5
$\begingroup$

Strong and supercompact cardinals are $\varSigma_2$-reflecting; extendible cardinals are $\varSigma_3$-reflecting. It is of course possible to build larger degrees of correctness into the definitions of large cardinals; if I understand correctly, this is essentially what Joan Bagaria does in his paper "$C^{(n)}$-Cardinals" (Arch. Math. Logic 51 (2012): 213–40; doi: 10.1007/s00153-011-0261-8).

But is there any 'standard' large cardinal notion—basically, one not specifically formulated using the notion of $\varSigma_n$-correctness or something equivalent—such that cardinals of that type are $\varSigma_n$-reflecting for $n > 3$?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I see, belatedly, that this issue has been discussed at length elsewhere: mathoverflow.net/questions/71524/how-elementary-can-we-go?rq=1 I'm not sure whether I should delete this as duplicative, but I'll leave it up in case the link is useful to anyone. $\endgroup$ – Beau Madison Mount Jan 3 '18 at 9:35
  • $\begingroup$ Generally, no. Most large cardinal properties are $\Sigma_2$-definable, if not $\Sigma_3$-definable. If a large cardinal property implied being $\Sigma_3$-reflecting then it wouldn't be $\Sigma_3$-definable. Note that $\Sigma_3$ is a class containing all statements of the form "There is a __" for __ a $\Pi_2$-formula, and most cardinal properties of the form "for each ordinal $\alpha$, $\kappa$ is $\alpha$-____" are $\Pi_2$ of themselves (for example supercompact cardinals). $\endgroup$ – Keith Millar Oct 15 '18 at 18:25
0
$\begingroup$

There is actually a type of cardinal that satisfies this, called the "stationarily superhuge" cardinals. A cardinal $\kappa$ is called stationarily superhuge if the $\{\lambda|\kappa\text{ is huge with target }\lambda\}$ is stationary. If $\kappa$ is stationarily superhuge, $V_\kappa\prec V$, and moreover $L_\kappa\prec L$. The reason for this is that $\{\lambda|V_\lambda\prec V\}$ is club, assuming the existence of a stationarily superhuge cardinal. Then $V_\kappa\vDash\phi$ if and only if $M\vDash(V_\lambda\vDash\phi)$ if and only if $V_\lambda\vDash\phi$. Setting $\lambda$ is correct, we have $V_\lambda$ reflects $\phi$.

A similar argument works for $L_\kappa$, and for $H_\kappa$ (Or more simply, as $\kappa$ is superhuge and so inaccessible, $H_\kappa=V_\kappa$). Moreover, the set of such cardinals form a normal measure beneath $\kappa$. Let $D=\{X\subseteq\kappa|\kappa\in j(X)\}$. Then $M\vDash(j(\kappa)\text{ is reflecting})$, and so $U\in D$, where $U=\{\lambda<\kappa|\lambda\text{ is reflecting}\}$.

Reference: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2274094 (Julius B. Barbanel, Carlos A. Diprisco and It Beng Tan: Many-Times Huge and Superhuge Cardinals, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, Vol. 49, No. 1 (Mar., 1984), pp. 112-122. https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.jsl/1183741478 https://doi.org/10.2307/2274094)

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I don't understand your statement that $\{\lambda\text{ is inaccessible}|V_\lambda\prec V\}$ is club. The $\omega$-th member of a club has cofinality $\omega$ and is therefore not inaccessible. (I also don't understand "and moreover" in the first paragraph. If $\kappa$ is inaccessible and $V_\kappa\prec V$ then automatically $L_\kappa\prec L$.) $\endgroup$ – Andreas Blass Jun 3 '19 at 4:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You are right. I reworked the argument to adjust that. I added the "and moreover" to simply put emphasis on it, because it was relevant for the second part. I realize now it is redundant. $\endgroup$ – Master Jun 3 '19 at 4:18

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.