# Nonlinearity in the hierarchy of large cardinal consistency strength

This is currently a draft version only of my article-in-progress on the topic of linearity in the hierarchy of consistency strength, especially with large cardinals. Comments are very welcome, since I am still writing the article. Please kindly send me comments by email or just post here.

This article will be the basis of the Weeks 7 & 8 discussion in the Graduate Philosophy of Logic seminar I am currently running with Volker Halbach at Oxford in Hilary term 2021.

I present instances of nonlinearity and illfoundedness in the hierarchy of large cardinal consistency strength—as natural or as nearly natural as I can make them—and consider philosophical aspects of the question of naturality with regard to this phenomenon.

It is a mystery often mentioned in the foundations of mathematics, a fundamental phenomenon to be explained, that our best and strongest mathematical theories seem to be linearly ordered and indeed well-ordered by consistency strength. Given any two of the familiar large cardinal hypotheses, for example, generally one of them will prove the consistency of the other.

Why should it be linear? Why should the large cardinal notions line up like this, when they often arise from completely different mathematical matters? Measurable cardinals arise from set-theoretic issues in measure theory; Ramsey cardinals generalize ideas in graph coloring combinatorics; compact cardinals arise with compactness properties of infinitary logic. Why should these disparate considerations lead to principles that are linearly related by direct implication and consistency strength?

The phenomenon is viewed by many in the philosophy of mathematics as significant in our quest for mathematical truth. In light of Gödel incompleteness, after all, we must eternally seek to strengthen even our best and strongest theories. Is the linear hierarchy of consistency strength directing us along the elusive path, the “one road upward” as John Steel describes it, toward the final, ultimate mathematical truth? That is the tantalizing possibility.

Meanwhile, we do know as a purely formal matter that the hierarchy of consistency strength is not actually well-ordered—it is ill-founded, densely ordered, and nonlinear. The statements usually used to illustrate these features, however, are weird self-referential assertions constructed in the Gödelian manner via the fixed-point lemma—logic-game trickery, often dismissed as unnatural.

Many set theorists claim that amongst the natural assertions, consistency strengths remain linearly ordered and indeed well ordered. H. Friedman refers to “the apparent comparability of naturally occurring logical strengths as one of the great mysteries of [the foundations of mathematics].” Andrés Caicedo says,

It is a remarkable empirical phenomenon that we indeed have comparability for natural theories. We expect this to always be the case, and a significant amount of work in inner model theory is guided by this belief.

Stephen G. Simpson writes:

It is striking that a great many foundational theories are linearly ordered by <. Of course it is possible to construct pairs of artificial theories which are incomparable under <. However, this is not the case for the “natural” or non-artificial theories which are usually regarded as significant in the foundations of mathematics. The problem of explaining this observed regularity is a challenge for future foundational research.

John Steel writes “The large cardinal hypotheses [the ones we know] are themselves wellordered by consistency strength,” and he formulates what he calls the “vague conjecture” asserting that

If T is a natural extension of ZFC, then there is an extension H axiomatized by large cardinal hypotheses such that T ≡ Con H. Moreover, ≤ Con is a prewellorder of the natural extensions of ZFC. In particular, if T and U are natural extensions of ZFC, then either T ≤ Con U or U ≤ Con T.

Peter Koellner writes

Remarkably, it turns out that when one restricts to those theories that “arise in nature” the interpretability ordering is quite simple: There are no descending chains and there are no incomparable elements—the interpretability ordering on theories that “arise in nature” is a wellordering.

Let me refer to this position as the natural linearity position, the assertion that all natural assertions of mathematics are linearly ordered by consistency strength. The strong form of the position, asserted by some of those whom I have cited above, asserts that the natural assertions of mathematics are indeed well-ordered by consistency strength. By all accounts, this view appears to be widely held in large cardinal set theory and the philosophy of set theory.

Despite the popularity of this position, I should like in this article to explore the contrary view and directly to challenge the natural linearity position.

Main Question. Can we find natural instances of nonlinearity and illfoundedness in the hierarchy of consistency strength?

I shall try my best.

You have to download the article to see my candidates for natural instances of nonlinearity in the hierarchy of large cardinal consistency strength, but I can tease you a little by mentioning that there are various cautious enumerations of the ZFC axioms which actually succeed in enumerating all the ZFC axioms, but with a strictly weaker consistency strength than the usual (incautious) enumeration. And similarly there are various cautious versions of the large cardinal hypothesis, which are natural, but also incomparable in consistency strength.

(Please note that it was Uri Andrews, rather than Uri Abraham, who settled question 16 with the result of theorem 17. I have corrected this from an earlier draft.)

# Can there be natural instances of nonlinearity in the hierarchy of consistency strength? UWM Logic Seminar, January 2021

This is a talk for the University of Wisconsin, Madison Logic Seminar, 25 January 2020 1 pm (7 pm UK).

The talk will be held online via Zoom ID: 998 6013 7362.

Abstract. It is a mystery often mentioned in the foundations of mathematics that our best and strongest mathematical theories seem to be linearly ordered and indeed well-ordered by consistency strength. Given any two of the familiar large cardinal hypotheses, for example, generally one of them proves the consistency of the other. Why should this be? The phenomenon is seen as significant for the philosophy of mathematics, perhaps pointing us toward the ultimately correct mathematical theories. And yet, we know as a purely formal matter that the hierarchy of consistency strength is not well-ordered. It is ill-founded, densely ordered, and nonlinear. The statements usually used to illustrate these features are often dismissed as unnatural or as Gödelian trickery. In this talk, I aim to overcome that criticism—as well as I am able to—by presenting a variety of natural hypotheses that reveal ill-foundedness in consistency strength, density in the hierarchy of consistency strength, and incomparability in consistency strength.

The talk should be generally accessible to university logic students, requiring little beyond familiarity with the incompleteness theorem and some elementary ideas from computability theory.

