[bibtex key=ApterHamkins99:UniversalIndestructibility]
From a suitable large cardinal hypothesis, we provide a model with a supercompact cardinal in which universal indestructibility holds: every supercompact and partially supercompact cardinal kappa is fully indestructible by kappa-directed closed forcing. Such a state of affairs is impossible with two supercompact cardinals or even with a cardinal which is supercompact beyond a measurable cardinal.
[bibtex key=HamkinsShelah98:Dual]
After small forcing, any $<\kappa$-closed forcing will destroy the supercompactness, even the strong compactness, of $\kappa$.
[bibtex key=Hamkins98:SmallForcing]
[bibtex key=Hamkins98:AsYouLikeIt]
The Gap Forcing Theorem, a key contribution of this paper, implies essentially that after any reverse Easton iteration of closed forcing, such as the Laver preparation, every supercompactness measure on a supercompact cardinal extends a measure from the ground model. Thus, such forcing can create no new supercompact cardinals, and, if the GCH holds, neither can it increase the degree of supercompactness of any cardinal; in particular, it can create no new measurable cardinals. In a crescendo of what I call exact preservation theorems, I use this new technology to perform a kind of partial Laver preparation, and thereby finely control the class of posets which preserve a supercompact cardinal. Eventually, I prove the ‘As You Like It’ Theorem, which asserts that the class of ${<}\kappa$-directed closed posets which preserve a supercompact cardinal $\kappa$ can be made by forcing to conform with any pre-selected local definition which respects the equivalence of forcing. Along the way I separate completely the levels of the superdestructibility hierarchy, and, in an epilogue, prove that the notions of fragility and superdestructibility are orthogonal — all four combinations are possible.
[bibtex key=Hamkins97:Seeds]
Applying the seed concept to Prikry tree forcing $\mathbb{P}_\mu$, I investigate how well $\mathbb{P}_\mu$ preserves the maximality property of ordinary Prikry forcing and prove that $\mathbb{P}_\mu$ Prikry sequences are maximal exactly when $\mu$ admits no non-canonical seeds via a finite iteration. In particular, I conclude that if $\mu$ is a strongly normal supercompactness measure, then $\mathbb{P}_\mu$ Prikry sequences are maximal, thereby proving, for a large class of measures, a conjecture of W. H. Woodin’s.
[bibtex key=Hamkins94:FragileMeasurability]
[bibtex key=Hamkins94:Dissertation]
A scan of the dissertation is available: Lifting and extending measures; fragile measurability (15 Mb)
[bibtex key=Hamkins:LaverDiamond]
In the context of large cardinals, the classical diamond principle $\Diamond_\kappa$ is easily strengthened in natural ways. When $\kappa$ is a measurable cardinal, for example, one might ask that a $\Diamond_\kappa$ sequence anticipate every subset of $\kappa$ not merely on a stationary set, but on a set of normal measure one. This is equivalent to the existence of a function $\ell:\kappa\to V_\kappa$ such that for any $A\in H(\kappa^+)$ there is an embedding $j:V\to M$ having critical point $\kappa$ with $j(\ell)(\kappa)=A$. This and similar principles formulated for many other large cardinal notions, including weakly compact, indescribable, unfoldable, Ramsey, strongly unfoldable and strongly compact cardinals, are best conceived as an expression of the Laver function concept from supercompact cardinals for these weaker large cardinal notions. The resulting Laver diamond principles can hold or fail in a variety of interesting ways.
This talk, taking place October 19, 2011, is part of the year-long Exploring the Frontiers of Incompleteness (EFI) series at Harvard University, a workshop focused on the question of determinateness in set theory, a central question in the philosophy of set theory. 
Streaming video will be available on-line, and each talk will be associated with an on-line discussion forum, to which links will be made here later.
In this talk, I will discuss the multiverse perspective on determinateness in set theory. The multiverse view in set theory is the view that there are many distinct concepts of set, each instantiated in a corresponding set-theoretic universe. The universe view, in contrast, asserts that there is an absolute background set concept, with a corresponding absolute set-theoretic universe in which every set-theoretic question has a definite answer. The multiverse position, I argue, explains our experience with the enormous diversity of set-theoretic possibilities, a phenomenon that challenges the universe view. In particular, I shall argue that the continuum hypothesis is settled on the multiverse view by our extensive knowledge about how it behaves in the multiverse, and as a result it can no longer be settled in the manner formerly hoped for.
Workshop materials | Article | Slides | EFI discussion forum | Video Stream
A talk at the Prospects of Infinity: Workshop on Set Theory at the National University of Singapore, July 18-22, 2011.
I shall present several generalizations of the well-known Kunen inconsistency that there is no nontrivial elementary embedding from the set-theoretic universe V to itself, including generalizations-of-generalizations previously established by Woodin and others. For example, there is no nontrivial elementary embedding from the universe V to a set-forcing extension V[G], or conversely from V[G] to V, or more generally from one ground model of the universe to another, or between any two models that are eventually stationary correct, or from V to HOD, or conversely from HOD to V, or from V to the gHOD, or conversely from gHOD to V; indeed, there can be no nontrivial elementary embedding from any definable class to V. Other results concern generic embeddings, definable embeddings and results not requiring the axiom of choice. I will aim for a unified presentation that weaves together previously known unpublished or folklore results along with some new contributions. This is joint work with Greg Kirmayer and Norman Perlmutter.
This was a talk at the Toronto Set Theory Seminar held April 22, 2011 at the Fields Institute in Toronto.
The theory ZFC-, consisting of the usual axioms of ZFC but with the powerset axiom removed, when axiomatized by extensionality, foundation, pairing, union, infinity, separation, replacement and the axiom of choice, is weaker than commonly supposed, and suffices to prove neither that a countable union of countable sets is countable, nor that $\omega_1$ is regular, nor that the Los theorem holds for ultrapowers, even for well-founded ultrapowers on a measurable cardinal, nor that the Gaifman theorem holds, that is, that every $\Sigma_1$-elementary cofinal embedding $j:M\to N$ between models of the theory is fully elementary, nor that $\Sigma_n$ sets are closed under bounded quantification. Nevertheless, these deficits of ZFC- are completely repaired by strengthening it to the theory obtained by using the collection axiom rather than replacement in the axiomatization above. These results extend prior work of Zarach. This is joint work with Victoria Gitman and Thomas Johnstone.
A four-lecture tutorial on the topic of Boolean ultrapowers at the Young Set Theory Workshop at the Hausdorff Center for Mathematics in Königswinter near Bonn, Germany, March 21-25, 2011.
Boolean ultrapowers generalize the classical ultrapower construction on a power-set algebra to the context of an ultrafilter on an arbitrary complete Boolean algebra. Closely related to forcing and particularly to the use of Boolean-valued models in forcing, Boolean ultrapowers were introduced by Vopenka in order to carry out forcing as an internal ZFC construction, rather than as a meta-theoretic argument as in Cohen’s approach. An emerging interest in Boolean ultrapowers has arisen from a focus on the well-founded Boolean ultrapowers as large cardinal embeddings.
Historically, researchers have come to the Boolean ultrapower concept from two directions, from set theory and from model theory. Exemplifying the set-theoretic perspective, Bell’s classic (1985) exposition emphasizes the Boolean-valued model $V^{\mathbb{B}}$ and its quotients $V^{\mathbb{B}}/U$, rather than the Boolean ultrapower $V_U$ itself, which is not considered there. Mansfield (1970), in contrast, gives a purely algebraic, forcing-free account of the Boolean ultrapower, emphasizing its potential as a model-theoretic technique, while lacking the accompanying generic objects.
The unifying view I will explore in this tutorial is that the well-founded Boolean ultrapowers reveal the two central concerns of set-theoretic research–forcing and large cardinals–to be two aspects of a single underlying construction, the Boolean ultrapower, whose consequent close connections might be more fruitfully explored. I will provide a thorough introduction to the Boolean ultrapower construction, while assuming only an elementary graduate student-level familiarity with set theory and the classical ultrapower and forcing techniques.