Log in

Forcing level by level equivalence and a consequence of UA

  • Published:
Bollettino dell'Unione Matematica Italiana Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We show how Hamkins’ Gap Forcing Theorem of Hamkins (Israel J Math 125:237–252, 2001, Bull Symb Logic 5: 264–272, 1999) can be used to give an alternate construction of models for the level by level equivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness when forcing over models of ZFC containing one supercompact cardinal in which no cardinal is supercompact up to a measurable cardinal. As an application of our methods, we also show that starting from such a model V which in addition satisfies Goldberg’s Ultrapower Axiom UA, it is possible to force and construct a model M with a supercompact cardinal \(\kappa \) satisfying level by level equivalence having certain additional properties. In particular, in M, no cardinal is supercompact up to a measurable cardinal. there is a stationary subset of measurable cardinals \(A \subseteq \kappa \) such that for every \(\delta \in A\), \((o(\delta ))^V < \delta ^{++}\), \((o(\delta ))^V = (o(\delta ))^M\), and the Mitchell ordering of normal measures over \(\delta \) is linear. M can contain inaccessible and Mahlo cardinals above \(\kappa \). It is currently unknown whether a model of ZFC with a supercompact cardinal and M’s properties can also satisfy UA.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. If \(\alpha = \kappa \), then \({\dot{{{\mathbb {R}}}}}\) is a term for trivial forcing.

  2. Since \(V \vDash \textrm{UA}\), by [5,6,7], each \({{\mathcal {U}}}_\alpha \) is uniquely defined, and \(\textbf{U}\) enumerates all of the normal measures over \(\kappa \) present in V.

  3. Note that what we refer to as \({<} \gamma \)-strategically closed, [4] refers to as \(\gamma \)-strategically closed.

References

  1. Apter, A.: Inaccessible cardinals, failures of GCH, and level by level equivalence. Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 55, 431–444 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Apter, A.: Some structural results concerning supercompact cardinals. J. Symb. Logic 66, 1919–1927 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Apter, A., Shelah, S.: On the strong equality between supercompactness and strong compactness. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 349, 103–128 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Gitik, M., Kaplan, E.: On restrictions of ultrafilters from generic extensions to ground models. J. Symb. Logic 88, 169–190 (2023)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Goldberg, G.: The linearity of the Mitchell order. J. Math. Logic 18, 1850005, p. 17 (2018)

  6. Goldberg, G.: The Ultrapower Axiom. Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University, p. 423 (2019)

  7. Goldberg, G.: The Ultrapower Axiom. De Gruyter Series in Logic and its Applications 10, p. 323, De Gruyter, Berlin (2022)

  8. Hamkins, J.D.: Gap forcing. Israel J. Math. 125, 237–252 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Hamkins, J.D.: Gap forcing: generalizing the Lévy–Solovay theorem. Bull. Symb. Logic 5, 264–272 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jech, T.: Set Theory. The Third Millennium Edition, Revised and Expanded. Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York (2003)

  11. Kimchi, Y., Magidor, M.: The independence between the concepts of compactness and supercompactness. Circulated manuscript (1980)

  12. Kunen, K.: Set Theory. An Introduction to Independence Proofs. In: Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics 102, p. 313. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam and New York, (1980)

  13. Menas, T.: On strong compactness and supercompactness. Ann. Math. Logic 7, 327–359 (1974)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Mitchell, W.: Sets constructible from sequences of ultrafilters. J. Symb. Logic 39, 57–66 (1974)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Solovay, R., Reinhardt, W., Kanamori, A.: Strong axioms of infinity and elementary embeddings. Ann. Math. Logic 13, 73–116 (1978)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank the referee for helpful suggestions and corrections which have been incorporated into the current version of the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arthur W. Apter.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Apter, A.W. Forcing level by level equivalence and a consequence of UA. Boll Unione Mat Ital (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40574-024-00419-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40574-024-00419-6

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification

Navigation