We call a set $X ⊆ V_{λ+1}$ an Icarus set if there is an elementary embedding $j : L(X, V_{λ+1}) ≺ L(X, V_{λ+1})$ with $\mathrm{crit}(j)< λ$.

But this raises the question: What is the most "Icarus" Icarus set like?

If $V_{λ+1}$ is Icarus, is strongly implied by $(V_{λ+1})^{♯}$, that is strongly implied by $(V_{λ+1})^{♯♯}$. [Dimonte, 2017]

If $\Theta^{M}<\Theta^{L(X, V_{λ+1})}$ then we consider “X is an Icarus set” as something stronger than “M is an Icarus set”. [Dimonte, 2011]

Even with "$M=(V_{λ+1})^{<\gamma♯}$" or "$M=E^0_{\infty}(V_{λ+1})$" or "$M=E^{j_{<\omega}}_{\infty}(V_{λ+1})$", according to the previous deduction, they cannot be the most "Icarus" Icarus set.

I looked up the literature [Woodin, 2011]. AD-Conjecture is indeed very good, but it doesn't seem to solve the problem. Of course I can't make sure I'm not missing anything, it's too long.


Well, I now probably understand that AD-Conjecture can hold an Icarus set with the maximum consistency strength. But this does not convince me that:

  1. Perhaps there could also be a forcing-axiom-style (Martin's maximum? Ω-logic?)/powerset-maximal-style (V-logic?) Icarus set with maximum consistency strength based on their set-theoretic philosophy.
  2. There is no known relative consistency analysis/ordinal analysis conclusion that the candidates are indeed the ones with the maximum consistency strength.
  3. Does it really require a very large consistency strength just to wish to hold all sets $X ⊆ V_{λ+1}$ that can be used for embedding? What is the difference between this and Kunen inconsistency that prevents us from proving it in ZFC?


[Dimonte, 2011] Dimonte, V. (2011). Very Large Cardinals and Elementary Embeddings Properties

[Dimonte, 2017] Dimonte, V. (2017). I0 and rank-into-rank axioms.

[Woodin, 2011] Woodin, W. H. (2011). Suitable extender models II: beyond ω-huge.

  • $\begingroup$ How would the following quote from Dimonte's "$I0$ and rank-into-rank axioms" (pg. 61) help you answer your question (if at all): "Trivially, if $I0(\lambda)$ holds, (and in fact every set in $L(V_{\lambda + 1})$ $\cap$ $V_{\lambda + 2}$ ) is Icarus. On the other hand, a well-ordering of $V_{\lambda + 1} $cannot be Icarus, because of Kunen's theorem." $\endgroup$ May 16, 2022 at 5:59
  • $\begingroup$ *$V_{\lambda + 1}$ (and in fact... $\endgroup$ May 16, 2022 at 6:20
  • $\begingroup$ @ThomasBenjamin 1. $E^0_0=L(V_{\lambda + 1})\cup V_{\lambda + 2}$, So $E^0_1$ is more "Icarus" than it. 2. $I0(\lambda)$ is itself a dangerous and alleged violation of the axioms of Kunen inconsistency and HOD conjecture. Because $Con(ZF + \lambda\text{-}DC + I0(\lambda))\to Con(ZF + \lambda\text{-}DC + I0(\lambda) + j\uparrow V_{\lambda+2})$. [*]Schlutzenberg, F. (2020). On the consistency of ZF with an elementary embedding from $ V_ {\lambda+ 2} $ into $ V_ {\lambda+ 2} $. arxiv.org/abs/2006.01077 $\endgroup$ May 17, 2022 at 19:35
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the reference. I'll take a look. $\endgroup$ May 18, 2022 at 1:42
  • $\begingroup$ In '1', shouldn't the $\cup$ be a $\cap$ in the definition of $E^{0}_{0}$? $\endgroup$ May 18, 2022 at 17:26


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.