14
$\begingroup$

Weak Vopěnka's principle says that

the opposite of the category of ordinals cannot be fully embedded in any locally presentable category.

Recall that one form of Vopěnka's principle says that the category of ordinals cannot be fully embedded in any locally presentable category.

Adámek and Rosický show that weak Vopěnka's principle follows from Vopěnka's principle and implies the existence of a proper class of measurables, giving a rough indication of its consistency strength. Its interest lies in its equivalence to the principle that any full subcategory of a locally presentable category closed under limits is reflective, or its equivalence to the principle that every orthogonal subcategory of a locally presentable category is reflective.

But these results date from Adámek and Rosický's 1994 book Locally Presentable and Accessible Categories.

Question: Is a more precise understanding of weak Vopěnka's principle available today? In particular, is its consistency strength well-calibrated?

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I am trying to recall this statement of VP (that ORD admits no full embedding in any locally presentable cat) and I can't find it. Isn't ORD the skeleton of LinOrdSet, though? $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 29, 2018 at 10:01
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @HarryGindi Not every linear order is a well-order. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 29, 2018 at 13:00
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @HarryGindi Not only is not every linear a well-order, but the morphisms of well-orderings are also much more restrictive than those of linear orders. For the statement, see Lemma 6.2 of Adamek-Rosicky. From a large discrete full subcategory $(A_i)_{i \in Ord} \subseteq C$, one constructs an embedding $Ord \to C$ by sending $i \mapsto \amalg_{j < i} A_j$. Conversely, an embedding $Ord \to C$ for $C$ locally presentable contradicts the form of Vopenka's principle which says that any class $(A_i)_{i \in Ord} \subseteq C$ admits a morphism $A_i \to A_j$ for some $i < j$. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 29, 2018 at 14:42
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The construction of an embedding $Ord \to C$ given above only works in certain $C$, such as the category of graphs, but that's fine. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 29, 2018 at 14:44

2 Answers 2

14
$\begingroup$

The weak Vopěnka principle (WVP) and semi-weak Vopěnka principle (SWVP) are both equivalent to the large cardinal principle "Ord is Woodin". These results now appear in a paper on the arXiv. I kept the proof that Ord is Woodin implies SWVP as part of this MathOverflow answer (see below), but removed the outline of the proof that WVP implies Ord is Woodin because the paper contains a better proof of that now.

I will use the form of WVP which says that the opposite of the category of ordinals cannot be fully embedded in the category of graphs. In other words, there is no sequence of graphs $(G_\alpha : \alpha < \mathrm{Ord})$ such that for all $\alpha < \beta$ there is no homomorphism from $G_\alpha$ to $G_\beta$, and for all $\alpha \le \beta$ there is a unique homomorphism from $G_\beta$ to $G_\alpha$.

SWVP (see Adámek and Rosický, On Injectivity in Locally Presentable Categories) says that there is no sequence of graphs $(G_\alpha : \alpha < \mathrm{Ord})$ such that for all $\alpha < \beta$ there is no homomorphism from $G_\alpha$ to $G_\beta$, and for all $\alpha \le \beta$ there is at least one homomorphism from $G_\beta$ to $G_\alpha$.

For every similarity type consisting of finitary relation symbols, the category of all structures of this type can be fully embedded into the category of graphs (see Hedrlín and Pultr, On full embeddings of categories of algebras,) so replacing graphs by more general relational structures yields equivalent statements of WVP and SWVP.

"Ord is Woodin" means that for every class $A$ there is an $A$-strong cardinal. See Kanamori, The Higher Infinite for the definition of $A$-strong cardinal. For maximum generality, we work in GB + AC. (As a special case, the results hold in ZFC for definable classes $A$.)

Proof that Ord is Woodin implies SWVP.

Assume Ord is Woodin and let $(G_\alpha : \alpha \in \mathrm{Ord})$ be a sequence of graphs such that for all $\alpha \le \beta$ there is at least one homomorphism from $G_\beta$ to $G_\alpha$. We will show that for some ordinal $\kappa$ there is a homomorphism from $G_\kappa$ to $G_{\kappa+1}$.

We can write $G_\alpha = G(\alpha)$ where $G$ is a class function with domain Ord. Because Ord is Woodin, some cardinal $\kappa$ is $G$-strong. Take a cardinal $\beta$ greater than $\kappa$ and greater than the von Neumann rank of the graph $G(\kappa+1)$, meaning $G(\kappa+1) \in V_\beta$. Because $\kappa$ is $\beta$-$G$-strong, there is a transitive class $M$ containing $V_\beta$ and an elementary embedding $j : (V;\in) \to (M;\in)$ such that the critical point of $j$ is $\kappa$ and $V_\beta \subset M$ and $j(\kappa) > \beta$ and $j(G) \restriction \beta = G \restriction \beta$. We describe the latter condition by saying that $j$ coheres with $G$.

Because $j$ coheres with $G$, the graph $G(\kappa+1)$ is equal to $j(G)(\kappa+1)$, so it is on the sequence $j(G)$, which is an Ord-sequence of graphs in $M$. Note that $j(G(\kappa)) = j(G)(j(\kappa))$ by the elementarity of $j$, so the graph $j(G(\kappa))$ is also on the sequence $j(G)$. We have $j(\kappa) > \kappa+1$, so by our assumption on the sequence $G$ and the elementarity of $j$, we have a homomorphism $j(G(\kappa)) \to G(\kappa+1)$ in $M$ and therefore in $V$. We also have a homomorphism $G(\kappa) \to j(G(\kappa))$ in $V$ given by $j \restriction G(\kappa)$. Composing these, we obtain a homomorphism $G(\kappa) \to G(\kappa+1)$, as desired.

$\endgroup$
12
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Now, when you say class, I'm guessing you mean definable, or are we talking about a hierarchy of strength here by stronger and stronger second-order systems? $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Commented Apr 21, 2019 at 22:38
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It doesn't seem to make much difference to the proof, so it's best to prove it for arbitrary classes in GBC. Then we obtain the following consequences as special cases: (1) In ZFC, WVP for definable classes is equivalent to "Ord is definably Woodin", and (2) for every inaccessible cardinal $\kappa$, WVP in $V_\kappa$ (for all classes that are elements of $V_{\kappa+1}$) is equivalent to "$\kappa$ is a Woodin cardinal." $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 21, 2019 at 23:07
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Also, I think a refinement of the argument should prove that WVP for $\mathbf{\Pi}_1$ classes and WVP for $\mathbf{\Sigma}_2$ classes are both equivalent to the existence of a proper class of strong cardinals. Perhaps one can obtain analogous results higher in the Levy hierarchy, like Bagaria did for VP. I don't know what the higher definable analogs of strong cardinals are. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 21, 2019 at 23:10
  • $\begingroup$ This is awesome! I hope you write it up in a paper! $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 23, 2019 at 2:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ ...so the inaccessible weak Vopenka cardinals are the Woodin cardinals, but there can also be smaller weak Vopenka cardinals. In particular, if the Proper Forcing Axiom holds then $\aleph_2$ is a weak Vopenka cardinal -- I wonder whether there is any application of this fact to category theory. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 20, 2021 at 6:15
5
$\begingroup$

The best that I can tell is in these slides. Joan Bagaria gave a beautiful talk at Accessible Categories and their connections in Leeds, this very July.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ From the discussion in the slides, I take it that not much more is known definitively about this than 20 years ago, but that there are some interesting ideas about how to approach it. Thanks! $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 29, 2018 at 14:33
  • $\begingroup$ You are welcome! $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 29, 2018 at 20:31

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .