Instances of the conjecture of Chang (Q1071764)

We consider various forms of the conjecture of Chang. \textit{H.-D. Donder} and \textit{P. Koepke} [Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 25, 233-261 (1983; Zbl 0556.03041)] have shown that if \(\rho\) is a cardinal such that \(\rho \geq \omega_ 1\), and \((\rho^{++},\rho^+)\twoheadrightarrow (\rho^+,\rho)\), then \(0^+\) exists. We obtain the same conclusion starting from some other forms of the transfer hypothesis. As typical corollaries, we get: Theorem A. Assume that there exist cardinals \(\lambda\), \(\kappa\), such that \(\lambda \geq \kappa^+\geq \omega_ 2\) and \((\lambda^+,\lambda)\twoheadrightarrow (\kappa^+,\kappa)\). Then \(0^+\) exists. Theorem B. Assume that there exists a singular cardinal \(\kappa\) such that \((\kappa^+,\kappa)\twoheadrightarrow (\omega_ 1,\omega_ 0)\). Then \(0^+\) exists. Theorem C. Assume that \((\lambda^{++},\lambda)\twoheadrightarrow (\kappa^{++},\kappa)\). Then \(0^+\) exists (also if \(\kappa =\omega_ 0).\) Remark. Here, as in the paper of Donder and Koepke, \(''0^+\) exists'' is a matter of saying that the hypothesis is strictly stronger then ''L(\(\mu)\) exists''. Of course, the same proof could give a few more sharps over L(\(\mu)\), but the interest is in expecting more cardinals, coming from a larger core model. Theorem D. Assume that \((\lambda^{++},\lambda)\twoheadrightarrow (\kappa^+,\kappa)\) and that \(\kappa \geq \omega_ 1\). Then \(0^+\) exists. Remark 2. Theorem B is, as is well-known, false if the hypothesis ''\(\kappa\) is singular'' is removed, even if we assume that \(\kappa \geq \omega_ 2\), or that \(\kappa\) is inaccessible. We shall recall this in due place. Comments. Theorem B and Remark 2 suggest we seek the consistency of the hypothesis of the form: \((\kappa^+,\kappa)\twoheadrightarrow (\omega_{n+1},\omega_ n)\), for \(\kappa\) singular and \(n\geq 0\). The consistency of several statements of this sort - a prototype of which is \((\aleph_{\omega +1},\aleph_{\omega})\twoheadrightarrow (\omega_ 1,\omega_ 0)\)- have been established, starting with a hypothesis slightly stronger than: ''there exists a huge cardinal'', but much weaker than: ''there exists a 2-huge cardinal''. These results will be published in a joint paper by M. Magidor, S. Shelah, and the author of the present paper.