Axiom of Choice versus V=L in opposition to large cardinals












14














Consider the following two observations:




  1. The axiom $V=L$ is incompatible with large cardinal axioms that are somehow "too large", like measurable cardinals.


  2. The axiom of Choice is incompatible with large cardinal axioms that are somehow "too large" (much larger than in the previous point), like Reinhardt cardinals.



I would like to understand whether these two observations should be thought of as being of a similar nature. (I note that the first seems to be construed as an argument against $V=L$ because it limits the size of possible cardinals, whereas the second does not seem to have been used much as an argument against accepting Choice as an axiom. This could be for historical/sociological reasons, perhaps because Choice is too useful in ordinary mathematical practice, or because the parallel I try to draw between (1) and (2) is flawed.) As such, the question is probably too vague to ask here. Instead, let me ask:




Are there any known and interesting combinatorial principles of a related nature that are incompatible with "too large" cardinals which could sit alongside the above observations?




This is still rather vague, of course, because I don't know what kind of combinatorial principles can be considered related to $V=L$ and Choice, but it could be:




  • Beyond (1): principles that are even stronger than $V=L$ (i.e., imply it) and which exclude cardinals at an even smaller size than measurable ones. (This would be very interesting, but I don't think there is any reasonable combinatorial principle known to imply $V=L$.)


  • Between (1) and (2): consequences of $V=L$ (implying Choice, or assuming Choice alongside) which exclude certain very large cardinals but are still compatible with measurable cardinals. I expect convincing examples of this can be given.


  • Beyond (2) but still in $mathsf{ZF}$: weak forms of Choice that are believed to be compatible with Reinhardt cardinals but still incompatible with some even larger cardinals thought to be consistent with $mathsf{ZF}$.


  • Even beyond $mathsf{ZF}$: maybe it makes sense to consider some part of $mathsf{ZF}$ itself as a "combinatorial principle" and formulate even larger cardinals that are compatible with weaker set theories although not with $mathsf{ZF}$? (Perhaps the law of the excluded middle can be considered in the line of $V=L$ and Choice?)



Of course, the "combinatorial principle" has to have some kind of useful content to it in structuring or ordering the set-theoretic Universe, not "there does not exist a supercompact cardinal".










share|cite|improve this question


















  • 3




    I think the question is fine for this platform, and look forward to interesting answers. The relativized constructibility hypothesis, asserting that $V=L[A]$ for some set $A$, is compatible with measurable cardinals and many others, including very strong axioms such as I0, but it is inconsistent with strong cardinals and supercompact cardinals and others. The issue is whether the large cardinal axiom is locally expressible or not. If this is the kind of thing you are interested in, I can post a fuller answer about it.
    – Joel David Hamkins
    2 days ago








  • 1




    I misread the question, sorry.
    – Asaf Karagila
    2 days ago






  • 2




    Easy answer: $square$ principles.
    – Asaf Karagila
    2 days ago






  • 3




    It is essentially saying that there is a coherent sequence of clubs on limit ordinals below $kappa$ which cannot be threaded (where as Jensen's square talks about $kappa^+$). This is equivalent to some extent by saying that there are no $kappa$-Aronszajn trees, more or less. And $V=L$ proves that $kappa$ does not have a $kappa$-Aronszajn tree if and only if $kappa$ is weakly compact. So to that end, it excludes weakly compact cardinals.
    – Asaf Karagila
    2 days ago






  • 4




    See also this Math SE question.
    – user21820
    2 days ago
















14














Consider the following two observations:




  1. The axiom $V=L$ is incompatible with large cardinal axioms that are somehow "too large", like measurable cardinals.


  2. The axiom of Choice is incompatible with large cardinal axioms that are somehow "too large" (much larger than in the previous point), like Reinhardt cardinals.



I would like to understand whether these two observations should be thought of as being of a similar nature. (I note that the first seems to be construed as an argument against $V=L$ because it limits the size of possible cardinals, whereas the second does not seem to have been used much as an argument against accepting Choice as an axiom. This could be for historical/sociological reasons, perhaps because Choice is too useful in ordinary mathematical practice, or because the parallel I try to draw between (1) and (2) is flawed.) As such, the question is probably too vague to ask here. Instead, let me ask:




Are there any known and interesting combinatorial principles of a related nature that are incompatible with "too large" cardinals which could sit alongside the above observations?




