Let $X$ be a collection of cardinals such that if $\kappa,\lambda\in X$ and $\kappa<\lambda$, then there is a non-trivial elementary embedding $j:V_{\kappa+1} \to V_{\lambda+1}$ with $crit(j) = \kappa$.

What is the consistency strength of the claim that there are such $X$ for various sizes of $X$? In particular, what is the consistency strength when $X$ is a proper class of cardinals?


First, let me point out that having a chain of $3$ such cardinals, with elementary embeddings $$V_{\kappa+1}\to V_{\lambda+1}\to V_{\eta+1},$$ already implies that $\kappa$ is $1$-inaccessible with target $\lambda$ in $V_{\eta+1}$, and so by elementarity $\kappa$ will be $1$-extendible with arbitrarily large targets below $\lambda$, and so $V_\kappa$ must also think that there are unboundedly many $1$-extendible cardinals. So even chains of length three exceed a proper class of $1$-extendible cardinals in consistency strength.

Meanwhile, a $2$-extendible cardinal is sufficient to produce very large chains:

Theorem. If $\kappa$ is $2$-extendible, then $V_\kappa$ has such a proper class chain of $1$-extendibles as you desire.

Proof. Suppose that $\kappa$ is $2$ extendible with target $\lambda$, so that there is an elementary embedding $j:V_{\kappa+2}\to V_{\lambda+2}$ with critical point $\kappa$, for which necessarily $j(\kappa)=\lambda$. It follows that $V_{\lambda+2}$ can see the embedding $j\upharpoonright V_{\kappa+1}:V_{\kappa+1}\to V_{\lambda+1}$ and therefore $\kappa$ is $1$-extendible in $V_{\lambda+2}$. It follows that there is a normal measure one set of $1$-extendible cardinals below $\kappa$. But furthermore, we can make them cohere in the way you desire in your question. Namely, since $V_{\lambda+2}$ thinks that $\lambda$ is the target of the $1$-extendibility embedding $j\upharpoonright V_{\kappa+1}$, and $\lambda=j(\kappa)$, it follows by elementarity that $V_{\kappa+2}$ thinks that $\kappa$ is the target of a $1$-extendibility embedding $j_0:V_{\delta+1}\to V_{\kappa+1}$. Thus, we've achieved a chain of length $2$. By Zorn's lemma, let us extend this to a maximal set $X\subset\kappa$ (maximal under inclusion) of $1$-extendible-with-target-$\kappa$ cardinals $\delta\lt\kappa$, which is also a chain in your sense. I claim that $X$ must have size $\kappa$. If not, then $X$ has size less than $\kappa$. Notice that $V_{\kappa+2}$ is capable of verifying the property on $X$ we have described, and so by elementarity, $V_{\lambda+2}$ will think that $j(X)=X$ is a maximal chain of $1$-extendible-with-target-$\lambda$ cardinals below $j(\kappa)=\lambda$, which is a chain in your sense. But the point is that $X\cup\{\kappa\}$ is a strictly larger set of $1$-extendible-with-target-$\lambda$ cardinals, which is a chain. This violates the maximality of $X$. Thus, $X$ must be unbounded, and so we get a proper class chain in $V_\kappa$ of such cardinals. QED

One can do a similar argument with an alternative weaker hypothesis.

Theorem. If $\kappa$ is $2^\kappa$-supercompact, then $V_\kappa$ has a $\kappa$-chain of $1$-extendible cardinals.

Proof. Let $j:V\to M$ be a $2^\kappa$-supercompactness embedding. Thus, $j\upharpoonright V_{\kappa+1}:V_{\kappa+1}\to M_{j(\kappa)+1}$ is a $1$-extendibility embedding inside $M$. So $M$ thinks $\kappa$ is $1$-extendible with target $j(\kappa)$. Let $X\subset\kappa$ be a maximal chain of $1$-extendible-with-target-$\kappa$ cardinals, as in the previous argument. If $X$ is bounded below $\kappa$, then $j(X)=X$, which would contradict maximality, since we may add $\kappa$ to have a strictly larger chain. So $X$ is unbounded, and we've found the desired chain. QED

  • $\begingroup$ It's an interesting question. I suspect that one can formulate similar questions in terms not just of linear chains, as you have, but in terms of the rank of the partial order underlying this, where $\kappa$ is below $\lambda$ if $\kappa$ is $1$-extendible with target $\lambda$. Asserting nontrivial rank for this order drives up the consistency strength. $\endgroup$ – Joel David Hamkins Nov 27 '13 at 1:45
  • $\begingroup$ That sounds interesting. What would the assertion that the partial order has nontrivial rank look like? $\endgroup$ – Sam Roberts Nov 27 '13 at 1:58
  • $\begingroup$ The partial order is well-founded, and so it has a natural rank function. In the finite rank cases, the rank is the length of the largest linear chain in your sense. But suppose we have a model with arbitrarily large finite chains, but no infinite chain? The rank of the partial order in this case would be $\omega$, but you don't get a chain of length $\omega$. Similarly, one can formulate the hypthoses that the rank is any particular ordinal $\alpha$, or that there are arbitrarly large set-size chains (but perhaps no proper class chain). $\endgroup$ – Joel David Hamkins Nov 27 '13 at 2:07
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, I see what you mean now. I'd be very interested to see how the consistency strength is sensitive to assumptions on the rank in this way! In any case, thanks again! $\endgroup$ – Sam Roberts Nov 27 '13 at 2:17

I think for the Theorem one can get by with a subcompact cardinal, which is weaker than a $\kappa^+$-supercompact.

( $\kappa$ is subcompact if for any $A\subseteq H_{\kappa^+}$ there are $j,\mu < \kappa, B\subseteq H_{\mu^+}$ with $j:(H_{\mu^+},\in, B) \longrightarrow_e (H_{\kappa^+},\in, A)$. ( where $ \longrightarrow_e$ means ``is an elementary map''. ) )

Let $\kappa$ be subcompact as above, and let $A = \mathop{Sat} = {Sat}_{\kappa^+}$ Then $\mathop{Sat} \subseteq H_{\kappa^+}$, and applying the definition of subcompactness there are $\mu < \kappa$, $j$, and $\overline{\mathop{Sat}}$ with

$j : (H_{\mu^+}, \overline{\mathop{Sat}}) \longrightarrow_e (H_{\kappa^+}, \mathop{Sat})$.

Then $\overline{\mathop{Sat}}= {Sat}_{\mu^+}$ can be checked easily. $j$ is easily in $H_{\kappa^+}$ but the point of having the Sat predicate is that we can express in a first order way (in the extended language) that there is a $j$ with $ran(j)$ an elementary substructure of $(H_{\kappa^+},\in)$.

Thus $(H_{\kappa^+}, {Sat}) \models$``${ran} (j) \prec_e (V, \in)$'' indeed:

$(H_{\kappa^+}, {Sat}) \models$``There is $k, \kappa_0,$ with $k : (H_{\kappa_0^+}, \in) \longrightarrow (V, \in)$ and ${ran} (k) \prec_e (V, \in) ,$ and thus $k$ is an elementary map.''

This goes down to $(H_{\mu^+}, {Sat}_{\mu^+})$. This starts out links in the chain, using the restriction of the map(s) $k$ to the domain $V_{\kappa_0 +1}$ etc. and the rest of the argument is as before.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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