# Categorical large cardinals and the tension between categoricity and set-theoretic reflection

• J. D. Hamkins and R. Solberg, “Categorical large cardinals and the tension between categoricity and set-theoretic reflection,” Mathematics arXiv, 2020. (Under review)
@ARTICLE{HamkinsSolberg:Categorical-large-cardinals,
author = {Joel David Hamkins and Robin Solberg},
title = {Categorical large cardinals and the tension between categoricity and set-theoretic reflection},
journal = {Mathematics arXiv},
year = {2020},
volume = {},
number = {},
pages = {},
month = {},
note = {Under review},
abstract = {},
keywords = {under-review},
url = {http://jdh.hamkins.org/categorical-large-cardinals/},
source = {},
doi = {},
eprint = {2009.07164},
archivePrefix ={arXiv},
primaryClass = {math.LO}
}

Abstract. Inspired by Zermelo’s quasi-categoricity result characterizing the models of second-order Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory $\text{ZFC}_2$, we investigate when those models are fully categorical, characterized by the addition to $\text{ZFC}_2$ either of a first-order sentence, a first-order theory, a second-order sentence or a second-order theory. The heights of these models, we define, are the categorical large cardinals. We subsequently consider various philosophical aspects of categoricity for structuralism and realism, including the tension between categoricity and set-theoretic reflection, and we present (and criticize) a categorical characterization of the set-theoretic universe $\langle V,\in\rangle$ in second-order logic.

Categorical accounts of various mathematical structures lie at the very core of structuralist mathematical practice, enabling mathematicians to refer to specific mathematical structures, not by having carefully to prepare and point at specially constructed instances—preserved like the one-meter iron bar locked in a case in Paris—but instead merely by mentioning features that uniquely characterize the structure up to isomorphism.

The natural numbers $\langle \mathbb{N},0,S\rangle$, for example, are uniquely characterized by the Dedekind axioms, which assert that $0$ is not a successor, that the successor function $S$ is one-to-one, and that every set containing $0$ and closed under successor contains every number. We know what we mean by the natural numbers—they have a definite realness—because we can describe features that completely determine the natural number structure. The real numbers $\langle\mathbb{R},+,\cdot,0,1\rangle$ similarly are characterized up to isomorphism as the unique complete ordered field. The complex numbers $\langle\mathbb{C},+,\cdot\rangle$ form the unique algebraically closed field of characteristic $0$ and size continuum, or alternatively, the unique algebraic closure of the real numbers. In fact all our fundamental mathematical structures enjoy such categorical characterizations, where a theory is categorical if it identifies a unique mathematical structure up to isomorphism—any two models of the theory are isomorphic. In light of the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem, which prevents categoricity for infinite structures in first-order logic, these categorical theories are generally made in second-order logic.

In set theory, Zermelo characterized the models of second-order Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory $\text{ZFC}_2$ in his famous quasi-categoricity result:

Theorem. (Zermelo, 1930) The models of $\text{ZFC}_2$ are precisely those isomorphic to a rank-initial segment $\langle V_\kappa,\in\rangle$ of the cumulative set-theoretic universe $V$ cut off at an inaccessible cardinal $\kappa$.

It follows that for any two models of $\text{ZFC}_2$, one of them is isomorphic to an initial segment of the other. These set-theoretic models $V_\kappa$ have now come to be known as Zermelo-Grothendieck universes, in light of Grothendieck’s use of them in category theory (a rediscovery several decades after Zermelo); they feature in the universe axiom, which asserts that every set is an element of some such $V_\kappa$, or equivalently, that there are unboundedly many inaccessible cardinals.

In this article, we seek to investigate the extent to which Zermelo’s quasi-categoricity analysis can rise fully to the level of categoricity, in light of the observation that many of the $V_\kappa$ universes are categorically characterized by their sentences or theories.

Question. Which models of $\text{ZFC}_2$ satisfy fully categorical theories?

If $\kappa$ is the smallest inaccessible cardinal, for example, then up to isomorphism $V_\kappa$ is the unique model of $\text{ZFC}_2$ satisfying the first-order sentence “there are no inaccessible cardinals.” The least inaccessible cardinal is therefore an instance of what we call a first-order sententially categorical cardinal. Similar ideas apply to the next inaccessible cardinal, and the next, and so on for quite a long way. Many of the inaccessible universes thus satisfy categorical theories extending $\text{ZFC}_2$ by a sentence or theory, either in first or second order, and we should like to investigate these categorical extensions of $\text{ZFC}_2$.

In addition, we shall discuss the philosophical relevance of categoricity and point particularly to the philosophical problem posed by the tension between the widespread support for categoricity in our fundamental mathematical structures with set-theoretic ideas on reflection principles, which are at heart anti-categorical.

Our main theme concerns these notions of categoricity:

Main Definition.

• A cardinal $\kappa$ is first-order sententially categorical, if there is a first-order sentence $\sigma$ in the language of set theory, such that $V_\kappa$ is categorically characterized by $\text{ZFC}_2+\sigma$.
• A cardinal $\kappa$ is first-order theory categorical, if there is a first-order theory $T$ in the language of set theory, such that $V_\kappa$ is categorically characterized by $\text{ZFC}_2+T$.
• A cardinal $\kappa$ is second-order sententially categorical, if there is a second-order sentence $\sigma$ in the language of set theory, such that $V_\kappa$ is categorically characterized by $\text{ZFC}_2+\sigma$.
• A cardinal $\kappa$ is second-order theory categorical, if there is a second-order theory $T$ in the language of set theory, such that $V_\kappa$ is categorically characterized by $\text{ZFC}_2+T$.

