Difference between revisions of "Extendible"

From Cantor's Attic
Jump to: navigation, search
(Virtually extendible cardinals: <cite>GitmanHamkins2018:GenericVopenkaPrincipleNotMahlo</cite>)
(Virtually extendible cardinals: merged)
Line 76: Line 76:
  
 
=== Virtually extendible cardinals ===
 
=== Virtually extendible cardinals ===
(Information in this subsection from <cite>GitmanSchindler:VirtualLargeCardinals</cite>)
 
  
A cardinal $κ$ is '''virtually extendible''' iff for every $α > κ$, in a set-forcing extension there is an elementary embedding $j : V_α → V_β$ with $\mathrm{crit(j)} = κ$ and $j(κ) > α$.
+
Definitions:
 +
* A cardinal $κ$ is (weakly? strongly? ......) '''virtually extendible''' iff for every $α > κ$, in a set-forcing extension there is an elementary embedding $j : V_α → V_β$ with $\mathrm{crit(j)} = κ$ and $j(κ) > α$.
 +
** '''$C^{(n)}$-virtually extendible''' cardinals require additionaly that $j(κ)$ has property $C^{(n)}$ (i.e. $\Sigma_n$-[[correct|correctness]]).<cite>GitmanSchindler:VirtualLargeCardinals</cite>
 +
* A cardinal $κ$ is '''(weakly) virtually $A$-extendible''', for a class $A$, iff for every ordinal $λ > κ$ there is an ordinal $θ$ such that in a set-forcing extension, there is an elementary embedding
 +
*: $j : \langle V_λ , ∈, A ∩ V_λ \rangle → \langle V_θ , ∈, A ∩ V_θ \rangle$
 +
*: with critical point $κ$.
 +
** For '''(strongly) virtually $A$-extendible''' $κ$, we require additionally $λ < j(κ)$.<cite>GitmanHamkins2018:GenericVopenkaPrincipleNotMahlo</cite>
 +
* A cardinal $κ$ is '''$n$-[[remarkable]]''', for $n > 0$, iff for every $η > κ$ in [[correct|$C^{(n)}$]] , there is $α<κ$ also in $C^{(n)}$ such that in $V^{Coll(ω, < κ)}$, there is an elementary embedding $j : V_α → V_η$ with $j(\mathrm{crit}(j)) = κ$.
 +
** A cardinal is '''completely remarkable''' iff it is $n$-remarkable for all $n > 0$.<cite>BagariaGitmanSchindler2017:VopenkaPrinciple</cite>
  
'''$C^{(n)}$-virtually extendible''' cardinals require additionaly that $j(κ)$ has property $C^{(n)}$ (i.e. $\Sigma_n$-[[correct|correctness]]).
+
Equivalence and hierarchy:
 +
* $1$-remarkability is equivalent to remarkability. A cardinal is virtually $C^{(n)}$-extendible iff it is $n + 1$-remarkable (virtually extendible cardinals are virtually $C^{(1)}$-extendible).<cite>BagariaGitmanSchindler2017:VopenkaPrinciple</cite>
 +
* Weakly and strongly $A$-extendible cardinal are non-equivalent, although in the non-virtual context, the weak and strong forms of $A$-extendibility coincide.<cite>GitmanHamkins2018:GenericVopenkaPrincipleNotMahlo</cite>
 +
* It is relatively consistent with GBC that every class $A$ admits a (weakly) virtually $A$-extendible cardinal (and so the generic Vopěnka principle holds), but no class $A$ admits a (strongly) virtually $A$-extendible cardinal.<cite>GitmanHamkins2018:GenericVopenkaPrincipleNotMahlo</cite>
 +
* Every $n$-remarkable cardinal is in $C^{(n+1)}$.<cite>BagariaGitmanSchindler2017:VopenkaPrinciple</cite>
 +
* Every $n+1$-remarkable cardinal is a limit of $n$-remarkable cardinals.<cite>BagariaGitmanSchindler2017:VopenkaPrinciple</cite>
  