This is still rather vague, of course, because I don't know what kind of combinatorial principles can be considered related to $V=L$ and Choice, but it could be:




  • Beyond (1): principles that are even stronger than $V=L$ (i.e., imply it) and which exclude cardinals at an even smaller size than measurable ones. (This would be very interesting, but I don't think there is any reasonable combinatorial principle known to imply $V=L$.)


  • Between (1) and (2): consequences of $V=L$ (implying Choice, or assuming Choice alongside) which exclude certain very large cardinals but are still compatible with measurable cardinals. I expect convincing examples of this can be given.


  • Beyond (2) but still in $mathsf{ZF}$: weak forms of Choice that are believed to be compatible with Reinhardt cardinals but still incompatible with some even larger cardinals thought to be consistent with $mathsf{ZF}$.


  • Even beyond $mathsf{ZF}$: maybe it makes sense to consider some part of $mathsf{ZF}$ itself as a "combinatorial principle" and formulate even larger cardinals that are compatible with weaker set theories although not with $mathsf{ZF}$? (Perhaps the law of the excluded middle can be considered in the line of $V=L$ and Choice?)



Of course, the "combinatorial principle" has to have some kind of useful content to it in structuring or ordering the set-theoretic Universe, not "there does not exist a supercompact cardinal".










share|cite|improve this question


















  • 3




    I think the question is fine for this platform, and look forward to interesting answers. The relativized constructibility hypothesis, asserting that $V=L[A]$ for some set $A$, is compatible with measurable cardinals and many others, including very strong axioms such as I0, but it is inconsistent with strong cardinals and supercompact cardinals and others. The issue is whether the large cardinal axiom is locally expressible or not. If this is the kind of thing you are interested in, I can post a fuller answer about it.
    – Joel David Hamkins
    2 days ago








  • 1




    I misread the question, sorry.
    – Asaf Karagila
    2 days ago






  • 2




    Easy answer: $square$ principles.
    – Asaf Karagila
    2 days ago






  • 3




    It is essentially saying that there is a coherent sequence of clubs on limit ordinals below $kappa$ which cannot be threaded (where as Jensen's square talks about $kappa^+$). This is equivalent to some extent by saying that there are no $kappa$-Aronszajn trees, more or less. And $V=L$ proves that $kappa$ does not have a $kappa$-Aronszajn tree if and only if $kappa$ is weakly compact. So to that end, it excludes weakly compact cardinals.
    – Asaf Karagila
    2 days ago






  • 4




    See also this Math SE question.
    – user21820
    2 days ago














14












14








14







Consider the following two observations:




  1. The axiom $V=L$ is incompatible with large cardinal axioms that are somehow "too large", like measurable cardinals.


  2. The axiom of Choice is incompatible with large cardinal axioms that are somehow "too large" (much larger than in the previous point), like Reinhardt cardinals.



I would like to understand whether these two observations should be thought of as being of a similar nature. (I note that the first seems to be construed as an argument against $V=L$ because it limits the size of possible cardinals, whereas the second does not seem to have been used much as an argument against accepting Choice as an axiom. This could be for historical/sociological reasons, perhaps because Choice is too useful in ordinary mathematical practice, or because the parallel I try to draw between (1) and (2) is flawed.) As such, the question is probably too vague to ask here. Instead, let me ask:




Are there any known and interesting combinatorial principles of a related nature that are incompatible with "too large" cardinals which could sit alongside the above observations?




This is still rather vague, of course, because I don't know what kind of combinatorial principles can be considered related to $V=L$ and Choice, but it could be:




  • Beyond (1): principles that are even stronger than $V=L$ (i.e., imply it) and which exclude cardinals at an even smaller size than measurable ones. (This would be very interesting, but I don't think there is any reasonable combinatorial principle known to imply $V=L$.)


  • Between (1) and (2): consequences of $V=L$ (implying Choice, or assuming Choice alongside) which exclude certain very large cardinals but are still compatible with measurable cardinals. I expect convincing examples of this can be given.


  • Beyond (2) but still in $mathsf{ZF}$: weak forms of Choice that are believed to be compatible with Reinhardt cardinals but still incompatible with some even larger cardinals thought to be consistent with $mathsf{ZF}$.


  • Even beyond $mathsf{ZF}$: maybe it makes sense to consider some part of $mathsf{ZF}$ itself as a "combinatorial principle" and formulate even larger cardinals that are compatible with weaker set theories although not with $mathsf{ZF}$? (Perhaps the law of the excluded middle can be considered in the line of $V=L$ and Choice?)



