The two-cardinals transfer property and resurrection of supercompactness span style=color:redThis article has been retracted/span
Open Access
- 1 September 1996
- journal article
- Published by American Mathematical Society (AMS) in Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society
- Vol. 124 (9) , 2827-2837
- https://doi.org/10.1090/s0002-9939-96-03327-8
Abstract
We show that the transfer property ( ℵ 1 , ℵ 0 ) → ( λ + , λ ) (\aleph _1,\aleph _0)\to (\lambda ^+,\lambda ) for singular λ \lambda does not imply (even) the existence of a non-reflecting stationary subset of λ + \lambda ^+ . The result assumes the consistency of ZFC with the existence of infinitely many supercompact cardinals. We employ a technique of “resurrection of supercompactness”. Our forcing extension destroys the supercompactness of some cardinals; to show that in the extended model they still carry some of their compactness properties (such as reflection of stationary sets), we show that their supercompactness can be resurrected via a tame forcing extension.This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit:
- Reflecting stationary sets and successors of singular cardinalsArchive for Mathematical Logic, 1991
- A Laver-Type Indestructability for Accessible CardinalsPublished by Elsevier ,1987
- The weak □* is really weaker than the full □The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 1986
- Souslin trees and successors of singular cardinalsAnnals of Pure and Applied Logic, 1986
- Reflecting stationary setsThe Journal of Symbolic Logic, 1982
- If all Normal Moore Spaces are Metrizable, then there is an Inner Model with a Measurable CardinalTransactions of the American Mathematical Society, 1982
- Saturated idealsThe Journal of Symbolic Logic, 1978
- Higher Souslin trees and the generalized continuum hypothesisThe Journal of Symbolic Logic, 1976
- Aronszajn trees and the independence of the transfer propertyAnnals of Mathematical Logic, 1972
- The fine structure of the constructible hierarchyAnnals of Mathematical Logic, 1972