Abstract
Superstrong cardinals are never Laver indestructible. Similarly, almost huge cardinals, huge cardinals, superhuge cardinals, rank-into-rank cardinals, extendible cardinals, 1-extendible cardinals, 0-extendible cardinals, weakly superstrong cardinals, uplifting cardinals, pseudo-uplifting cardinals, superstrongly unfoldable cardinals, Σ n -reflecting cardinals, Σ n -correct cardinals and Σ n -extendible cardinals (all for n ≥ 3) are never Laver indestructible. In fact, all these large cardinal properties are superdestructible: if κ exhibits any of them, with corresponding target θ, then in any forcing extension arising from nontrivial strategically <κ-closed forcing \({\mathbb{Q} \in V_\theta}\), the cardinal κ will exhibit none of the large cardinal properties with target θ or larger.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Apter A.W., Gitik M.: The least measurable can be strongly compact and indestructible. J. Symb. Log. 63(4), 1404–1412 (1998)
Apter A.W., Hamkins J.D.: Universal indestructibility. Kobe J. Math. 16(2), 119–130 (1999)
Apter A.W.: Indestructibility and strong compactness. Proc. Log. Colloq. 2003 LNL 24, 27–37 (2006)
Apter A.W.: The least strongly compact can be the least strong and indestructible. Ann. Pure Appl. Log. 144, 33–42 (2006)
Brooke-Taylor A.D.: Indestructibility of Vopĕnka’s principle. Arch. Math. Log. 50(5–6), 515–529 (2011)
Fuchs, G., Hamkins, J.D., Reitz, J.: Set-theoretic geology. Ann. Pure Appl. Log. 166(4), 464–501 (2015)
Gitik M., Shelah S.: On certain indestructibility of strong cardinals and a question of Hajnal. Arch. Math. Log. 28(1), 35–42 (1989)
Hamkins J.: Fragile measurability. J. Symb. Log. 59(1), 262–282 (1994)
Hamkins, J.D.: Lifting and extending measures; fragile measurability. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Mathematics, May (1994)
Hamkins J.D.: Small forcing makes any cardinal superdestructible. J. Symb. Log. 63(1), 51–58 (1998)
Hamkins J.D.: Gap forcing: generalizing the Lévy–Solovay theorem. Bull. Symb. Log. 5(2), 264–272 (1999)
Hamkins J.D.: The lottery preparation. Ann. Pure Appl. Log. 101(2–3), 103–146 (2000)
Hamkins J.D.: Gap forcing. Israel J. Math. 125, 237–252 (2001)
Hamkins J.D.: Extensions with the approximation and cover properties have no new large cardinals. Fund. Math. 180(3), 257–277 (2003)
Hamkins J.D.: The Ground Axiom. Mathematisches Forschungsinstitut Oberwolfach Report 55, 3160–3162 (2005)
Hamkins, J.D.: (mathoverflow.net/users/1946). Can a model of set theory be realized as a Cohen-subset forcing extension in two different ways, with different grounds and different cardinals? MathOverflow, 2013. http://mathoverflow.net/questions/120546 (version: 2013-02-01)
Hamkins, J.D., Johnstone, T.: Strongly uplifting cardinals and the boldface resurrection axioms (2012, under review). http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.2788
Hamkins J.D., Johnstone T.A.: Indestructible strong unfoldability. Notre Dame J. Form. Log. 51(3), 291–321 (2010)
Hamkins, J.D., Johnstone, T.: Resurrection axioms and uplifting cardinals. Arch. Math. Log. 53(3–4), 463–485 (2014)
Hamkins J.D., Shelah S.: Superdestructibility: a dual to Laver’s indestructibility. J. Symb. Log. 63(2), 549–554 (1998)
Johnstone, T.A.: Strongly unfoldable cardinals made indestructible. Ph.D. thesis, The Graduate Center of the City University of New York, June (2007)
Johnstone T.A.: Strongly unfoldable cardinals made indestructible. J. Symb. Log. 73(4), 1215–1248 (2008)
Laver R.: Making the supercompactness of κ indestructible under κ-directed closed forcing. Israel J. Math. 29, 385–388 (1978)
Laver R.: Certain very large cardinals are not created in small forcing extensions. Ann. Pure Appl. Log. 149(1–3), 1–6 (2007)
Mitchell W.: A note on Hamkins’ approximation lemma. Ann. Pure Appl. Log. 144, 126–129 (Conference in honor of James E. Baumgartner’s sixtieth birthday) (2006)
Reitz, J.: The ground axiom. Ph.D. thesis, The Graduate Center of the City University of New York, September (2006)
Reitz, J.: The ground axiom. J. Symb. Log. 72(4), 1299–1317 (2007)
Sargsyan G.: On indestructibility aspects of identity crises. Arch. Math. Log. 48, 493–513 (2009)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The research work of the first author was partially supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation under Grant MTM2011-25229 and by the Generalitat de Catalunya (Catalan Government) under Grant 2009-SGR-187. The second author’s research has been supported in part by Simons Foundation Grant 209252, PSC-CUNY Grant 64732-00-42, and CUNY Collaborative Incentive grant 80209-06 20, and he is grateful for the support provided to him as a visitor at the University of Barcelona in December 2012, where much of this research took place in the days immediately following the dissertation defense of the third author, inspired by remarks made at the defense. The fourth author had subsequently proved essentially similar results independently, and so we joined forces, merged the papers and strengthened the results into the present account. Commentary concerning this article can be made at jdh.hamkins.org/superstrong-never-indestructible.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bagaria, J., Hamkins, J.D., Tsaprounis, K. et al. Superstrong and other large cardinals are never Laver indestructible. Arch. Math. Logic 55, 19–35 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00153-015-0458-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00153-015-0458-3