Of course, the "combinatorial principle" has to have some kind of useful content to it in structuring or ordering the set-theoretic Universe, not "there does not exist a supercompact cardinal".










share|cite|improve this question













Consider the following two observations:




  1. The axiom $V=L$ is incompatible with large cardinal axioms that are somehow "too large", like measurable cardinals.


  2. The axiom of Choice is incompatible with large cardinal axioms that are somehow "too large" (much larger than in the previous point), like Reinhardt cardinals.



I would like to understand whether these two observations should be thought of as being of a similar nature. (I note that the first seems to be construed as an argument against $V=L$ because it limits the size of possible cardinals, whereas the second does not seem to have been used much as an argument against accepting Choice as an axiom. This could be for historical/sociological reasons, perhaps because Choice is too useful in ordinary mathematical practice, or because the parallel I try to draw between (1) and (2) is flawed.) As such, the question is probably too vague to ask here. Instead, let me ask:




Are there any known and interesting combinatorial principles of a related nature that are incompatible with "too large" cardinals which could sit alongside the above observations?




This is still rather vague, of course, because I don't know what kind of combinatorial principles can be considered related to $V=L$ and Choice, but it could be:




  • Beyond (1): principles that are even stronger than $V=L$ (i.e., imply it) and which exclude cardinals at an even smaller size than measurable ones. (This would be very interesting, but I don't think there is any reasonable combinatorial principle known to imply $V=L$.)


  • Between (1) and (2): consequences of $V=L$ (implying Choice, or assuming Choice alongside) which exclude certain very large cardinals but are still compatible with measurable cardinals. I expect convincing examples of this can be given.


  • Beyond (2) but still in $mathsf{ZF}$: weak forms of Choice that are believed to be compatible with Reinhardt cardinals but still incompatible with some even larger cardinals thought to be consistent with $mathsf{ZF}$.


  • Even beyond $mathsf{ZF}$: maybe it makes sense to consider some part of $mathsf{ZF}$ itself as a "combinatorial principle" and formulate even larger cardinals that are compatible with weaker set theories although not with $mathsf{ZF}$? (Perhaps the law of the excluded middle can be considered in the line of $V=L$ and Choice?)



Of course, the "combinatorial principle" has to have some kind of useful content to it in structuring or ordering the set-theoretic Universe, not "there does not exist a supercompact cardinal".







set-theory lo.logic axiom-of-choice big-picture mathematical-philosophy






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked 2 days ago









Gro-TsenGro-Tsen

9,50723394




9,50723394








  • 3




    I think the question is fine for this platform, and look forward to interesting answers. The relativized constructibility hypothesis, asserting that $V=L[A]$ for some set $A$, is compatible with measurable cardinals and many others, including very strong axioms such as I0, but it is inconsistent with strong cardinals and supercompact cardinals and others. The issue is whether the large cardinal axiom is locally expressible or not. If this is the kind of thing you are interested in, I can post a fuller answer about it.
    – Joel David Hamkins
    2 days ago








  • 1




    I misread the question, sorry.
    – Asaf Karagila
    2 days ago






  • 2




    Easy answer: $square$ principles.
    – Asaf Karagila
    2 days ago






  • 3




    It is essentially saying that there is a coherent sequence of clubs on limit ordinals below $kappa$ which cannot be threaded (where as Jensen's square talks about $kappa^+$). This is equivalent to some extent by saying that there are no $kappa$-Aronszajn trees, more or less. And $V=L$ proves that $kappa$ does not have a $kappa$-Aronszajn tree if and only if $kappa$ is weakly compact. So to that end, it excludes weakly compact cardinals.
    – Asaf Karagila
    2 days ago






  • 4




    See also this Math SE question.
    – user21820
    2 days ago














  • 3




    I think the question is fine for this platform, and look forward to interesting answers. The relativized constructibility hypothesis, asserting that $V=L[A]$ for some set $A$, is compatible with measurable cardinals and many others, including very strong axioms such as I0, but it is inconsistent with strong cardinals and supercompact cardinals and others. The issue is whether the large cardinal axiom is locally expressible or not. If this is the kind of thing you are interested in, I can post a fuller answer about it.
    – Joel David Hamkins
    2 days ago