• J. D. Hamkins and R. Solberg, “Categorical large cardinals and the tension between categoricity and set-theoretic reflection,” Mathematics arXiv, 2020. (Under review)
@ARTICLE{HamkinsSolberg:Categorical-large-cardinals,
author = {Joel David Hamkins and Robin Solberg},
title = {Categorical large cardinals and the tension between categoricity and set-theoretic reflection},
journal = {Mathematics arXiv},
year = {2020},
volume = {},
number = {},
pages = {},
month = {},
note = {Under review},
abstract = {},
keywords = {under-review},
url = {http://jdh.hamkins.org/categorical-large-cardinals/},
source = {},
doi = {},
eprint = {2009.07164},
archivePrefix ={arXiv},
primaryClass = {math.LO}
}

# Categorical cardinals, CUNY Set Theory Seminar, June 2020

This will be an online talk for the CUNY Set Theory Seminar, Friday 26 June 2020, 2 pm EST = 7 pm UK time. Contact Victoria Gitman for Zoom access.

Abstract: Zermelo famously characterized the models of second-order Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory $\text{ZFC}_2$ in his 1930 quasi-categoricity result asserting that the models of $\text{ZFC}_2$ are precisely those isomorphic to a rank-initial segment $V_\kappa$ of the cumulative set-theoretic universe $V$ cut off at an inaccessible cardinal $\kappa$. I shall discuss the extent to which Zermelo’s quasi-categoricity analysis can rise fully to the level of categoricity, in light of the observation that many of the $V_\kappa$ universes are categorically characterized by their sentences or theories. For example, if $\kappa$ is the smallest inaccessible cardinal, then up to isomorphism $V_\kappa$ is the unique model of $\text{ZFC}_2$ plus the sentence “there are no inaccessible cardinals.” This cardinal $\kappa$ is therefore an instance of what we call a first-order sententially categorical cardinal. Similarly, many of the other inaccessible universes satisfy categorical extensions of $\text{ZFC}_2$ by a sentence or theory, either in first or second order. I shall thus introduce and investigate the categorical cardinals, a new kind of large cardinal. This is joint work with Robin Solberg (Oxford).

# The Vopěnka principle is inequivalent to but conservative over the Vopěnka scheme

• J. D. Hamkins, “The Vopěnka principle is inequivalent to but conservative over the Vopěnka scheme,” ArXiv e-prints, 2016. (Under review)
@ARTICLE{Hamkins:The-Vopenka-principle-is-inequivalent-to-but-conservative-over-the-Vopenka-scheme,
author = {Joel David Hamkins},
title = {The {Vop\v{e}nka} principle is inequivalent to but conservative over the {Vop\v{e}nka} scheme},
journal = {ArXiv e-prints},
year = {2016},
volume = {},
number = {},
pages = {},
month = {},
note = {Under review},
abstract = {},
keywords = {under-review},
source = {},
eprint = {1606.03778},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
primaryClass = {math.LO},
url = {http://wp.me/p5M0LV-1lV},
}

Abstract. The Vopěnka principle, which asserts that every proper class of first-order structures in a common language admits an elementary embedding between two of its members, is not equivalent over GBC to the first-order Vopěnka scheme, which makes the Vopěnka assertion only for the first-order definable classes of structures. Nevertheless, the two Vopěnka axioms are equiconsistent and they have exactly the same first-order consequences in the language of set theory. Specifically, GBC plus the Vopěnka principle is conservative over ZFC plus the Vopěnka scheme for first-order assertions in the language of set theory.

The Vopěnka principle is the assertion that for every proper class $\mathcal{M}$ of first-order $\mathcal{L}$-structures, for a set-sized language $\mathcal{L}$, there are distinct members of the class $M,N\in\mathcal{M}$ with an elementary embedding $j:M\to N$ between them. In quantifying over classes, this principle is a single assertion in the language of second-order set theory, and it makes sense to consider the Vopěnka principle in the context of a second-order set theory, such as Godel-Bernays set theory GBC, whose language allows one to quantify over classes. In this article, GBC includes the global axiom of choice.

In contrast, the first-order Vopěnka scheme makes the Vopěnka assertion only for the first-order definable classes $\mathcal{M}$ (allowing parameters). This theory can be expressed as a scheme of first-order statements, one for each possible definition of a class, and it makes sense to consider the Vopěnka scheme in Zermelo-Frankael ZFC set theory with the axiom of choice.

Because the Vopěnka principle is a second-order assertion, it does not make sense to refer to it in the context of ZFC set theory, whose first-order language does not allow quantification over classes; one typically retreats to the Vopěnka scheme in that context. The theme of this article is to investigate the precise meta-mathematical interactions between these two treatments of Vopěnka’s idea.

Main Theorems.

1. If ZFC and the Vopěnka scheme holds, then there is a class forcing extension, adding classes but no sets, in which GBC and the Vopěnka scheme holds, but the Vopěnka principle fails.
2. If ZFC and the Vopěnka scheme holds, then there is a class forcing extension, adding classes but no sets, in which GBC and the Vopěnka principle holds.

It follows that the Vopěnka principle VP and the Vopěnka scheme VS are not equivalent, but they are equiconsistent and indeed, they have the same first-order consequences.

Corollaries.

1. Over GBC, the Vopěnka principle and the Vopěnka scheme, if consistent, are not equivalent.
2. Nevertheless, the two Vopěnka axioms are equiconsistent over GBC.
3. Indeed, the two Vopěnka axioms have exactly the same first-order consequences in the language of set theory. Specifically, GBC plus the Vopěnka principle is conservative over ZFC plus the Vopěnka scheme for assertions in the first-order language of set theory. $$\text{GBC}+\text{VP}\vdash\phi\qquad\text{if and only if}\qquad\text{ZFC}+\text{VS}\vdash\phi$$

These results grew out of my my answer to a MathOverflow question of Mike Shulman, Can Vopěnka’s principle be violated definably?, inquiring whether there would always be a definable counterexample to the Vopěnka principle, whenever it should happen to fail. I interpret the question as asking whether the Vopěnka scheme is necessarily equivalent to the Vopěnka principle, and the answer is negative.

