, 1983) (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984)Google Scholar
- Y.N. Moschovakis, “Indescribable cardinals in L”, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 41 (1976), 554–555Google Scholar
- W. Richter: “Recursively Mahlo ordinals and inductive definitions” in R.O. Gandy and C.M.E. Yates, Eds. Logic Colloquium’ 69: Proceedings of the Summer School and Colloquium in Mathematical Logic, Manchester, August of 1969 (Amsterdam, North-Holland, 1971)Google Scholar
- W. Richter: “The least Σ12 and П12 reflecting ordinals” in G. H. Müller, A. Oberschel and K. Potthoff, eds. ISILC Logic Conference. Proceedings of the International Summer Institute and Logic Colloquium, Kiel, 1974 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1975)Google Scholar