Destruction or preservation as you like it

Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 91 (2-3):191-229 (1998)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

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

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,783

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Spinoza on self-preservation and self-destruction.Mitchell Gabhart - 1999 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 37 (4):613-628.
Economic incentives for tropical forest preservation: Why and how?Martin T. Katzman & William G. Cale - 1988 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 1 (4):257-273.
Utilitarianism and Preservation.Eric Katz - 1979 - Environmental Ethics 1 (4):357-364.
Spinozistic Self-Preservation.Andrew Youpa - 2003 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 41 (3):477-490.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-01-16

Downloads
61 (#262,945)

6 months
14 (#176,812)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Joel David Hamkins
Oxford University

Citations of this work

The lottery preparation.Joel David Hamkins - 2000 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 101 (2-3):103-146.
Gap forcing: Generalizing the lévy-Solovay theorem.Joel David Hamkins - 1999 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 5 (2):264-272.
Tall cardinals.Joel D. Hamkins - 2009 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 55 (1):68-86.
Identity crises and strong compactness.Arthur W. Apter & James Cummings - 2000 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 65 (4):1895-1910.

View all 18 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Small forcing makes any cardinal superdestructible.Joel David Hamkins - 1998 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 63 (1):51-58.
Fragile measurability.Joel Hamkins - 1994 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 59 (1):262-282.
On the Singular Cardinals problem.Jack Silver, Fred Galvin, Keith J. Devlin & R. B. Jensen - 1981 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 46 (4):864-866.
Canonical seeds and Prikry trees.Joel David Hamkins - 1997 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 62 (2):373-396.

View all 6 references / Add more references