Difference between revisions of "Remarkable"

From Cantor's Attic
Jump to: navigation, search
(start)
(Weakly remarkable cardinals: Baumgartner definition)
Line 37: Line 37:
 
A cardinal is remarkable iff it is weakly remarkable and $Σ_2$-reflecting.
 
A cardinal is remarkable iff it is weakly remarkable and $Σ_2$-reflecting.
  
The existence of non-remarkable weakly remarkable cardinals is equiconsistent to the existence of [[Erdos|$ω$-Erdős]] cardinal (equivalent assuming $V=L$):
+
The existence of non-remarkable weakly remarkable cardinals is equiconsistent to the existence of an [[Erdos|$ω$-Erdős]] cardinal (equivalent assuming $V=L$; Baumgartner definition of $ω$-Erdős cardinals):
 
* Every $ω$-Erdős cardinal is a limit of non-remarkable weakly remarkable cardinals.
 
* Every $ω$-Erdős cardinal is a limit of non-remarkable weakly remarkable cardinals.
 
* If $κ$ is a non-remarkable weakly remarkable cardinal, then some ordinal greater than $κ$ is an $ω$-Erdős cardinal in $L$.
 
* If $κ$ is a non-remarkable weakly remarkable cardinal, then some ordinal greater than $κ$ is an $ω$-Erdős cardinal in $L$.

Revision as of 12:36, 11 September 2019

Remarkable cardinals were introduced by Schinder in [1] to provide precise consistency strength of the statement that $L(\mathbb R)$ cannot be modified by proper forcing.

Definitions

A cardinal $\kappa$ is remarkable if for each regular $\lambda>\kappa$, there exists a countable transitive $M$ and an elementary embedding $e:M\rightarrow H_\lambda$ with $\kappa\in \text{ran}(e)$ and also a countable transitive $N$ and an elementary embedding $\theta:M\to N$ such that:

  • the critical point of $\theta$ is $e^{-1}(\kappa)$,
  • $\text{Ord}^M$ is a regular cardinal in $N$,
  • $M=H^N_{\text{Ord}^M}$,
  • $\theta(e^{-1}(\kappa))>\text{Ord}^M$.

Remarkable cardinals could be called virtually supercompact, because the following alternative definition is an exact analogue of the definition of supercompact cardinals by Magidor [Mag71]:

A cardinal $κ$ is remarkable iff for every $η > κ$, there is $α < κ$ such that in a set-forcing extension there is an elementary embedding $j : V_α → V_η$ with $j(\mathrm{crit}(j)) = κ$.[2]

Equivalently (theorem 2.4[3])

  • For every $η > κ$ and every $a ∈ V_η$, there is $α < κ$ such that in $V^{Coll(ω,<κ)}$ there is an elementary embedding $j : V_α → V_η$ with $j(crit(j)) = κ$ and $a ∈ range(j)$.
  • For every $η > κ$ in $C^{(1)}$ and every $a ∈ V_η$, there is $α < κ$ also in $C^{(1)}$ such that in $V^{Coll(ω,<κ)}$ there is an elementary embedding $j : V_α → V_η$ with $j(crit(j)) = κ$ and $a ∈ range(j)$.
  • There is a proper class of $η > κ$ such that for every $η$ in the class, there is $α < κ$ such that in $V^{Coll(ω,<κ)}$ there is an elementary embedding $j : V_α → V_η$ with $j(crit(j)) = κ$

Remarkable cardinals and the constructible universe

  • Remarkable cardinals are downward absolute to $L$. [1]
  • If $0^\sharp$ exists, then every Silver indiscernible is remarkable in $L$. [1]

Relations with other large cardinals

  • Strong cardinals are remarkable. [1]
  • A $2$-iterable cardinal implies the consistency of a remarkable cardinal. [4]
  • Remarkable cardinals imply the consistency of $1$-iterable cardinals. [4]
  • Remarkable cardinals are totally indescribable. [1]
  • Remarkable cardinals are totally ineffable. [1]
  • Virtually extendible cardinals are remarkable limits of remarkable cardinals.[2]
  • If $κ$ is virtually measurable, then either $κ$ is remarkable in $L$ or $L_κ \models \text{“there is a proper class of virtually measurables”}$.[5]
  • Remarkable cardinals are strategic $ω$-Ramsey limits of $ω$-Ramsey cardinals.[5]
  • Remarkable cardinals are $Σ_2$-reflecting.[6]

Weakly remarkable cardinals

A cardinal $κ$ is weakly remarkable iff for every $η > κ$, there is $α$ such that in a set-forcing extension there is an elementary embedding $j : V_α → V_η$ with $j(\mathrm{crit}(j)) = κ$. (the condition $α < κ$ is dropped)

A cardinal is remarkable iff it is weakly remarkable and $Σ_2$-reflecting.

The existence of non-remarkable weakly remarkable cardinals is equiconsistent to the existence of an $ω$-Erdős cardinal (equivalent assuming $V=L$; Baumgartner definition of $ω$-Erdős cardinals):

  • Every $ω$-Erdős cardinal is a limit of non-remarkable weakly remarkable cardinals.
  • If $κ$ is a non-remarkable weakly remarkable cardinal, then some ordinal greater than $κ$ is an $ω$-Erdős cardinal in $L$.

(this section from [6])

References

  1. Schindler, Ralf-Dieter. Proper forcing and remarkable cardinals. Bull Symbolic Logic 6(2):176--184, 2000. www   DOI   MR   bibtex
  2. Gitman, Victoria and Shindler, Ralf. Virtual large cardinals. www   bibtex
  3. 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
  4. Gitman, Victoria and Welch, Philip. Ramsey-like cardinals II. J Symbolic Logic 76(2):541--560, 2011. www   arχiv   MR   bibtex
  5. Nielsen, Dan Saattrup and Welch, Philip. Games and Ramsey-like cardinals. , 2018. arχiv   bibtex
  6. Wilson, Trevor M. Weakly remarkable cardinals, Erdős cardinals, and the generic Vopěnka principle. , 2018. arχiv   bibtex
Main library