Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-kp629 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T19:33:08.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Abstract logic and set theory. II. Large cardinals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Jouko Väänänen
Jouko Väänänen*
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The following problem is studied: How large and how small can the Löwenheim and Hanf numbers of unbounded logics be in relation to the most common large cardinals? The main result is that the Löwenheim number of the logic with the Härtig-quantifier can be consistently put in between any two of the first weakly inaccessible, the first weakly Mahlo, the first weakly compact, the first Ramsey, the first measurable and the first supercompact cardinals.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , June 1982 , pp. 335 - 346
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1]Devlin, K. and Jensen, R., Marginalia to a theorem of Silver, (Logic Conference, Kiel, 1974), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 499, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1975,pp. 115–142.Google Scholar
[2]Drake, F., Set theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1974.Google Scholar
[3]Fuhrken, G., A remark on the Härtig-quantifier, Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, vol. 18 (1972), pp. 227–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Jech, T., Set theory, Academic Press, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
[5]Kunen, K., Some applications of iterated ultrapowers in set theory, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 1 (1970), pp. 179–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Magidor, M., On the role of supercompact and extendible cardinals in logic, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 10 (1971), pp. 147–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Magidor, M., How large is the first strongly compact cardinal?, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 10 (1976), pp. 33–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Menas, T., Consistency results concerning supercompactness, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 223 (1976), pp. 61–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Silver, J., Applications of set theory in model theory, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 3 (1971), pp. 139–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Solovay, R., Strongly compact cardinals and GCH, Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 25, American Mathematical Society, Providence, R. I., 1974, pp. 365–372.Google Scholar
[11]Väänänen, J., Two axioms of set theory with applications to logic, Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae. Series A I Mathematica Dissertationes, vol. 17 (1978).Google Scholar
[12]Väänänen, J., Abstract logic and set theory. I: Definability, Logic Colloquium, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1978, pp. 391–421.Google Scholar
[13]Väänänen, J., Boolean valued models and generalized quantifiers, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 18 (1980), pp. 193–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]Väänänen, J., The Hanf number of Lω1ω1, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 79 (1980), pp. 294–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar