The weakly compact reflection principle need not imply a high order of weak compactness

DOI10.1007/S00153-019-00686-7MaRDI QIDQ2288337zbMATH OpenOpenAlexWikidataFDO

Authors Hiroshi Sakai, Brent Cody

Publication date 17 January 2020

Published in Archive for Mathematical Logic (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.08506

zbMATH Keywords

forcingreflection principleweakly compact

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Other combinatorial set theory (03E05) Consistency and independence results (03E35) Large cardinals (03E55)

Abstract: The weakly compact reflection principle $ext{Refl}_{extwc}(kappa)$ states that $kappa$ is a weakly compact cardinal and every weakly compact subset of $kappa$ has a weakly compact proper initial segment. The weakly compact reflection principle at $kappa$ implies that $kappa$ is an $omega$-weakly compact cardinal. In this article we show that the weakly compact reflection principle does not imply that $kappa$ is $(omega+1)$-weakly compact. Moreover, we show that if the weakly compact reflection principle holds at $kappa$ then there is a forcing extension preserving this in which $kappa$ is the least $omega$-weakly compact cardinal. Along the way we generalize the well-known result which states that if $kappa$ is a regular cardinal then in any forcing extension by $kappa$-c.c. forcing the nonstationary ideal equals the ideal generated by the ground model nonstationary ideal; our generalization states that if $kappa$ is a weakly compact cardinal then after forcing with a `typical' Easton-support iteration of length $kappa$ the weakly compact ideal equals the ideal generated by the ground model weakly compact ideal.

Review text

This paper continues the study of the weakly compact reflection principle, which was introduced and worked on independently by the first author in [Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 60, No. 3, 503--521 (2019; Zbl 07120753)] and by the second author in [Isr. J. Math. 208, 1--11 (2015; Zbl 1371.03069)]. The weakly compact reflection principle is a kind of generalization of stationary reflection in the wider context of indescribable sets. If \(\kappa\) is a cardinal, a set \(S\subseteq\kappa\) is \(\Pi^1_1\)-indescribable (or weakly compact) if for any \(A\subseteq V_\kappa\) and any \(\Pi^1_1\) formula \(\varphi\) which holds in the structure \((V_\kappa,\in,A)\) there is some \(\alpha\in S\) so that \(\varphi\) holds already in the initial segment \((V_\alpha,\in,A\cap V_\alpha)\). The cardinal \(\kappa\) is \(\Pi^1_1\)-indescribable if it is indescribable as a subset of itself. The weakly compact reflection principle \(\mathrm{Refl}_1(\kappa)\) (or \(\mathrm{Refl_{wc}}(\kappa)\)) states that \(\kappa\) is weakly compact and that every weakly compact subset of \(\kappa\) has a weakly compact proper initial segment. The first author observed that \(\mathrm{Refl}_1(\kappa)\) implies that \(\kappa\) is \(\omega\)-weakly compact, a kind of higher order of the large cardinal property, based on a Mahlo-like hierarchy introduced by \textit{A. Hellsten} [Arch. Math. Logic 45, No. 6, 705--714 (2006; Zbl 1099.03043)]. He then asked whether one could extract more, or whether it was consistent that the weakly compact reflection principle held at a cardinal which was not \((\omega+1)\)-weakly compact. The present paper answers this question by showing that, if weakly compact reflection holds at \(\kappa\), one may force to preserve this fact while making \(\kappa\) the least \(\omega\)-weakly compact cardinal (and therefore not \((\omega+1)\)-weakly compact). The proof procedes by identifying, for each \(\omega\)-weakly compact cardinal, an \(\omega\)-sequence of weakly compact subsets certifying this large cardinal property. The authors then design a forcing iteration that destroys the weak compactness of some of these subsets (chosen generically) at every \(\omega\)-weakly compact cardinal \(\gamma<\kappa\). In the end, \(\kappa\) remains the least \(\omega\)-weakly compact cardinal. A further argument shows that the weakly compact reflection principle is preserved to the forcing extension, based on the fact that, for this kind of forcing iteration, every non-weakly compact set in the extension is covered by a non-weakly compact set from the ground model.

Recommendations

• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 1257359
• Weak compactness is not equivalent to the fixed point property in \(c\)
• On the strength of weak compactness
• Weak \([\omega _ 1,\infty)^ r\)-refinability in ordered spaces
• Weak compactness and no partial squares
• Weak compactness in constructive spaces
• Reflection and Weakly Collectionwise Hausdorff Spaces
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 176096
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 6402280
• Weak compactness of the set of -extensions

Cites work

• Adding a nonreflecting weakly compact set
• Cardinal preserving ideals
• Extensions with the approximation and cover properties have no new large cardinals
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3489124 (Why is no real title available?)
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 2024204 (Why is no real title available?)
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 1908324 (Why is no real title available?)
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3422371 (Why is no real title available?)
• Iterated forcing and elementary embeddings
• On splitting stationary subsets of large cardinals
• Orders of indescribable sets
• Reflecting stationary sets
• Reflection and indescribability in the constructible universe
• Saturation of the weakly compact ideal
• Stationary cardinals
• The consistency strength of ``every stationary set reflects
• The fine structure of the constructible hierarchy
• The lottery preparation
• What is the theory ZFC without power set?

Cited in

(9)

• Forcing a \(\square(\kappa)\)-like principle to hold at a weakly compact cardinal
• Weak Vopěnka's principle does not imply Vopěnka's principle
• Adding a nonreflecting weakly compact set
• On the weak reflection principle
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 2024204 (Why is no real title available?)
• Structural reflection, shrewd cardinals and the size of the continuum
• Generalisations of stationarity, closed and unboundedness, and of Jensen's
• Higher indescribability and derived topologies
• Characterizing weak compactness

This page was built for publication: The weakly compact reflection principle need not imply a high order of weak compactness

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q2288337)