Virtually extendible cardinals are [[remarkable]] limits of remarkable cardinals and 1-[[iterable]] limits of 1-iterable cardinals.
+
Upper limits for consistency strength:
 +
* If $κ$ is [[Shelah|virtually Shelah for supercompactness]] or 2-iterable, then $V_κ$ is a model of proper class many virtually $C^{(n)}$-extendible cardinals for every $n < ω$.<cite>GitmanSchindler:VirtualLargeCardinals</cite>
 +
* If $κ$ is [[huge|virtually huge*]], then $V_κ$ is a model of proper class many virtually extendible cardinals.<cite>GitmanSchindler:VirtualLargeCardinals</cite>
 +
* Completely remarkable cardinals can exist in $L$ and the consistency of a completely remarkable cardinal follows from a $2$-[[iterable]] cardinal.<cite>BagariaGitmanSchindler2017:VopenkaPrinciple</cite>
  
If $κ$ is [[Shelah|virtually Shelah for supercompactness]] or 2-iterable, then $V_κ$ is a model of proper class many virtually $C^{(n)}$-extendible cardinals for every $n < ω$.
+
Lower limit for consistency strength:
 +
* Virtually extendible cardinals are [[remarkable]] limits of remarkable cardinals and 1-[[iterable]] limits of 1-iterable cardinals.<cite>GitmanSchindler:VirtualLargeCardinals</cite>
  
If $κ$ is [[huge|virtually huge*]], then $V_κ$ is a model of proper class many virtually extendible cardinals.
+
In relation to [[Generic Vopěnka's Principle]]:<cite>BagariaGitmanSchindler2017:VopenkaPrinciple</cite>
 
+
* The following are equiconsistent
(Information in this subsection from <cite>BagariaGitmanSchindler2017:VopenkaPrinciple</cite>)
+
** $gVP(Π_n)$
 
+
** $gVP(κ, \mathbf{Σ_{n+1}})$ for some $κ$
Definition:
+
** There is an $n$-remarkable cardinal.
* A cardinal $κ$ is $n$-[[remarkable]], for $n > 0$, iff for every $η > κ$ in [[correct|$C^{(n)}$]] , there is $α<κ$ also in $C^{(n)}$ such that in $V^{Coll(ω, < κ)}$, there is an elementary embedding $j : V_α → V_η$ with $j(\mathrm{crit}(j)) = κ$.
+
* The following are equiconsistent
* A cardinal is completely remarkable iff it is $n$-remarkable for all $n > 0$.
+
** $gVP(\mathbf{Π_n})$
 
+
** $gVP(κ, \mathbf{Σ_{n+1}})$ for a proper class of $κ$
$1$-remarkability is equivalent to remarkability. A cardinal is virtually $C^{(n)}$-extendible iff it is $n + 1$-remarkable (virtually extendible cardinals are virtually $C^{(1)}$-extendible).
+
** There is a proper class of $n$-remarkable cardinals.
 
+
Results:
+
* Every $n$-remarkable cardinal is in $C^{(n+1)}$.
+
* Every $n+1$-remarkable cardinal is a limit of $n$-remarkable cardinals.
+
* Completely remarkable cardinals can exist in $L$ and the consistency of a completely remarkable cardinal follows from a $2$-[[iterable]] cardinal.
+
* In relation to [[Generic Vopěnka's Principle]]:
+
** The following are equiconsistent
+
*** $gVP(Π_n)$
+
*** $gVP(κ, \mathbf{Σ_{n+1}})$ for some $κ$
+
*** There is an $n$-remarkable cardinal.
+
** The following are equiconsistent
+
*** $gVP(\mathbf{Π_n})$
+
*** $gVP(κ, \mathbf{Σ_{n+1}})$ for a proper class of $κ$
+
*** There is a proper class of $n$-remarkable cardinals.
+
......
+
Weakly and strongly $A$-extendible cardinal (i.e. ......) are non-equivalent, although in the non-virtual context, the weak and strong forms of $A$-extendibility coincide.<cite>GitmanHamkins2018:GenericVopenkaPrincipleNotMahlo</cite>
+
 
+
It is relatively consistent with GBC that every class $A$ admits a (weakly) virtually $A$-extendible cardinal (and so the generic Vopěnka principle holds), but no class $A$ admits a (strongly) virtually $A$-extendible cardinal.<cite>GitmanHamkins2018:GenericVopenkaPrincipleNotMahlo</cite>
+
  
 
......
 