The proof of the main theorem involves the concept of a stretchable set $g\subset\kappa$ for an $A$-extendible cardinal, which has the property that for every cardinal $\lambda>\kappa$ and every extension $h\subset\lambda$ with $h\cap\kappa=g$, there is an elementary embedding $j:\langle V_\lambda,\in,A\cap V_\lambda\rangle\to\langle V_\theta,\in,A\cap V_\theta\rangle$ such that $j(g)\cap\lambda=h$. Thus, the set $g$ can be stretched by an $A$-extendibility embedding so as to agree with any given $h$.

# Jacob Davis, PhD 2016, Carnegie Mellon University

Jacob Davis successfully defended his dissertation, “Universal Graphs at $\aleph_{\omega_1+1}$ and Set-theoretic Geology,” at Carnegie Mellon University on April 29, 2016, under the supervision of James Cummings. I was on the dissertation committee (participating via Google Hangouts), along with Ernest Schimmerling and Clinton Conley.

The thesis consisted of two main parts. In the first half, starting from a model of ZFC with a supercompact cardinal, Jacob constructed a model in which $2^{\aleph_{\omega_1}} = 2^{\aleph_{\omega_1+1}} = \aleph_{\omega_1+3}$ and in which there is a jointly universal family of size $\aleph_{\omega_1+2}$ of graphs on $\aleph_{\omega_1+1}$.  The same technique works with any uncountable cardinal in place of $\omega_1$.  In the second half, Jacob proved a variety of results in the area of set-theoretic geology, including several instances of the downward directed grounds hypothesis, including an analysis of the chain condition of the resulting ground models.

# Giorgio Audrito, PhD 2016, University of Torino

Dr. Giorgio Audrito has successfully defended his dissertation, “Generic large cardinals and absoluteness,” at the University of Torino under the supervision of Matteo Viale.

The dissertation Examing Board consisted of myself (serving as Presidente), Alessandro Andretta and Sean Cox.  The defense took place March 2, 2016.

The dissertation was impressive, introducing (in joint work with Matteo Viale) the iterated resurrection axioms $\text{RA}_\alpha(\Gamma)$ for a forcing class $\Gamma$, which extend the idea of the resurrection axioms from my work with Thomas Johnstone, The resurrection axioms and uplifting cardinals, by making successive extensions of the same type, forming the resurrection game, and insisting that that the resurrection player have a winning strategy with game value $\alpha$. A similar iterative game idea underlies the $(\alpha)$-uplifting cardinals, from which the consistency of the iterated resurrection axioms can be proved. A final chapter of the dissertation (joint with Silvia Steila), develops the notion of $C$-systems of filters, generalizing the more familiar concepts of extenders and towers.

# Erin Carmody

Erin Carmody successfully defended her dissertation under my supervision at the CUNY Graduate Center on April 24, 2015, and she earned her Ph.D. degree in May, 2015. Her dissertation follows the theme of killing them softly, proving many theorems of the form: given $\kappa$ with large cardinal property $A$, there is a forcing extension in which $\kappa$ no longer has property $A$, but still has large cardinal property $B$, which is very slightly weaker than $A$. Thus, she aims to enact very precise reductions in large cardinal strength of a given cardinal or class of large cardinals. In addition, as a part of the project, she developed transfinite meta-ordinal extensions of the degrees of hyper-inaccessibility and hyper-Mahloness, giving notions such as $(\Omega^{\omega^2+5}+\Omega^3\cdot\omega_1^2+\Omega+2)$-inaccessible among others.

Erin Carmody, “Forcing to change large cardinal strength,”  Ph.D. dissertation for The Graduate Center of the City University of New York, May, 2015.  ar$\chi$iv | PDF

Erin has accepted a professorship at Nebreska Wesleyan University for.the 2015-16 academic year.

Erin is also an accomplished artist, who has had art shows of her work in New York, and she has pieces for sale. Much of her work has an abstract or mathematical aspect, while some pieces exhibit a more emotional or personal nature. My wife and I have two of Erin’s paintings in our collection:

# The weakly compact embedding property, Apter-Gitik celebration, CMU 2015

This will be a talk at the Conference in honor of Arthur W. Apter and Moti Gitik at Carnegie Mellon University, May 30-31, 2015.  I am pleased to be a part of this conference in honor of the 60th birthdays of two mathematicians whom I admire very much.

Abstract. The weakly compact embedding property for a cardinal $\kappa$ is the assertion that for every transitive set $M$ of size $\kappa$ with $\kappa\in M$, there is a transitive set $N$ and an elementary embedding $j:M\to N$ with critical point $\kappa$. When $\kappa$ is inaccessible, this property is one of many equivalent characterizations of $\kappa$ being weakly compact, along with the weakly compact extension property, the tree property, the weakly compact filter property and many others. When $\kappa$ is not inaccessible, however, these various properties are no longer equivalent to each other, and it is interesting to sort out the relations between them. In particular, I shall consider the embedding property and these other properties in the case when $\kappa$ is not necessarily inaccessible, including interesting instances of the embedding property at cardinals below the continuum, with relations to cardinal characteristics of the continuum.

This is joint work with Brent Cody, Sean Cox, myself and Thomas Johnstone.

