Consistency strength of indestructible supercompact maximality

About 22 years old · traced to

Let ZFC\text{ZFC} denote Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice. For a cardinal θ\theta, write H(θ)H(\theta) for the sets whose transitive closures have size less than θ\theta, and let MP<ba-dc(H(ba+))\text{MP}_{<ba\text{-dc}}(H(ba^+)) denote the corresponding maximality principle. The theories considered below assert the existence of the indicated cardinals and ordinals.

Consistency-strength claim. The consistency strength of the theory $

ZFC+“there is a supercompact ba, indestructible by <ba-directed closed forcing”+MP<ba-dc(H(ba+))\text{ZFC}+\text{“there is a supercompact }ba\text{, indestructible by }<ba\text{-directed closed forcing”}+\text{MP}_{<ba\text{-dc}}(H(ba^+))

is the same as that of the theory $

ZFC+“ba is supercompact”+Vb4≡V+ba<b4+“b4 is inaccessible”.\text{ZFC}+\text{“}ba\text{ is supercompact”}+V_b4 \equiv V+ba<b4+\text{“}b4\text{ is inaccessible”}.

This identifies the consistency strength of the maximality principle together with indestructible supercompactness with a theory involving a supercompact cardinal and an inaccessible elementary-extension height. The supplied text gives no resolution status beyond the assertion itself.

References

Primary source

George Leibman, “Consistency Strengths of Modified Maximality Principles”, arXiv:math/0406063 (2004).

Progress summary

Never refreshed

Nothing recorded yet. Refresh searches the literature and the public web for attempts on this problem, and writes the first summary here.

Solutions 0

No solutions have been posted yet.