I analyze the hierarchy of large cardinals between a supercompact cardinal and an almost-huge cardinal. Many of these cardinals are defined by modifying the definition of a high-jump cardinal. A high-jump cardinal is defined as the critical point of an elementary embedding j:V→M\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${j: V \to M}$$\end{document} such that M is closed under sequences of length sup{j|f:κ→κ}\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\sup\{{j\,|\,f: \kappa \to \kappa}\}}$$\end{document}. Some of the other (...) cardinals analyzed include the super-high-jump cardinals, almost-high-jump cardinals, Shelah-for-supercompactness cardinals, Woodin-for-supercompactness cardinals, Vopěnka cardinals, hypercompact cardinals, and enhanced supercompact cardinals. I organize these cardinals in terms of consistency strength and implicational strength. I also analyze the superstrong cardinals, which are weaker than supercompact cardinals but are related to high-jump cardinals. Among the results, I highlight the following. Vopěnka cardinals are the same as Woodin-for-supercompactness cardinals.There are no excessively hypercompact cardinals.Furthermore, I prove some results relating high-jump cardinals to forcing, as well as analyzing Laver functions for super-high-jump cardinals. (shrink)

We provide a model theoretical and tree property-like characterization of $\lambda $ - $\Pi ^1_1$ -subcompactness and supercompactness. We explore the behavior of these combinatorial principles at accessible cardinals.

The lottery preparation, a new general kind of Laver preparation, works uniformly with supercompact cardinals, strongly compact cardinals, strong cardinals, measurable cardinals, or what have you. And like the Laver preparation, the lottery preparation makes these cardinals indestructible by various kinds of further forcing. A supercompact cardinal κ, for example, becomes fully indestructible by <κ-directed closed forcing; a strong cardinal κ becomes indestructible by κ-strategically closed forcing; and a strongly compact cardinal κ becomes indestructible by, among others, the forcing to (...) add a Cohen subset to κ, the forcing to shoot a club Cκ avoiding the measurable cardinals and the forcing to add various long Prikry sequences. The lottery preparation works best when performed after fast function forcing, which adds a new completely general kind of Laver function for any large cardinal, thereby freeing the Laver function concept from the supercompact cardinal context. (shrink)

The Gap Forcing Theorem, a key contribution of this paper, implies essentially that after any reverse Easton iteration of closed forcing, such as the Laver preparation, every supercompactness measure on a supercompact cardinal extends a measure from the ground model. Thus, such forcing can create no new supercompact cardinals, and, if the GCH holds, neither can it increase the degree of supercompactness of any cardinal; in particular, it can create no new measurable cardinals. In a crescendo of what I call (...) exact preservation theorems, I use this new technology to perform a kind of partial Laver preparation, and thereby finely control the class of posets which preserve a supercompact cardinal. Eventually, I prove the ‘As You Like It’ Theorem, which asserts that the class of κ -directed closed posets which preserve a supercompact cardinal κ can be made by forcing to conform with any pre-selected local definition which respects the equivalence of forcing. Along the way I separate completely the levels of the superdestructibility hierarchy, and, in an epilogue, prove that the notions of fragility and superdestructibility are orthogonal — all four combinations are possible. (shrink)

We show that the theory, consisting of the usual axioms of but with the power set axiom removed—specifically axiomatized by extensionality, foundation, pairing, union, infinity, separation, replacement and the assertion that every set can be well‐ordered—is weaker than commonly supposed and is inadequate to establish several basic facts often desired in its context. For example, there are models of in which ω1 is singular, in which every set of reals is countable, yet ω1 exists, in which there are sets of (...) reals of every size, but none of size, and therefore, in which the collection axiom fails; there are models of for which the Łoś theorem fails, even when the ultrapower is well‐founded and the measure exists inside the model; there are models of for which the Gaifman theorem fails, in that there is an embedding of models that is Σ1‐elementary and cofinal, but not elementary; there are elementary embeddings of models whose cofinal restriction is not elementary. Moreover, the collection of formulas that are provably equivalent in to a Σ1‐formula or a Π1‐formula is not closed under bounded quantification. Nevertheless, these deficits of are completely repaired by strengthening it to the theory, obtained by using collection rather than replacement in the axiomatization above. These results extend prior work of Zarach. (shrink)

We suggest a new approach for addressing the problem of establishing an axiomatic foundation for large cardinals. An axiom asserting the existence of a large cardinal can naturally be viewed as a strong Axiom of Infinity. However, it has not been clear on the basis of our knowledge of ω itself, or of generally agreed upon intuitions about the true nature of the mathematical universe, what the right strengthening of the Axiom of Infinity is—which large cardinals ought to be derivable? (...) It was shown in the 1960s by Lawvere that the existence of an infinite set is equivalent to the existence of a certain kind of structure-preserving transformation from V to itself, not isomorphic to the identity. We use Lawvere's transformation, rather than ω, as a starting point for a reasonably natural sequence of strengthenings and refinements, leading to a proposed strong Axiom of Infinity. A first refinement was discussed in later work by Trnková—Blass, showing that if the preservation properties of Lawvere's tranformation are strengthened to the point of requiring it to be an exact functor , such a transformation is provably equivalent to the existence of a measurable cardinal. We propose to push the preservation properties as far as possible, short of inconsistency. The resulting transformation V→V is strong enough to account for virtually all large cardinals, but is at the same time a natural generalization of an assertion about transformations V→V known to be equivalent to the Axiom of Infinity. (shrink)

Under the assumption that δ is a Woodin cardinal and GCH holds, I show that if F is any class function from the regular cardinals to the cardinals such that (1) ${\kappa < {\rm cf}(F(\kappa))}$ , (2) ${\kappa < \lambda}$ implies ${F(\kappa) \leq F(\lambda)}$ , and (3) δ is closed under F, then there is a cofinality-preserving forcing extension in which 2 γ = F(γ) for each regular cardinal γ < δ, and in which δ remains Woodin. Unlike the analogous (...) results for supercompact cardinals [Menas in Trans Am Math Soc 223:61–91, (1976)] and strong cardinals [Friedman and Honzik in Ann Pure Appl Logic 154(3):191–208, (2008)], there is no requirement that the function F be locally definable. I deduce a global version of the above result: Assuming GCH, if F is a function satisfying (1) and (2) above, and C is a class of Woodin cardinals, each of which is closed under F, then there is a cofinality-preserving forcing extension in which 2 γ = F(γ) for all regular cardinals γ and each cardinal in C remains Woodin. (shrink)