Slides | Article | Conference web site

# Large cardinals need not be large in HOD

• Y. Cheng, S. Friedman, and J. D. Hamkins, “Large cardinals need not be large in HOD,” Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 166, iss. 11, pp. 1186-1198, 2015.
@ARTICLE{ChengFriedmanHamkins2015:LargeCardinalsNeedNotBeLargeInHOD,
title = "Large cardinals need not be large in {HOD} ",
journal = "Annals of Pure and Applied Logic ",
volume = "166",
number = "11",
pages = "1186 - 1198",
year = "2015",
note = "",
issn = "0168-0072",
doi = "10.1016/j.apal.2015.07.004",
eprint = {1407.6335},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
primaryClass = {math.LO},
url = {http://jdh.hamkins.org/large-cardinals-need-not-be-large-in-hod},
author = "Yong Cheng and Sy-David Friedman and Joel David Hamkins",
keywords = "Large cardinals",
keywords = "HOD",
keywords = "Forcing",
keywords = "Absoluteness ",
abstract = "Abstract We prove that large cardinals need not generally exhibit their large cardinal nature in HOD. For example, a supercompact cardinal κ need not be weakly compact in HOD, and there can be a proper class of supercompact cardinals in V, none of them weakly compact in HOD, with no supercompact cardinals in HOD. Similar results hold for many other types of large cardinals, such as measurable and strong cardinals.",
}

Abstract. We prove that large cardinals need not generally exhibit their large cardinal nature in HOD. For example, a supercompact cardinal $\kappa$ need not be weakly compact in HOD, and there can be a proper class of supercompact cardinals in $V$, none of them weakly compact in HOD, with no supercompact cardinals in HOD. Similar results hold for many other types of large cardinals, such as measurable and strong cardinals.

In this article, we prove that large cardinals need not generally exhibit their large cardinal nature in HOD, the inner model of hereditarily ordinal-definable sets, and there can be a divergence in strength between the large cardinals of the ambient set-theoretic universe $V$ and those of HOD. Our general theme concerns the questions:

Questions.

1. To what extent must a large cardinal in $V$ exhibit its large cardinal properties in HOD?

2. To what extent does the existence of large cardinals in $V$ imply the existence of large cardinals in HOD?

For large cardinal concepts beyond the weakest notions, we prove, the answers are generally negative. In Theorem 4, for example, we construct a model with a supercompact cardinal that is not weakly compact in HOD, and Theorem 9 extends this to a proper class of supercompact cardinals, none of which is weakly compact in HOD, thereby providing some strongly negative instances of (1). The same model has a proper class of supercompact cardinals, but no supercompact cardinals in HOD, providing a negative instance of (2). The natural common strengthening of these situations would be a model with a proper class of supercompact cardinals, but no weakly compact cardinals in HOD. We were not able to arrange that situation, however, and furthermore it would be ruled out by Conjecture 13, an intriguing positive instance of (2) recently proposed by W. Hugh Woodin, namely, that if there is a supercompact cardinal, then there is a measurable cardinal in HOD. Many other natural possibilities, such as a proper class of measurable cardinals with no weakly compact cardinals in HOD, remain as open questions.

# Large cardinals need not be large in HOD, International Workshop on Set Theory, CIRM, Luminy, September 2014

I shall speak at the 13th International Workshop on Set Theory, held at the CIRM Centre International de Rencontres Mathématiques in Luminy near Marseille, France, September 29 to October 3, 2014.

Abstract.  I shall prove that large cardinals need not generally exhibit their large cardinal nature in HOD. For example, a supercompact cardinal need not be weakly compact in HOD, and there can be a proper class of supercompact cardinals in $V$, none of them weakly compact in HOD, with no supercompact cardinals in HOD. Similar results hold for many other types of large cardinals, such as measurable and strong cardinals. There are many open questions.

This talk will include joint work with Cheng Yong and Sy-David Friedman.

# Uniform $({\lt}\theta)$-supercompactness is equivalent to a coherent system of normal fine measures

$\newcommand\image{\mathrel{{}^{\prime\prime}}}$This post answers a question that had come up some time ago with Arthur Apter, and more recently with Philipp Schlicht and Arthur Apter.

Definition. A cardinal $\kappa$ is uniformly ${\lt}\theta$-supercompact if there is an embedding $j:V\to M$ having critical point $\kappa$, with $j(\kappa)>\theta$ and $M^{\lt\theta}\subset M$.

(Note:  This is typically stronger than merely asserting that $\kappa$ is $\gamma$-supercompact for every $\gamma<\theta$, a property which is commonly denoted ${\lt}\theta$-supercompact, so I use the adjective “uniformly” to highlight the distinction.)

Two easy observations are in order.  First, if $\theta$ is singular, then $\kappa$ is uniformly ${\lt}\theta$-supercompact if and only if $\kappa$ is $\theta$-supercompact, since the embedding $j:V\to M$ will have $j\image\lambda\in M$ for every $\lambda<\theta$, and we may assemble $j\image\theta$ from this inside $M$, using a sequence of length $\text{cof}(\theta)$. Second, in the successor case, $\kappa$ is uniformly ${\lt}\lambda^+$-supercompact if and only if $\kappa$ is $\lambda$-supercompact, since if $j:V\to M$ has $M^\lambda\subset M$, then it also has $M^{{\lt}\lambda^+}\subset M$. So we are mainly interested in the concept of uniform ${\lt}\theta$-supercompactness when $\theta$ is weakly inaccessible.

Definition. Let us say of a cardinal $\kappa$ that $\langle\mu_\lambda\mid\lambda<\theta\rangle$ is a coherent $\theta$-system of normal fine measures, if each $\mu_\lambda$ is a normal fine measure on $P_\kappa\lambda$, which cohere in the sense that if $\lambda<\delta<\theta$, then $\mu_\lambda\leq_{RK}\mu_\delta$, and more specifically $X\in\mu_\lambda$ if and only if $\{ \sigma\in P_\kappa\delta\mid \sigma\cap\lambda\in X\}\in\mu_\delta$.  In other words, $\mu_\lambda=f\ast\mu_\delta$, where $f:P_\kappa\delta\to P_\kappa\lambda$ is the function that chops off at $\lambda$, so that $f:\sigma\mapsto \sigma\cap\lambda$.

