Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T13:00:56.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Between strong and superstrong

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Stewart Baldwin
Stewart Baldwin*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36849
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Definition. A cardinal κ is strong iff for every x there is an elementary embedding j:V → M with critical point κ such that x ∈ M.

κ is superstrong iff ∃j:V → M with critical point κ such that Vj(κ) ∈ M.

These definitions are natural weakenings of supercompactness and hugeness respectively and display some of the same relations. For example, if κ is superstrong then Vκ ⊨ “∃ proper class of strong cardinals”, but the smallest superstrong cardinal is less than the smallest strong cardinal (if both types exist). (See [SRK] and [Mo] for the arguments involving supercompact and huge, which translate routinely to strong and superstrong.)

Given any two types of large cardinals, a typical vague question which is often asked is “How large is the gap in consistency strength?” In one sense the gap might be considered relatively small, since the “higher degree” strong cardinals described below (a standard trick that is nearly always available) and the Shelah and Woodin hierarchies of cardinals (see [St] for a definition of these) seem to be (at least at this point in time) the only “natural” large cardinal properties lying between strong cardinals and superstrong cardinals in consistency strength.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , September 1986 , pp. 547 - 559
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1986

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

[B1]Baldwin, S., Mahlo cardinals and canonical forms for sequences of ultrafilters, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, 1980.Google Scholar
[B2]Baldwin, S., Generalizing the Mahlo hierarchy, with applications to the Mitchell models, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 25 (1983), pp. 103–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[D1]Dodd, A. J., Core models, this Journal, vol. 48 (1983), pp. 78–90.Google Scholar
[D2]Dodd, A. J., The core model, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, vol. 61, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[D3]Dodd, A. J., Strong cardinals, handwritten notes.Google Scholar
[FMS]Foreman, M., Magidor, M. and Shelah, S., Martin's axiom, saturated ideals, and nonregular ultrafilters, Part 1 (preprint).Google Scholar
[Mi1]Mitchell, W., Sets constructible from sequences of ultrafilters, this Journal, vol. 39 (1974), pp. 57–66.Google Scholar
[Mi2]Mitchell, W., Hypermeasurable cardinals, Logic Colloquium '78, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1979, pp. 303–317.Google Scholar
[Mi3]Mitchell, W., Sets constructed from sequences of measures: revisited, this Journal, vol. 48 (1983), pp. 600–609.Google Scholar
[Mi4]Mitchell, W., The core model for sequences of measures (preprint).Google Scholar
[Mo]Morgenstern, C., On the ordering of certain large cardinals, this Journal, vol. 44 (1979), pp. 563–565.Google Scholar
[SRK]Solovay, R., Reinhardt, W. and Kanamori, A., Strong axioms of infinity and elementary emheddings, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 13 (1978), pp. 73–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[St]Steel, John, Large cardinals and well orders, handwritten notes.Google Scholar