  • 1




    I misread the question, sorry.
    – Asaf Karagila
    2 days ago






  • 2




    Easy answer: $square$ principles.
    – Asaf Karagila
    2 days ago






  • 3




    It is essentially saying that there is a coherent sequence of clubs on limit ordinals below $kappa$ which cannot be threaded (where as Jensen's square talks about $kappa^+$). This is equivalent to some extent by saying that there are no $kappa$-Aronszajn trees, more or less. And $V=L$ proves that $kappa$ does not have a $kappa$-Aronszajn tree if and only if $kappa$ is weakly compact. So to that end, it excludes weakly compact cardinals.
    – Asaf Karagila
    2 days ago






  • 4




    See also this Math SE question.
    – user21820
    2 days ago








3




3




I think the question is fine for this platform, and look forward to interesting answers. The relativized constructibility hypothesis, asserting that $V=L[A]$ for some set $A$, is compatible with measurable cardinals and many others, including very strong axioms such as I0, but it is inconsistent with strong cardinals and supercompact cardinals and others. The issue is whether the large cardinal axiom is locally expressible or not. If this is the kind of thing you are interested in, I can post a fuller answer about it.
– Joel David Hamkins
2 days ago






I think the question is fine for this platform, and look forward to interesting answers. The relativized constructibility hypothesis, asserting that $V=L[A]$ for some set $A$, is compatible with measurable cardinals and many others, including very strong axioms such as I0, but it is inconsistent with strong cardinals and supercompact cardinals and others. The issue is whether the large cardinal axiom is locally expressible or not. If this is the kind of thing you are interested in, I can post a fuller answer about it.
– Joel David Hamkins
2 days ago






1




1




I misread the question, sorry.
– Asaf Karagila
2 days ago




I misread the question, sorry.
– Asaf Karagila
2 days ago




2




2




Easy answer: $square$ principles.
– Asaf Karagila
2 days ago




Easy answer: $square$ principles.
– Asaf Karagila
2 days ago




3




3




It is essentially saying that there is a coherent sequence of clubs on limit ordinals below $kappa$ which cannot be threaded (where as Jensen's square talks about $kappa^+$). This is equivalent to some extent by saying that there are no $kappa$-Aronszajn trees, more or less. And $V=L$ proves that $kappa$ does not have a $kappa$-Aronszajn tree if and only if $kappa$ is weakly compact. So to that end, it excludes weakly compact cardinals.
– Asaf Karagila
2 days ago




It is essentially saying that there is a coherent sequence of clubs on limit ordinals below $kappa$ which cannot be threaded (where as Jensen's square talks about $kappa^+$). This is equivalent to some extent by saying that there are no $kappa$-Aronszajn trees, more or less. And $V=L$ proves that $kappa$ does not have a $kappa$-Aronszajn tree if and only if $kappa$ is weakly compact. So to that end, it excludes weakly compact cardinals.
– Asaf Karagila
2 days ago




4




4




See also this Math SE question.
– user21820
2 days ago




See also this Math SE question.
– user21820
2 days ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















14














Consider the relativized constructibility hypothesis, which asserts that $V=L[A]$ for some set $A$.



This axiom is compatible with any locally verifiable large cardinal property, properties that can be witnessed by a certain fact inside some sufficiently large $V_theta$. See my blog post, local properties in set theory for more discussion of this, including the fact that the locally verifiable properties are precisely the $Sigma_2$ properties.



Many large cardinal properties are locally verifiable, including: weak compactness, Ramsey, subtle, measurable, measurable with specified $o(kappa)$, superstrong, almost huge, huge, I0, I1, I2, and others. These notions span a huge part of the large cardinal hierarchy. All these notions are relatively consistent with the hypothesis $exists A V=L[A]$.



Meanwhile, many other large cardinal properties are not locally verifiable, since they require one to have witnesses for arbitrarily large ordinals, making the properties $Pi_3$ rather than $Sigma_2$. For example, reflecting cardinal, strong, strongly compact, supercompact, extendible, superhuge and others. None of these notions is consistent with $exists A V=L[A]$.






share|cite|improve this answer





















    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "504"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f320368%2faxiom-of-choice-versus-v-l-in-opposition-to-large-cardinals%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    14














    Consider the relativized constructibility hypothesis, which asserts that $V=L[A]$ for some set $A$.



