Rank-into-rank hypotheses and the failure of GCH

In this paper we are concerned about the ways GCH can fail in relation to rank-into-rank hypotheses, i.e., very large cardinals usually denoted by I3, I2, I1 and I0. The main results are a satisfactory analysis of the way the power function can vary on regular cardinals in the presence of rank-into-rank hypotheses and the consistency under I0 of the existence of j:V\u3bb+1 7aV\u3bb+1 with the failure of GCH at \u3bb

A general tool for consistency results related to I1

In this paper we provide a general tool to prove the consistency of $I1(\lambda)$ with various combinatorial properties at $\lambda$ typical at settings with $2^\lambda>\lambda^+$, that does not need a profound knowledge of the forcing notions involved. Examples of such properties are the first failure of GCH, a very good scale and the negation of the approachability property, or the tree property at $\lambda^+$ and $\lambda^{++}$

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

Capturing sets of ordinals by normal ultrapowers

We investigate the extent to which ultrapowers by normal measures on $\kappa$ can be correct about powersets $\mathcal{P}(\lambda)$ for $\lambda>\kappa$. We consider two versions of this questions, the capturing property $\mathrm{CP}(\kappa,\lambda)$ and the local capturing property $\mathrm{LCP}(\kappa,\lambda)$. $\mathrm{CP}(\kappa,\lambda)$ holds if there is an ultrapower by a normal measure on $\kappa$ which correctly computes $\mathcal{P}(\lambda)$. $\mathrm{LCP}(\kappa,\lambda)$ is a weakening of $\mathrm{CP}(\kappa,\lambda)$ which holds if every subset of $\lambda$ is contained in some ultrapower by a normal measure on $\kappa$. After examining the basic properties of these two notions, we identify the exact consistency strength of $\mathrm{LCP}(\kappa,\kappa^+)$. Building on results of Cummings, who determined the exact consistency strength of $\mathrm{CP}(\kappa,\kappa^+)$, and using a forcing due to Apter and Shelah, we show that $\mathrm{CP}(\kappa,\lambda)$ can hold at the least measurable cardinal.Comment: 20 page