Some Intuition behind Large Cardinal Axioms, Their Characterization, and Related Results

We aim to explain the intuition behind several large cardinal axioms, give characterization theorems for these axioms, and then discuss a few of their properties. As a capstone, we hope to introduce a new large cardinal notion and give a similar characterization theorem of this new notion. Our new notion of near strong compactness was inspired by the similar notion of near supercompactness, due to Jason Schanker

Subcompact cardinals, squares, and stationary reflection

We generalise Jensen's result on the incompatibility of subcompactness with square. We show that alpha^+-subcompactness of some cardinal less than or equal to alpha precludes square_alpha, but also that square may be forced to hold everywhere where this obstruction is not present. The forcing also preserves other strong large cardinals. Similar results are also given for stationary reflection, with a corresponding strengthening of the large cardinal assumption involved. Finally, we refine the analysis by considering Schimmerling's hierarchy of weak squares, showing which cases are precluded by alpha^+-subcompactness, and again we demonstrate the optimality of our results by forcing the strongest possible squares under these restrictions to hold.Comment: 18 pages. Corrections and improvements from referee's report mad

Laver and set theory

In this commemorative article, the work of Richard Laver is surveyed in its full range and extent.Accepted manuscrip

Dense ideals and cardinal arithmetic

From large cardinals we show the consistency of normal, fine, $\kappa$-complete $\lambda$-dense ideals on $\mathcal{P}_\kappa(\lambda)$ for successor $\kappa$. We explore the interplay between dense ideals, cardinal arithmetic, and squares, answering some open questions of Foreman

Inner models with large cardinal features usually obtained by forcing

We construct a variety of inner models exhibiting features usually obtained by forcing over universes with large cardinals. For example, if there is a supercompact cardinal, then there is an inner model with a Laver indestructible supercompact cardinal. If there is a supercompact cardinal, then there is an inner model with a supercompact cardinal \kappa for which 2^\kappa=\kappa^+, another for which 2^\kappa=\kappa^++ and another in which the least strongly compact cardinal is supercompact. If there is a strongly compact cardinal, then there is an inner model with a strongly compact cardinal, for which the measurable cardinals are bounded below it and another inner model W with a strongly compact cardinal \kappa, such that H_{\kappa^+}^V\subseteq HOD^W. Similar facts hold for supercompact, measurable and strongly Ramsey cardinals. If a cardinal is supercompact up to a weakly iterable cardinal, then there is an inner model of the Proper Forcing Axiom and another inner model with a supercompact cardinal in which GCH+V=HOD holds. Under the same hypothesis, there is an inner model with level by level equivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness, and indeed, another in which there is level by level inequivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness. If a cardinal is strongly compact up to a weakly iterable cardinal, then there is an inner model in which the least measurable cardinal is strongly compact. If there is a weakly iterable limit \delta of <\delta-supercompact cardinals, then there is an inner model with a proper class of Laver-indestructible supercompact cardinals. We describe three general proof methods, which can be used to prove many similar results