Theorem.  The following are equivalent, for any regular cardinals $\kappa\leq\theta$.

1. The cardinal $\kappa$ is uniformly ${\lt}\theta$-supercompact.

2. There is a coherent $\theta$-system of normal fine measures for $\kappa$.

Proof. The forward implication is easy, since if $j:V\to M$ has $M^{{\lt}\theta}\subset M$, then we may let $\mu_\lambda$ be the normal fine measure on $P_\kappa\lambda$ generated by $j\image\lambda$ as a seed, so that $X\in\mu_\lambda\iff j\image\lambda\in j(X)$.  Since the seeds $j\image\lambda$ cohere as initial segments, it follows that $\mu_\lambda\leq_{RK}\mu_\delta$ in the desired manner whenever $\lambda\lt\delta<\theta$.

Conversely, fix a coherent system $\langle\mu_\lambda\mid\lambda<\theta\rangle$ of normal fine measures. Let $j_\lambda:V\to M_\lambda$ be the ultrapower by $\mu_\lambda$. Every element of $M_\lambda$ has the form $j_\lambda(f)(j\image\lambda)$.  Because of coherence, we have an elementary embedding $k_{\lambda,\delta}:M_\lambda\to M_\delta$ defined by $$k_{\lambda,\delta}: j_\lambda(f)(j\image\lambda)\mapsto j_\delta(f)(j\image\lambda).$$ It is not difficult to check that these embeddings altogether form a commutative diagram, and so we may let $j:V\to M$ be the direct limit of the system, with corresponding embeddings $k_{\lambda,\theta}:M_\lambda\to M$.  The critical point of $k_{\lambda,\delta}$ and hence also $k_{\lambda,\theta}$ is larger than $\lambda$.  This embedding has critical point $\kappa$, and I claim that $M^{\lt\theta}\subset M$. To see this, suppose that $z_\alpha\in M$ for each $\alpha<\beta$ where $\beta<\theta$.  So $z_\alpha=k_{\lambda_\alpha,\theta}(z_\alpha^*)$ for some $z_\alpha^*\in M_{\lambda_\alpha}$. Since $\theta$ is regular, we may find $\lambda<\theta$ with $\lambda_\alpha\leq\lambda$ for all $\alpha<\beta$ and also $\beta\leq\lambda$, and so without loss we may assume $\lambda_\alpha=\lambda$ for all $\alpha<\beta$. Since $M_\lambda$ is closed under $\lambda$-sequences, it follows that $\vec z^*=\langle z_\alpha^*\mid\alpha<\beta\rangle\in M_\lambda$.  Applying $k_{\lambda,\theta}$ to $\vec z^*$ gives precisely the desired sequence $\vec z=\langle z_\alpha\mid\alpha<\beta\rangle$ inside $M$, showing this instance of $M^{{\lt}\theta}\subset M$. QED

The theorem does not extend to singular $\theta$.

Theorem.  If $\kappa$ is $\theta$-supercompact for a singular strong limit cardinal $\theta$ above $\kappa$, then there is a transitive inner model in which $\kappa$ has a coherent system $\langle\mu_\lambda\mid\lambda<\theta\rangle$  of normal fine measures, but $\kappa$ is not uniformly ${\lt}\theta$-supercompact.

Thus, the equivalence of the first theorem does not hold generally for singular $\theta$.

Proof.  Suppose that $\kappa$ is $\theta$-supercompact, where $\theta$ is a singular strong limit cardinal. Let $j:V\to M$ be a witnessing embedding, for which $\kappa$ is not $\theta$-supercompact in $M$ (use a Mitchell-minimal measure).  Since $\theta$ is singular, this means by the observation after the definition above that $\kappa$ is not uniformly ${\lt}\theta$-supercompact in $M$. But meanwhile, $\kappa$ does have a coherent system of normal fine ultrafilters in $M$, since the measures defined by $X\in\mu_\lambda\iff j\image\lambda\in j(X)$ form a coherent system just as in the theorem, and the sequence $\langle\mu_\lambda\mid\lambda<\theta\rangle$ is in $M$ by $\theta$-closure. QED

The point is that in the singular case, the argument shows only that the direct limit is ${\lt}\text{cof}(\theta)$-closed, which is not the same as ${\lt}\theta$-closed when $\theta$ is singular.

The example of singular $\theta$ also shows that $\kappa$ can be ${\lt}\theta$-supercompact without being uniformly ${\lt}\theta$-supercompact, since the latter would imply full $\theta$-supercompactness, when $\theta$ is singular, but the former does not. The same kind of reasoning separates uniform from non-uniform ${\lt}\theta$-supercompactness, even when $\theta$ is regular.

Theorem. If $\kappa$ is uniformly ${\lt}\theta$-supercompact for an inaccessible cardinal $\theta$, then there is a transitive inner model in which $\kappa$ is ${\lt}\theta$-supercompact, but not uniformly ${\lt}\theta$-supercompact.

Proof. Suppose that $\kappa$ is uniformly ${\lt}\theta$-supercompact, witnessed by embedding $j:V\to M$, with $M^{\lt\theta}\subset M$, and furthermore assume that $j(\kappa)$ is as small as possible among all such embeddings. It follows that there can be no coherent $\theta$-system of normal fine measures for $\kappa$ inside $M$, for if there were, the direct limit of the associated embedding would send $\kappa$ below $j(\kappa)$, which from the perspective of $M$ is a measurable cardinal far above $\kappa$ and $\theta$. But meanwhile, $\kappa$ is $\beta$-supercompact in $M$ for every $\beta<\theta$. Thus, $\kappa$ is ${\lt}\theta$-supercompact in $M$, but not uniformly ${\lt}\theta$-supercompact, and so the notions do not coincide. QED

Meanwhile, if $\theta$ is weakly compact, then the two notions do coincide. That is, if $\kappa$ is ${\lt}\theta$-supercompact (not necessarily uniformly), and $\theta$ is weakly compact, then in fact $\kappa$ is uniformly ${\lt}\theta$-supercompact, since one may consider a model $M$ of size $\theta$ with $\theta\in M$ and $V_\theta\subset M$, and apply a weak compactness embedding $j:M\to N$. The point is that in $N$, we get that $\kappa$ is actually $\theta$-supercompact in $N$, which provides a uniform sequence of measures below $\theta$.

