Implications between strong large cardinal axioms

Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 90 (1-3):79-90 (1997)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The rank-into-rank and stronger large cardinal axioms assert the existence of certain elementary embeddings. By the preservation of the large cardinal properties of the embeddings under certain operations, strong implications between various of these axioms are derived

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1016/s0168-0072(97)00031-6

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,322

External links

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

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Incompatible Ω-Complete Theories.Peter Koellner & W. Hugh Woodin - 2009 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 74 (4):1155 - 1170.
Laver sequences for extendible and super-almost-huge cardinals.Paul Corazza - 1999 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 64 (3):963-983.
Inner models with large cardinal features usually obtained by forcing.Arthur W. Apter, Victoria Gitman & Joel David Hamkins - 2012 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 51 (3-4):257-283.
Strong Cardinals can be Fully Laver Indestructible.Arthur W. Apter - 2002 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 48 (4):499-507.
Ramsey-like cardinals.Victoria Gitman - 2011 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 76 (2):519 - 540.
Equational Boolean relation theory.Harvey Friedman - manuscript
Indestructibility, instances of strong compactness, and level by level inequivalence.Arthur W. Apter - 2010 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 49 (7-8):725-741.
Finite trees and the necessary use of large cardinals.Harvey Friedman - manuscript
Characterizing strong compactness via strongness.Arthur W. Apter - 2003 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 49 (4):375.
An equiconsistency for universal indestructibility.Arthur W. Apter & Grigor Sargsyan - 2010 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 75 (1):314-322.
Indestructibility and the level-by-level agreement between strong compactness and supercompactness.Arthur W. Apter & Joel David Hamkins - 2002 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 67 (2):820-840.
Tallness and level by level equivalence and inequivalence.Arthur W. Apter - 2010 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 56 (1):4-12.
Failure of GCH and the level by level equivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness.Arthur W. Apter - 2003 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 49 (6):587.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-01-16

Downloads
18 (#803,961)

6 months
5 (#632,353)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

C(n)-cardinals.Joan Bagaria - 2012 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 51 (3-4):213-240.
Diagonal Prikry extensions.James Cummings & Matthew Foreman - 2010 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 75 (4):1383-1402.
Rank-into-rank hypotheses and the failure of GCH.Vincenzo Dimonte & Sy-David Friedman - 2014 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 53 (3-4):351-366.
Inverse limit reflection and the structure of L.Scott S. Cramer - 2015 - Journal of Mathematical Logic 15 (1):1550001.

View all 12 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Strong axioms of infinity and elementary embeddings.Robert M. Solovay - 1978 - Annals of Mathematical Logic 13 (1):73.
Elementary embeddings and infinitary combinatorics.Kenneth Kunen - 1971 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 36 (3):407-413.
The well-foundedness of the Mitchell order.J. R. Steel - 1993 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 58 (3):931-940.
Critical points in an algebra of elementary embeddings.Randall Dougherty - 1993 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 65 (3):211-241.

View all 6 references / Add more references