    This axiom is compatible with any locally verifiable large cardinal property, properties that can be witnessed by a certain fact inside some sufficiently large $V_theta$. See my blog post, local properties in set theory for more discussion of this, including the fact that the locally verifiable properties are precisely the $Sigma_2$ properties.



    Many large cardinal properties are locally verifiable, including: weak compactness, Ramsey, subtle, measurable, measurable with specified $o(kappa)$, superstrong, almost huge, huge, I0, I1, I2, and others. These notions span a huge part of the large cardinal hierarchy. All these notions are relatively consistent with the hypothesis $exists A V=L[A]$.



    Meanwhile, many other large cardinal properties are not locally verifiable, since they require one to have witnesses for arbitrarily large ordinals, making the properties $Pi_3$ rather than $Sigma_2$. For example, reflecting cardinal, strong, strongly compact, supercompact, extendible, superhuge and others. None of these notions is consistent with $exists A V=L[A]$.






    share|cite|improve this answer


























      14














      Consider the relativized constructibility hypothesis, which asserts that $V=L[A]$ for some set $A$.



      This axiom is compatible with any locally verifiable large cardinal property, properties that can be witnessed by a certain fact inside some sufficiently large $V_theta$. See my blog post, local properties in set theory for more discussion of this, including the fact that the locally verifiable properties are precisely the $Sigma_2$ properties.



      Many large cardinal properties are locally verifiable, including: weak compactness, Ramsey, subtle, measurable, measurable with specified $o(kappa)$, superstrong, almost huge, huge, I0, I1, I2, and others. These notions span a huge part of the large cardinal hierarchy. All these notions are relatively consistent with the hypothesis $exists A V=L[A]$.



      Meanwhile, many other large cardinal properties are not locally verifiable, since they require one to have witnesses for arbitrarily large ordinals, making the properties $Pi_3$ rather than $Sigma_2$. For example, reflecting cardinal, strong, strongly compact, supercompact, extendible, superhuge and others. None of these notions is consistent with $exists A V=L[A]$.






      share|cite|improve this answer
























        14












        14








        14






        Consider the relativized constructibility hypothesis, which asserts that $V=L[A]$ for some set $A$.



        This axiom is compatible with any locally verifiable large cardinal property, properties that can be witnessed by a certain fact inside some sufficiently large $V_theta$. See my blog post, local properties in set theory for more discussion of this, including the fact that the locally verifiable properties are precisely the $Sigma_2$ properties.



        Many large cardinal properties are locally verifiable, including: weak compactness, Ramsey, subtle, measurable, measurable with specified $o(kappa)$, superstrong, almost huge, huge, I0, I1, I2, and others. These notions span a huge part of the large cardinal hierarchy. All these notions are relatively consistent with the hypothesis $exists A V=L[A]$.



        Meanwhile, many other large cardinal properties are not locally verifiable, since they require one to have witnesses for arbitrarily large ordinals, making the properties $Pi_3$ rather than $Sigma_2$. For example, reflecting cardinal, strong, strongly compact, supercompact, extendible, superhuge and others. None of these notions is consistent with $exists A V=L[A]$.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        Consider the relativized constructibility hypothesis, which asserts that $V=L[A]$ for some set $A$.



        This axiom is compatible with any locally verifiable large cardinal property, properties that can be witnessed by a certain fact inside some sufficiently large $V_theta$. See my blog post, local properties in set theory for more discussion of this, including the fact that the locally verifiable properties are precisely the $Sigma_2$ properties.



        Many large cardinal properties are locally verifiable, including: weak compactness, Ramsey, subtle, measurable, measurable with specified $o(kappa)$, superstrong, almost huge, huge, I0, I1, I2, and others. These notions span a huge part of the large cardinal hierarchy. All these notions are relatively consistent with the hypothesis $exists A V=L[A]$.



        Meanwhile, many other large cardinal properties are not locally verifiable, since they require one to have witnesses for arbitrarily large ordinals, making the properties $Pi_3$ rather than $Sigma_2$. For example, reflecting cardinal, strong, strongly compact, supercompact, extendible, superhuge and others. None of these notions is consistent with $exists A V=L[A]$.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 2 days ago









        Joel David HamkinsJoel David Hamkins

        164k25502867




        164k25502867






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f320368%2faxiom-of-choice-versus-v-l-in-opposition-to-large-cardinals%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            1300-talet

            1300-talet

            Display a custom attribute below product name in the front-end Magento 1.9.3.8