Mahlo cardinal: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Content added Content deleted
RhubarbJayde (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
RhubarbJayde (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
"Ord is Mahlo" is an assertion that, as one can likely guess, asserts that every function \( f: \mathrm{Ord} \to \mathrm{Ord} \) has a strongly inaccessible closure point. Clearly, "Ord is Mahlo" implies that there is a proper class of inaccessible cardinals, 1-inaccessible cardinals, and more. However, if \( \kappa \) is Mahlo, then \( V_\kappa \) satisfies "Ord is Mahlo", and thus "Ord is Mahlo" has consistency strength squashed between the inaccessible hierarchy and strongly Mahlo cardinals. |
"Ord is Mahlo" is an assertion that, as one can likely guess, asserts that every function \( f: \mathrm{Ord} \to \mathrm{Ord} \) has a strongly inaccessible closure point. Clearly, "Ord is Mahlo" implies that there is a proper class of inaccessible cardinals, 1-inaccessible cardinals, and more. However, if \( \kappa \) is Mahlo, then \( V_\kappa \) satisfies "Ord is Mahlo", and thus "Ord is Mahlo" has consistency strength squashed between the inaccessible hierarchy and strongly Mahlo cardinals. |
||
Ord is Mahlo has interesting consistency strength, as we've mentioned. |
Ord is Mahlo has interesting consistency strength, as we've mentioned. Recall from [[Reflection principle|here]] that a cardinal \( \kappa \) is sound if \( V_\kappa \) is a full elementary substructure of \( V \). Such cardinals are massive, but their existence is provable in \( \mathrm{ZFC} \), due to the reflection principle. In particular, for all \(n\), we have a club of cardinals which are \(\Sigma_n\)-sound, and thus their intersection is also club. Meanwhile, say a cardinal \( \kappa \) is totally reflecting if it is sound and strongly inaccessible. Such cardinals are hyper-inaccessible and larger than virtually any other large cardinal axiom size-wise other than possibly stationary superhuges or Reinhardt cardinals. However, their consistency strength is not particularly high: it turns out that Ord is Mahlo has the same consistency strength as the existence of a totally reflecting cardinal, which shows that slight modifications of reflection principles can give large consistency strength. |
||
Furthermore, let \( \mathrm{MP}(\mathbb{R}) \), the maximality principle for the real numbers be the following statement: "assume \( r \) is a real number and \( \varphi \) is a formula. Then if there is a forcing extension \( V[G] \) so that \( \varphi(r) \) and \( \varphi(r) \) persists, i.e. remains true in all subsequent extensions \( V[G][H] \), then \( \varphi(r) \) is already true in the universe". Essentially, the theory of the real numbers is already maximal, and it's not possible to persistently force a statement that isn't true to be true. The statement \( \mathrm{MP}(\mathbb{R}) \) has less consistency strength than \( \mathrm{MP}(V) \), where \( r \) is an arbitrary set, and is actually equiconsistent with Ord is Mahlo. |
Furthermore, let \( \mathrm{MP}(\mathbb{R}) \), the maximality principle for the real numbers be the following statement: "assume \( r \) is a real number and \( \varphi \) is a formula. Then if there is a forcing extension \( V[G] \) so that \( \varphi(r) \) and \( \varphi(r) \) persists, i.e. remains true in all subsequent extensions \( V[G][H] \), then \( \varphi(r) \) is already true in the universe". Essentially, the theory of the real numbers is already maximal, and it's not possible to persistently force a statement that isn't true to be true. The statement \( \mathrm{MP}(\mathbb{R}) \) has less consistency strength than \( \mathrm{MP}(V) \), where \( r \) is an arbitrary set, and is actually equiconsistent with Ord is Mahlo. |