......

Revision as of 12:08, 22 September 2019

A cardinal $\kappa$ is $\eta$-extendible for an ordinal $\eta$ if and only if there is an elementary embedding $j:V_{\kappa+\eta}\to V_\theta$, with critical point $\kappa$, for some ordinal $\theta$. The cardinal $\kappa$ is extendible if and only if it is $\eta$-extendible for every ordinal $\eta$. Equivalently, for every ordinal $\alpha$ there is a nontrivial elementary embedding $j:V_{\kappa+\alpha+1}\to V_{j(\kappa)+j(\alpha)+1}$ with critical point $\kappa$.

Alternative definition

Given cardinals $\lambda$ and $\theta$, a cardinal $\kappa\leq\lambda,\theta$ is jointly $\lambda$-supercompact and $\theta$-superstrong if there exists a nontrivial elementary embedding $j:V\to M$ for some transitive class $M$ such that $\mathrm{crit}(j)=\kappa$, $\lambda<j(\kappa)$, $M^\lambda\subseteq M$ and $V_{j(\theta)}\subseteq M$. That is, a single embedding witnesses both $\lambda$-supercompactness and (a strengthening of) superstrongness of $\kappa$. The least supercompact is never jointly $\lambda$-supercompact and $\theta$-superstrong for any $\lambda$,$\theta\geq\kappa$.

A cardinal is extendible if and only if it is jointly supercompact and $\kappa$-superstrong, i.e. for every $\lambda\geq\kappa$ it is jointly $\lambda$-supercompact and $\kappa$-superstrong. [1] One can show that extendibility of $\kappa$ is in fact equivalent to "for all $\lambda$,$\theta\geq\kappa$, $\kappa$ is jointly $\lambda$-supercompact and $\theta$-superstrong". A similar characterization of $C^{(n)}$-extendible cardinals exists.

The ultrahuge cardinals are defined in a way very similar to this, and one can (very informally) say that "ultrahuge cardinals are to superhuges what extendibles are to supercompacts". These cardinals are superhuge (and stationary limits of superhuges) and strictly below almost 2-huges in consistency strength.

To be expanded: Extendibility Laver Functions, $C^{(n)}$-extendibility

Relation to Other Large Cardinals

Extendible cardinals are related to various kinds of measurable cardinals.

Hyper-huge cardinals are extendible limits of extendible cardinals.[1]

Supercompactness

Extendibility is connected in strength with supercompactness. Every extendible cardinal is supercompact, since from the embeddings $j:V_\lambda\to V_\theta$ we may extract the induced supercompactness measures $X\in\mu\iff j''\delta\in j(X)$ for $X\subset \mathcal{P}_\kappa(\delta)$, provided that $j(\kappa)\gt\delta$ and $\mathcal{P}_\kappa(\delta)\subset V_\lambda$, which one can arrange. On the other hand, if $\kappa$ is $\theta$-supercompact, witnessed by $j:V\to M$, then $\kappa$ is $\delta$-extendible inside $M$, provided $\beth_\delta\leq\theta$, since the restricted elementary embedding $j\upharpoonright V_\delta:V_\delta\to j(V_\delta)=M_{j(\delta)}$ has size at most $\theta$ and is therefore in $M$, witnessing $\delta$-extendibility there.