# Large cardinal indestructibility: two slick new proofs of prior results

$\newcommand\HOD{\text{HOD}}$

I’ve recently found two slick new proofs of some of my prior results on indestructibility, using the idea of an observation of Arthur Apter’s.  What he had noted is:

Observation. (Apter [1])  If $\kappa$ is a Laver indestructible supercompact cardinal, then $V_\kappa\subset\HOD$.  Indeed, $V_\kappa$ satisfies the continuum coding axiom CCA.

Proof. The continuum coding axiom asserts that every set of ordinals is coded into the GCH pattern (it follows that they are each coded unboundedly often). If $x\subset\kappa$ is any bounded set of ordinals, then let $\mathbb{Q}$ be the forcing to code $x$ into the GCH pattern at regular cardinals directly above $\kappa$. This forcing is ${\lt}\kappa$-directed closed, and so by our assumption, $\kappa$ remains supercompact and in particular $\Sigma_2$-reflecting in the extension $V[G]$. Since $x$ is coded into the GCH pattern of $V[G]$, it follows by reflection that $V_\kappa=V[G]_\kappa$ must also think that $x$ is coded, and so $V_\kappa\models\text{CCA}$. QED

First, what I noticed is that this immediately implies that small forcing ruins indestructibility:

Theorem. (Hamkins, Shelah [2], Hamkins [3]) After any nontrivial forcing of size less than $\kappa$, the cardinal $\kappa$ is no longer indestructibly supercompact, nor even indestructibly $\Sigma_2$-reflecting.

Proof.  Nontrivial small forcing $V[g]$ will add a new set of ordinals below $\kappa$, which will not be coded unboundedly often into the continuum function of $V[g]$, and so $V[g]_\kappa$ will not satisfy the CCA.  Hence, $\kappa$ will not be indestructibly $\Sigma_2$-reflecting there. QED

This argument can be seen as essentially related to Shelah’s 1998 argument, given in [2].

Second, I also noticed that a similar idea can be used to prove:

Theorem. (Bagaria, Hamkins, Tsaprounis, Usuba [4])  Superstrong and other large cardinals are never Laver indestructible.

Proof.  Suppose the superstrongness of $\kappa$ is indestructible. It follows by the observation that $V_\kappa$ satisfies the continuum coding axiom. Now force to add a $V$-generic Cohen subset $G\subset\kappa$.  If $\kappa$ were superstrong in $V[G]$, then there would be $j:V[G]\to M$ with $V[G]_{j(\kappa)}=M_{j(\kappa)}$. Since $G$ is not coded into the continuum function, $M_{j(\kappa)}$ does not satisfy the CCA.  This contradicts the elementarity $V_\kappa=V[G]_\kappa\prec M_{j(\kappa)}$. QED

The argument shows that even the $\Sigma_3$-extendibility of $\kappa$ is never Laver indestructible.

I would note, however, that the slick proof does not achieve the stronger result of [4], which is that superstrongness is never indestructible even by $\text{Add}(\kappa,1)$, and that after forcing to add a Cohen subset to $\kappa$ (among any of many other common forcing notions), the cardinal $\kappa$ is never $\Sigma_3$-extendible (and hence not superstrong, not weakly superstrong, and so on).  The slick proof above uses indestructibility by the coding forcing to get the CCA in $V_\kappa$, and it is not clear how one would argue that way to get these stronger results of [4].

[1] Arthur W. Apter and Shoshana Friedman. HOD-supercompactness, inestructibility, and level-by-level equivalence, to appear in Bulletin of the Polish Academy of Sciences (Mathematics).

[2] Joel David Hamkins, Saharon Shelah, Superdestructibility: A Dual to Laver’s Indestructibility,  J. Symbolic Logic, Volume 63, Issue 2 (1998), 549-554.

[3] Joel David Hamkins, Small forcing makes any cardinal superdestructible, J. Symbolic Logic, 63 (1998).

[4] Joan Bagaria, Joel David Hamkins, Konstantinos Tsaprounis, Toshimichi Usuba, Superstrong and other large cardinals are never Laver indestructible, to appear in the Archive of Math Logic (special issue in memory of Richard Laver).

# Higher infinity and the foundations of mathematics, plenary General Public Lecture, AAAS, June, 2014

I have been invited to give a plenary General Public Lecture at the 95th annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (Pacific Division), which will be held in Riverside, California, June 17-20, 2014.  The talk is sponsored by the BEST conference, which is meeting as a symposium at the larger AAAS conference.

This is truly a rare opportunity to communicate with a much wider community of scholars, to explain some of the central ideas and methods of set theory and the foundations of mathematics to a wider group of nonspecialist but mathematics-interested researchers. I hope to explain a little about the exciting goings-on in the foundations of mathematics.  Frankly, I feel deeply honored for the opportunity to represent my field in this way.

The talk will be aimed at a very general audience, the general public of the AAAS meeting, which is to say, mainly, scientists.  I also expect, however, that there will be a set-theory contingent present of participants from the BEST conference, which is a symposium at the conference — but I shall not take a stand here on whether mathematics is a science; you’ll have to come to my talk for that!

