Skip to main content Accessibility help

Hierarchies of forcing axioms I

  • Itay Neeman (a1) and Ernest Schimmerling (a2)


We prove new upper bound theorems on the consistency strengths of SPFA(θ), SPFA(θ-linked) and SPFA(θ+ -cc). Our results are in terms of (θ, Γ)-subcompactness, which is a new large cardinal notion that combines the ideas behind subcompactness and Γ-indescribability. Our upper bound for SPFA(ϲ-linked) has a corresponding lower bound, which is due to Neeman and appears in his follow-up to this paper. As a corollary, SPFA(ϲ-linked) and PFA(ϲ-linked) are each equiconsistent with the existence of a -indescribable cardinal. Our upper bound for SPFA(ϲ-c.c) is a -indescribable cardinal, which is consistent with V = L. Our upper bound for SPFA(ϲ+-linked) is a cardinals κ that is (κ+,)-subcompact, which is strictly weaker than κ+-supercompact. The axiom MM(ϲ) is a consequence of SPFA(ϲ+-linked) by a slight refinement of a theorem of Shelah. Our upper bound for SPFA(ϲ++-c.c.) is a cardinal κ that is (κ+, )-subcompact, which is also strictly weaker than κ+-supercompact.



Hide All
[1]Baumgartner, James E., Iterated forcing, Surveys in Set Theory, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, vol. 87, Cambridge University Press, 1983, pp. 159.
[2]Bekkali, M., Topics in Set Theory: Lebesgue measurability, large cardinals, forcing axioms, rho-functions, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1476, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991, notes on lectures by Stevo Todorčević.
[3]Burke, Douglas, Generic embeddings and the failure of box, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 123 (1995), no. 9, pp. 28672871.
[4]Donder, Dieter and Fuchs, Ulrich, Revised countable support iterations, preprint.
[5]Foreman, M., Magidor, M., and Shelah, S., Martin's maximum, saturated ideals, and nonregular ultrafilters, Part I, Annals of Mathematics (2), vol. 127 (1988), no. 1, pp. 147.
[6]Hamkins, Joel David, The lottery preparation, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 101 (2000), no. 2-3, pp. 103146.
[7]Jech, T., Multiple forcing, Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, vol. 88, Cambridge University Pres, Cambridge, 1986.
[8]Neeman, Itay, Hierarchies of forcing axioms II, this Journal, to appear.
[9]Schimmerling, Ernest, Coherent sequences and threads, Advances in Mathematics, vol. 216 (2007), no. 1, pp. 89117.
[10]Schimmerling, Ernest and Zeman, Martin, Square in core models, The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, vol. 7 (2001), no. 3, pp. 305314.
[11]Shelah, Saharon, Semiproper forcing axiom implies Martin maximum but not PFA+, this Journal, vol. 52 (1987), no. 2, pp. 360367.
[12]Shelah, Saharon, Proper and Improper Forcing, 2nd ed., Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998.
[13]Todorčević, Stevo, A note on the proper forcing axiom, Axiomatic Set Theory (Boulder, Colorado, 1983), Contemporary Mathematics, vol. 31, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1984, pp. 209218.
[14]Veličković, Boban, Jensen's □ principles and the Novak number of partially ordered sets, this Journal, vol. 51 (1986), no. 1, pp. 4758.
[15]Veličković, Boban, Forcing axioms and stationary sets, Advances in Mathematics, vol. 94 (1992), no. 2, pp. 256284.
[16]Woodin, W. Hugh, The Axiom of Determinacy, Forcing Axioms, and the Nonstationary Ideal, de Gruyter Series in Logic and its Applications, vol. 1, Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 1999.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Hierarchies of forcing axioms I

  • Itay Neeman (a1) and Ernest Schimmerling (a2)


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.