We introduce a natural two-cardinal version of Bagaria’s sequence of derived topologies on ordinals. We prove that for our sequence of two-cardinal derived topologies, limit points of sets can be characterized in terms of a new iterated form of pairwise simultaneous reflection of certain kinds of stationary sets, the first few instances of which are often equivalent to notions related to strong stationarity, which has been studied previously in the context of strongly normal ideals. The non-discreteness of these two-cardinal derived topologies can be obtained from certain two-cardinal indescribability hypotheses, which follow from local instances of supercompactness. Additionally, we answer several questions posed by the first author, Holy and White on the relationship between Ramseyness and indescribability in both the cardinal context and in the two-cardinal context.

In this paper we prove that from large cardinals it is consistent that there is a singular strong limit cardinal $\nu $ such that the singular cardinal hypothesis fails at $\nu $ and every collection of fewer than $\operatorname {\mathrm {cf}}(\nu )$ stationary subsets of $\nu ^{+}$ reflects simultaneously. For $\operatorname {\mathrm {cf}}(\nu )> \omega $, this situation was not previously known to be consistent. Using different methods, we reduce the upper bound on the consistency strength of this situation for $\operatorname {\mathrm {cf}}(\nu ) = \omega $ to below a single partially supercompact cardinal. The previous upper bound of infinitely many supercompact cardinals was due to Sharon.

We prove that it is consistent that Club Stationary Reflection and the Special Aronszajn Tree Property simultaneously hold on $\omega _2$ , thereby contributing to the study of the tension between compactness and incompactness in set theory. The poset which produces the final model follows the collapse of an ineffable cardinal first with an iteration of club adding (with anticipation) and second with an iteration specializing Aronszajn trees.

In the first part of the paper, we prove a general theorem about specializing Aronszajn trees on $\omega _2$ after forcing with what we call $\mathcal {F}$ -Strongly Proper posets, where $\mathcal {F}$ is either the weakly compact filter or the filter dual to the ineffability ideal. This type of poset, of which the Levy collapse is a degenerate example, uses systems of exact residue functions to create many strongly generic conditions. We prove a new result about stationary set preservation by quotients of this kind of poset; as a corollary, we show that the original Laver–Shelah model, which starts from a weakly compact cardinal, satisfies a strong stationary reflection principle, although it fails to satisfy the full Club Stationary Reflection. In the second part, we show that the composition of collapsing and club adding (with anticipation) is an $\mathcal {F}$ -Strongly Proper poset. After proving a new result about Aronszajn tree preservation, we show how to obtain the final model.

We obtain an array of consistency results concerning trees and stationary reflection at double successors of regular cardinals $\kappa $ , updating some classical constructions in the process. This includes models of $\mathsf {CSR}(\kappa ^{++})\wedge {\sf TP}(\kappa ^{++})$ (both with and without ${\sf AP}(\kappa ^{++})$ ) and models of the conjunctions ${\sf SR}(\kappa ^{++}) \wedge \mathsf {wTP}(\kappa ^{++}) \wedge {\sf AP}(\kappa ^{++})$ and $\neg {\sf AP}(\kappa ^{++}) \wedge {\sf SR}(\kappa ^{++})$ (the latter was originally obtained in joint work by Krueger and the first author [9], and is here given using different methods). Analogs of these results with the failure of $\sf {SH}(\kappa ^{++})$ are given as well. Finally, we obtain all of our results with an arbitrarily large $2^\kappa $ , applying recent joint work by Honzik and the third author.

We improve the upper bound for the consistency strength of stationary reflection at successors of singular cardinals.

We introduce a class of notions of forcing which we call $\Sigma $ -Prikry, and show that many of the known Prikry-type notions of forcing that centers around singular cardinals of countable cofinality are $\Sigma $ -Prikry. We show that given a $\Sigma $ -Prikry poset $\mathbb P$ and a name for a non-reflecting stationary set T, there exists a corresponding $\Sigma $ -Prikry poset that projects to $\mathbb P$ and kills the stationarity of T. Then, in a sequel to this paper, we develop an iteration scheme for $\Sigma $ -Prikry posets. Putting the two works together, we obtain a proof of the following.

Theorem. If $\kappa $ is the limit of a countable increasing sequence of supercompact cardinals, then there exists a forcing extension in which $\kappa $ remains a strong limit cardinal, every finite collection of stationary subsets of $\kappa ^+$ reflects simultaneously, and $2^\kappa =\kappa ^{++}$ .

Three central combinatorial properties in set theory are the tree property, the approachability property and stationary reflection. We prove the mutual independence of these properties by showing that any of their eight Boolean combinations can be forced to hold at ${\kappa ^{ + + }}$, assuming that $\kappa = {\kappa ^{ < \kappa }}$ and there is a weakly compact cardinal above κ.

If in addition κ is supercompact then we can force κ to be ${\aleph _\omega }$ in the extension. The proofs combine the techniques of adding and then destroying a nonreflecting stationary set or a ${\kappa ^{ + + }}$-Souslin tree, variants of Mitchell’s forcing to obtain the tree property, together with the Prikry-collapse poset for turning a large cardinal into ${\aleph _\omega }$.

We prove that if holds for a singular cardinal μ, then any collection of fewer than cf(μ) stationary subsets of μ+ must reflect simultaneously.

We study the relationship between the semistationary reflection principle and stationary reflection principles. We show that for all regular cardinals λ ≥ ω2 the semistationary reflection principle in the space [λ]ω implies that every stationary subset of ≔ {α ∈ λ ∣ cf(α) = ω} reflects. We also show that for all cardinals λ ≥ ω3 the semistationary reflection principle in [λ]ω does not imply the stationary reflection principle in [λ]ω.