Although extendibility itself is stronger and larger than supercompactness, $\eta$-supercompacteness is not necessarily too much weaker than $\eta$-extendibility. For example, if a cardinal $\kappa$ is $\beth_{\eta}(\kappa)$-supercompact (in this case, the same as $\beth_{\kappa+\eta}$-supercompact) for some $\eta<\kappa$, then there is a normal measure $U$ over $\kappa$ such that $\{\lambda<\kappa:\lambda\text{ is }\eta\text{-extendible}\}\in U$.

Strong Compactness

Interestingly, extendibility is also related to strong compactness. A cardinal $\kappa$ is strongly compact iff the infinitary language $\mathcal{L}_{\kappa,\kappa}$ has the $\kappa$-compactness property. A cardinal $\kappa$ is extendible iff the infinitary language $\mathcal{L}_{\kappa,\kappa}^n$ (the infinitary language but with $(n+1)$-th order logic) has the $\kappa$-compactness property for every natural number $n$. [2]

Given a logic $\mathcal{L}$, the minimum cardinal $\kappa$ such that $\mathcal{L}$ satisfies the $\kappa$-compactness theorem is called the strong compactness cardinal of $\mathcal{L}$. The strong compactness cardinal of $\omega$-th order finitary logic (that is, the union of all $\mathcal{L}_{\omega,\omega}^n$ for natural $n$) is the least extendible cardinal.

Variants

$C^{(n)}$-extendible cardinals

(Information in this subsection from [3])

A cardinal $κ$ is called $C^{(n)}$-extendible if for all $λ > κ$ it is $λ$-$C^{(n)}$-extendible, i.e. if there is an ordinal $µ$ and an elementary embedding $j : V_λ → V_µ$, with $\mathrm{crit(j)} = κ$, $j(κ) > λ$ and $j(κ) ∈ C^{(n)}$.

For $λ ∈ C^{(n)}$, a cardinal $κ$ is $λ$-$C^{(n)+}$-extendible iff it is $λ$-$C^{(n)}$-extendible, witnessed by some $j : V_λ → V_µ$ which (besides $j(κ) > λ$ and $j(κ) ∈ C(n)$) satisfies that $µ ∈ C^{(n)}$.

$κ$ is $C^{(n)+}$-extendible iff it is $λ$-$C^{(n)+}$-extendible for every $λ > κ$ such that $λ ∈ C^{(n)}$.

Properties:

  • There exists a $C^{(n)}$-extendible cardinal if and only if there exists a $C^{(n)+}$-extendible cardinal.
  • Every extendible cardinal is $C^{(1)}$-extendible and $C^{(1)+}$-extendible.
  • If $κ$ is $C^{(n)}$-extendible, then $κ ∈ C^{(n+2)}$.
  • For every $n ≥ 1$, if $κ$ is $C^{(n)}$-extendible and $κ+1$-$C^{(n+1)}$-extendible, then the set of $C^{(n)}$-extendible cardinals is unbounded below $κ$.
    • Hence, the first $C^{(n)}$-extendible cardinal $κ$, if it exists, is not $κ+1$-$C^{(n+1)}$-extendible.
    • In particular, the first extendible cardinal $κ$ is not $κ+1$-$C^{(2)}$-extendible.
  • For every $n$, if there exists a $C^{(n+2)}$-extendible cardinal, then there exist a proper class of $C^{(n)}$-extendible cardinals.
  • The existence of a $C^{(n+1)}$-extendible cardinal $κ$ (for $n ≥ 1$) does not imply the existence of a $C^{(n)}$-extendible cardinal greater than $κ$. For if $λ$ is such a cardinal, then $V_λ \models$“κ is $C^{(n+1)}$-extendible”.
  • If $κ$ is $κ+1$-$C^{(n)}$-extendible and belongs to $C^{(n)}$, then $κ$ is $C^{(n)}$-superstrong and there is a $κ$-complete normal ultrafilter $U$ over $κ$ such that the set of $C^{(n)}$-superstrong cardinals smaller than $κ$ belongs to $U$.
  • For $n ≥ 1$, the following are equivalent ($VP$ — Vopěnka's principle):
    • $VP(Π_{n+1})$
    • $VP(κ, \mathbf{Σ_{n+2}})$ for some $κ$
    • There exists a $C(n)$-extendible cardinal.
  • “For every $n$ there exists a $C(n)$-extendible cardinal.” is equivalent to the full Vopěnka's principle.
  • Assuming $\mathrm{I3}(κ, δ)$, if $δ$ is a limit cardinal (instead of a successor of a limit cardinal – Kunen’s Theorem excludes other cases), it is equal to $sup\{j^m(κ) : m ∈ ω\}$ where $j$ is the elementary embedding. Then $κ$ and $j^m(κ)$ are $C^{(n)}$-extendible (inter alia) in $V_δ$, for all $n$ and $m$.

$(\Sigma_n,\eta)$-extendible cardinals

There are some variants of extendible cardinals because of the interesting jump in consistency strength from $0$-extendible cardinals to $1$-extendibles. These variants specify the elementarity of the embedding.

A cardinal $\kappa$ is $(\Sigma_n,\eta)$-extendible, if there is a $\Sigma_n$-elementary embedding $j:V_{\kappa+\eta}\to V_\theta$ with critical point $\kappa$, for some ordinal $\theta$. These cardinals were introduced by Bagaria, Hamkins, Tsaprounis and Usuba [4].

$\Sigma_n$-extendible cardinals

The special case of $\eta=0$ leads to a much weaker notion. Specifically, a cardinal $\kappa$ is $\Sigma_n$-extendible if it is $(\Sigma_n,0)$-extendible, or more simply, if $V_\kappa\prec_{\Sigma_n} V_\theta$ for some ordinal $\theta$. Note that this does not necessarily imply that $\kappa$ is inaccessible, and indeed the existence of $\Sigma_n$-extendible cardinals is provable in ZFC via the reflection theorem. For example, every $\Sigma_n$ correct cardinal is $\Sigma_n$-extendible, since from $V_\kappa\prec_{\Sigma_n} V$ and $V_\lambda\prec_{\Sigma_n} V$, where $\kappa\lt\lambda$, it follows that $V_\kappa\prec_{\Sigma_n} V_\lambda$. So in fact there is a closed unbounded class of $\Sigma_n$-extendible cardinals.

Similarly, every Mahlo cardinal $\kappa$ has a stationary set of inaccessible $\Sigma_n$-extendible cardinals $\gamma<\kappa$.

$\Sigma_3$-extendible cardinals cannot be Laver indestructible. Therefore $\Sigma_3$-correct, $\Sigma_3$-reflecting, $0$-extendible, (pseudo-)uplifting, weakly superstrong, strongly uplifting, superstrong, extendible, (almost) huge or rank-into-rank cardinals also cannot.[4]

Virtually extendible cardinals

Definitions:

  • A cardinal $κ$ is (weakly? strongly? ......) virtually extendible iff for every $α > κ$, in a set-forcing extension there is an elementary embedding $j : V_α → V_β$ with $\mathrm{crit(j)} = κ$ and $j(κ) > α$.
    • $C^{(n)}$-virtually extendible cardinals require additionaly that $j(κ)$ has property $C^{(n)}$ (i.e. $\Sigma_n$-correctness).[5]
  • A cardinal $κ$ is (weakly) virtually $A$-extendible, for a class $A$, iff for every ordinal $λ > κ$ there is an ordinal $θ$ such that in a set-forcing extension, there is an elementary embedding
    $j : \langle V_λ , ∈, A ∩ V_λ \rangle → \langle V_θ , ∈, A ∩ V_θ \rangle$
    with critical point $κ$.
    • For (strongly) virtually $A$-extendible $κ$, we require additionally $λ < j(κ)$.[6]
  • A cardinal $κ$ is $n$-remarkable, for $n > 0$, iff for every $η > κ$ in $C^{(n)}$ , there is $α<κ$ also in $C^{(n)}$ such that in $V^{Coll(ω, < κ)}$, there is an elementary embedding $j : V_α → V_η$ with $j(\mathrm{crit}(j)) = κ$.
    • A cardinal is completely remarkable iff it is $n$-remarkable for all $n > 0$.[7]

Equivalence and hierarchy:

  • $1$-remarkability is equivalent to remarkability. A cardinal is virtually $C^{(n)}$-extendible iff it is $n + 1$-remarkable (virtually extendible cardinals are virtually $C^{(1)}$-extendible).[7]
  • Weakly and strongly $A$-extendible cardinal are non-equivalent, although in the non-virtual context, the weak and strong forms of $A$-extendibility coincide.[6]
  • It is relatively consistent with GBC that every class $A$ admits a (weakly) virtually $A$-extendible cardinal (and so the generic Vopěnka principle holds), but no class $A$ admits a (strongly) virtually $A$-extendible cardinal.[6]
  • Every $n$-remarkable cardinal is in $C^{(n+1)}$.[7]
  • Every $n+1$-remarkable cardinal is a limit of $n$-remarkable cardinals.[7]

Upper limits for consistency strength:

  • If $κ$ is virtually Shelah for supercompactness or 2-iterable, then $V_κ$ is a model of proper class many virtually $C^{(n)}$-extendible cardinals for every $n < ω$.[5]
  • If $κ$ is virtually huge*, then $V_κ$ is a model of proper class many virtually extendible cardinals.[5]
  • Completely remarkable cardinals can exist in $L$ and the consistency of a completely remarkable cardinal follows from a $2$-iterable cardinal.[7]

Lower limit for consistency strength:

  • Virtually extendible cardinals are remarkable limits of remarkable cardinals and 1-iterable limits of 1-iterable cardinals.[5]

In relation to Generic Vopěnka's Principle:[7]

  • The following are equiconsistent
    • $gVP(Π_n)$
    • $gVP(κ, \mathbf{Σ_{n+1}})$ for some $κ$
    • There is an $n$-remarkable cardinal.
  • The following are equiconsistent
    • $gVP(\mathbf{Π_n})$
    • $gVP(κ, \mathbf{Σ_{n+1}})$ for a proper class of $κ$
    • There is a proper class of $n$-remarkable cardinals.

......

In set-theoretic geology

If $κ$ is extendible then the $κ$-mantle of $V$ is its smallest ground (so of course the mantle is a ground of V).[1]


    This article is a stub. Please help us to improve Cantor's Attic by adding information.

References

  1. Usuba, Toshimichi. Extendible cardinals and the mantle. Archive for Mathematical Logic 58(1-2):71-75, 2019. arχiv   DOI   bibtex
  2. Kanamori, Akihiro. The higher infinite. Second, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2009. (Large cardinals in set theory from their beginnings, Paperback reprint of the 2003 edition) www   bibtex
  3. Bagaria, Joan. $C^{(n)}$-cardinals. Archive for Mathematical Logic 51(3--4):213--240, 2012. www   DOI   bibtex
  4. Bagaria, Joan and Hamkins, Joel David and Tsaprounis, Konstantinos and Usuba, Toshimichi. Superstrong and other large cardinals are never Laver indestructible. Archive for Mathematical Logic 55(1-2):19--35, 2013. www   arχiv   DOI   bibtex
  5. Gitman, Victoria and Shindler, Ralf. Virtual large cardinals. www   bibtex
  6. Gitman, Victoria and Hamkins, Joel David. A model of the generic Vopěnka principle in which the ordinals are not Mahlo. , 2018. arχiv   bibtex
  7. Bagaria, Joan and Gitman, Victoria and Schindler, Ralf. Generic {V}opěnka's {P}rinciple, remarkable cardinals, and the weak {P}roper {F}orcing {A}xiom. Arch Math Logic 56(1-2):1--20, 2017. www   DOI   MR   bibtex
Main library