Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T03:22:36.882Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A simple maximality principle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Joel David Hamkins
Joel David Hamkins*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, The College of Staten Island of Cuny Department of Mathematics, The Graduate Center of Cuny, 365 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10016, USA, E-mail: jdh@hamkins.org, URL: http://jdh.hamkins.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, following an idea of Christophe Chalons, I propose a new kind of forcing axiom, the Maximality Principle, which asserts that any sentence φ holding in some forcing extension Vℙ and all subsequent extensions Vℙ*ℚ holds already in V. It follows, in fact, that such sentences must also hold in all forcing extensions of V. In modal terms, therefore, the Maximality Principle is expressed by the scheme (◊ □ φ) ⇒ □ φ, and is equivalent to the modal theory S5. In this article, I prove that the Maximality Principle is relatively consistent with ZFC. A boldface version of the Maximality Principle, obtained by allowing real parameters to appear in φ, is equiconsistent with the scheme asserting that Vδ ≺ V for an inaccessible cardinal δ, which in turn is equiconsistent with the scheme asserting that ORD is Mahlo. The strongest principle along these lines is □ , which asserts that holds in V and all forcing extensions. From this, it follows that 0# exists, that x# exists for every set x, that projective truth is invariant by forcing, that Woodin cardinals are consistent and much more. Many open questions remain.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 68 , Issue 2 , June 2003 , pp. 527 - 550
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2003

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.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Asperó, D., Bounded forcing axioms and the continuum. Ph.D. thesis, Universitat de Barcelona, 05 2000.Google Scholar
[2]Chalons, C., An axiom schemata, 1999, circulated email announcement.Google Scholar
[3]Chalons, C., Full set theory, 2000, electronic preprint.Google Scholar
[4]Hauser, K., The consistency strength of projective absoluteness. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 74 (1995), no. 3, pp. 245–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Hughes, G. E. and Cresswell, M. J., An Introduction to Modal Logic, Methuan, London and New York. 1968.Google Scholar
[6]Jorgensen, M.. An equivalent form of LÉvy's Axiom Schema, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 26 (1970), no. 4, pp. 651–654.Google Scholar
[7]Mitchell, B. and Schimmerling, E., Covering without countable closure, Mathematical Research Letters, vol. 2 (1995), pp. 595–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Mitchell, B. and Schindler, R., A universal extender model without large cardinals in V, this Journal, submitted.Google Scholar
[9]Stavi, J. and Väänänen, J., Reflection principles for the continuum. Logic and Algebra, American Mathematical Society Contemporary Mathematics Series, vol. 302, 07 2002.Google Scholar
[10]Steel, J., The core model iterability problem. Lecture Notes in Logic, vol. 8, Springer-Verlag, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Steel, J., Core models with more Woodin cardinals, this Journal, vol. 67 (2002), pp. 1197–1226.Google Scholar
[12]Woodin, W. H., -Absoluteness andsupercompact cardinals. 05 1985, circulated notes.Google Scholar
[13]Woodin, W. H., Supercompact cardinals, sets of reals, and weakly homogeneous trees, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 85 (1988), no. 18, pp. 6587–6591.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[14]Woodin, W. H., The Axiom of Determinacy, Forcing Axioms, and the Non-stationary Ideal, De Gruyter Series in Logic and its Applications, Walter de Gruyter, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15]Woodin, W. H., On the consistency of Hamkins' axiom, 2001. lecture slides.Google Scholar