MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Is "ZF + $\omega_1$ is supercompact" consistent relative to "ZFC + there is a supercompact cardinal"?

In particular, if $\delta$ is supercompact, does it remain so in $V(\mathbb{R} \cap V[G])$ where $G \subset Col(\omega,<\delta)$ is $V$-generic? This seems to be the case for measurability but I am having trouble proving it for supercompactness. It seems likely that someone else has tried this, so I though I'd ask here.

The appropriate definition of supercompactness in ZF is the one in terms of normal fine measures, where normality is defined using diagonal intersections.

I am aware that $\omega_1$ has some amount of supercompactness under AD. I am interested in a more direct proof using forcing, which I hope will give (full) supercompactness.

share|cite|improve this question
Related:… – Asaf Karagila Aug 3 '12 at 20:31
Ah, I thought I remembered a question like that on here but I couldn't find it. Sorry for posting a similar question. – Trevor Wilson Aug 3 '12 at 20:50
Trevor, I think that my question may be a bit overly broad. It is just like the time I asked about the ability to destroy weak choice principles (or add some of them) via generic extensions (unlike full choice), and later Stefan Geschke asked about a concrete example. It's a reasonable question when trying to tackle a broad question, I think. – Asaf Karagila Aug 3 '12 at 20:54
The Jech construction preserves supercompactness. This is Lemma 1.3 in Apter-Henle, Large cardinal structures below $\aleph_{\omega}$. – tci Aug 13 '12 at 12:50
@TanmayInamdar: Great! Could you post that as an answer? (Maybe including the statement of the relevant theorem?) – Trevor Wilson Aug 13 '12 at 15:43

While might not be a full and satisfactory answer, you might be interested in the following paper by Spector:

Spector, M. Iterated extended ultrapowers and supercompactness without choice., Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 54 (1991), no. 2, 179–194.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks, that mentions a way to extend an ultrapower of Ord taken under ZF to an ultrapower of $V$ in a class generic extension. This would be a useful thing to do if $\omega_1$ were supercompact. It looks like the only example given of supercompactness without choice given in the article comes from AD though. – Trevor Wilson Aug 3 '12 at 20:45
Trevor, I had several chats over a cup of coffee with Magidor on the problem of an inner model for supercompactness. If you think about Solovay's model it has an $L(\mathbb R)$ sort of construction, and in a sense if we make $\aleph_1$ measurable we essentially take some inner model of measurability. However supercompactness does not yet have such canonical inner model, so I don't think that it's that easy to construct a model of $\aleph_1$ being supercompact for all $\lambda$. – Asaf Karagila Aug 3 '12 at 20:51
If you have an idea how to uniformly preserve the supercompact measures on a proper class of cardinals, maybe I can help with the symmetries themselves later on. However if the idea works it seems reasonable that it may solve (or at least advance) the work towards a canonical inner model for supercompactness. – Asaf Karagila Aug 3 '12 at 20:52
I was hoping that the inner model would just be $V(\mathbb{R} \cap V[G])$. Doesn't this work for measurability? Every subset of $\delta$ in this model is added by some proper initial segment of $G$. So we have a measure on $\delta$ given by the union of the small-forcing extensions of the original measure. This is countably complete, again because every countable sequence is added by a proper initial segment of the forcing. But if there is a countably complete measure on $\delta$ then there is a normal measure. – Trevor Wilson Aug 3 '12 at 21:00
...This argument fails to adapt to supercompactness in two ways: first, the set being measured is not added by any proper initial segment of the forcing, and second, normality does not come for free with $\mathcal{P}_\kappa(\lambda)$. Could you explain how the question relates to the inner model problem for supercompact cardinals? – Trevor Wilson Aug 3 '12 at 21:03

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.