Abstract. Let me tell you the story of infinity and what is going on in the foundations of mathematics. For over a century, mathematicians have explored the soaring transfinite tower of different infinity concepts. Yet, fundamental questions at the foundation of this tower remain unsettled. Indeed, researchers in set theory and the foundations of mathematics have uncovered a pervasive independence phenomenon, whereby foundational mathematical questions are often in principle neither provable nor refutable. Presented with what may be these inherent limitations on our mathematical reasoning, we now face difficult philosophical questions on the nature of mathematical truth and the meaning of mathematical existence. Does mathematics need new axioms? Some mathematicians point the way the way towards what they describe as an ultimate theory of mathematical truth. Some adopt a scientific attitude, judging new mathematical axioms and theories by their predictions and explanatory power. Others propose a multiverse mathematical foundation with pluralist truth. In this talk, I shall take you from the basic concept of infinity and some simple paradoxes up to the continuum hypothesis and on to the higher infinity of large cardinals and the raging philosophical debates.

# Strongly uplifting cardinals and the boldface resurrection axioms

• J. D. Hamkins and T. Johnstone, “Strongly uplifting cardinals and the boldface resurrection axioms,” Archive for Mathematical Logic, vol. 56, iss. 7, pp. 1115-1133, 2017.
@ARTICLE{HamkinsJohnstone2017:StronglyUpliftingCardinalsAndBoldfaceResurrection,
author = {Joel David Hamkins and Thomas Johnstone},
title = {Strongly uplifting cardinals and the boldface resurrection axioms},
journal="Archive for Mathematical Logic",
year="2017",
month="Nov",
day="01",
volume="56",
number="7",
pages="1115--1133",
eprint = {1403.2788},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
primaryClass = {math.LO},
issn="1432-0665",
doi="10.1007/s00153-017-0542-y",
url = {http://wp.me/p5M0LV-IE},
abstract="We introduce the strongly uplifting cardinals, which are equivalently characterized, we prove, as the superstrongly unfoldable cardinals and also as the almost-hugely unfoldable cardinals, and we show that their existence is equiconsistent over ZFC with natural instances of the boldface resurrection axiom, such as the boldface resurrection axiom for proper forcing.",
keywords = {},
source = {},
}

Abstract. We introduce the strongly uplifting cardinals, which are equivalently characterized, we prove, as the superstrongly unfoldable cardinals and also as the almost hugely unfoldable cardinals, and we show that their existence is equiconsistent over ZFC with natural instances of the boldface resurrection axiom, such as the boldface resurrection axiom for proper forcing.

The strongly uplifting cardinals, which we introduce in this article, are a boldface analogue of the uplifting cardinals introduced in our previous paper, Resurrection axioms and uplifting cardinals, and are equivalently characterized as the superstrongly unfoldable cardinals and also as the almost hugely unfoldable cardinals. In consistency strength, these new large cardinals lie strictly above the weakly compact, totally indescribable and strongly unfoldable cardinals and strictly below the subtle cardinals, which in turn are weaker in consistency than the existence of $0^\sharp$. The robust diversity of equivalent characterizations of this new large cardinal concept enables constructions and techniques from much larger large cardinal contexts, such as Laver functions and forcing iterations with applications to forcing axioms. Using such methods, we prove that the existence of a strongly uplifting cardinal (or equivalently, a superstrongly unfoldable or almost hugely unfoldable cardinal) is equiconsistent over ZFC with natural instances of the boldface resurrection axioms, including the boldface resurrection axiom for proper forcing, for semi-proper forcing, for c.c.c. forcing and others. Thus, whereas in our prior article we proved that the existence of a mere uplifting cardinal is equiconsistent with natural instances of the (lightface) resurrection axioms, here we adapt both of these notions to the boldface context.

Definitions.

• An inaccessible cardinal $\kappa$ is strongly uplifting if for every ordinal $\theta$ it is strongly $\theta$-uplifting, which is to say that for every $A\subset V_\kappa$ there is an inaccessible cardinal $\gamma\geq\theta$ and a set $A^*\subset V_\gamma$ such that $\langle V_\kappa,{\in},A\rangle\prec\langle V_\gamma,{\in},A^*\rangle$ is a proper elementary extension.
• A cardinal $\kappa$ is superstrongly unfoldable, if for every ordinal $\theta$ it is superstrongly $\theta$-unfoldable, which is to say that for each $A\in H_{\kappa^+}$ there is a $\kappa$-model $M$ with $A\in M$ and a transitive set $N$ with an elementary embedding $j:M\to N$ with critical point $\kappa$ and $j(\kappa)\geq\theta$ and $V_{j(\kappa)}\subset N$.
• A cardinal $\kappa$ is almost-hugely unfoldable, if for every ordinal $\theta$ it is almost-hugely $\theta$-unfoldable, which is to say that for each $A\in H_{\kappa^+}$ there is a $\kappa$-model $M$ with $A\in M$ and a transitive set $N$ with an elementary embedding $j:M\to N$ with critical point $\kappa$ and $j(\kappa)\geq\theta$ and $N^{<j(\kappa)}\subset N$.

Remarkably, these different-seeming large cardinal concepts turn out to be exactly equivalent to one another. A cardinal $\kappa$ is strongly uplifting if and only if it is superstrongly unfoldable, if and only if it is almost hugely unfoldable. Furthermore, we prove that the existence of such a cardinal is equiconsistent with several natural instances of the boldface resurrection axiom.

Theorem. The following theories are equiconsistent over ZFC.

• There is a strongly uplifting cardinal.
• There is a superstrongly unfoldable cardinal.
• There is an almost hugely unfoldable cardinal.
• The boldface resurrection axiom for all forcing.
• The boldface resurrection axiom for proper forcing.
• The boldface resurrection axiom for semi-proper forcing.
• The boldface resurrection axiom for c.c.c. forcing.
• The weak boldface resurrection axiom for countably-closed forcing, axiom-A forcing, proper forcing and semi-proper forcing, plus $\neg\text{CH}$.