Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 43 references

Extendible cardinals, and Laver-generic large cardinal axioms for extendibility

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that Laver-generic large cardinal axioms for extendibility—not ultrahugeness—suffice to deliver boldface Resurrection Axioms, Recurrence/Maximality Principles, and Absoluteness Theorems, at the consistency strength of a…

desk verdict Worth refereeing: the consequence theorems are substantive, but the consistency half of the abstract is ahead of the written proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03572 v2 pith:JBZ5GYUC submitted 2025-06-04 math.LO

Sakaé Fuchino This is my paper
classification math.LO MSC 03E4503E5003E5503E5703E65
keywords genericlargecardinalLaver-genericaxiomsextendiblecardinalsresurrectionmaximalityprinciplesabsolutenesstheoremsrecurrencecontinuumhypothesis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper introduces Laver-generic large cardinal axioms for extendibility, a generic-embedding version of extendible cardinals with critical point $\kappa_{\mathrm{refl}} = \max\{\aleph_2, 2^{\aleph_0}\}$, and argues that these axioms inherit nearly all the payoff previously derived from the much stronger ultrahuge versions. If the paper is right, a single extendible cardinal is enough to force models in which the boldface Resurrection Axiom, a strong Recurrence/Maximality Principle for $\Sigma_2 \wedge \Pi_2$ formulas, and a general Absoluteness Theorem all hold. The super-$C^{(\infty)}$ variant additionally yields the full Maximality Principle for the relevant class of posets. This matters because it collapses a large part of the consistency-strength hierarchy: principles once tied to ultrahuge cardinals follow from a comparatively low large-cardinal assumption, provided the poset class is closed under transfinitely iterable forcing and the generic embedding satisfies a size bound.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the notion of a tightly $P$-Laver-generically extendible cardinal: a cardinal $\kappa$ such that for every $\lambda > \kappa$ and every poset $P$ in an iterable class $\mathcal{P}$ there is a $\mathcal{P}$-name $\dot{Q}$ with ${\Vdash}_P \dot{Q} \in \mathcal{P}$ so that any $(V, P * \dot{Q})$-generic filter yields an elementary embedding $j : V \to M$ with critical point $\kappa$, $j(\kappa) > \lambda$, $V_{j(\lambda)}^{V[H]} \in M$, and $|\mathrm{RO}(P * \dot{Q})| \le j(\kappa)$. The containment of $V_{j(\lambda)}^{V[H]}$ in $M$ is what makes the extendibility-style embedding behave like a much larger large-cardinal embedding, and the tightness bound is what lets the argument descend to supercompactness and control the iterated forcing used in the consistency proofs. The super-$C^{(\infty)}$ version adds the demand that $V_\lambda \prec_{\Sigma_n} V$ and $V_{j(\lambda)}^{V[H]} \prec_{\Sigma_n} V[H]$ for every $n$, which is what upgrades Theorem 4.3 to the full Maximality Principle.

What would settle it

A concrete test: construct a model where $\kappa_{\mathrm{refl}}$ is tightly $P$-Lg extendible for some transfinitely iterable class $P$, but there is a $P$-extension forcing a $\Sigma_2 \wedge \Pi_2$ sentence $\varphi(a)$ with $a \in H(\kappa_{\mathrm{refl}})$ for which no $P$-ground of the model satisfies $\varphi(a)$. That would directly refute Theorem 4.3 and with it the paper's central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the $P$-Laver-generic large cardinal axiom for extendibility at $\kappa_{\mathrm{refl}}$ is enough to run the arguments that previously used ultrahuge cardinals: Theorem 4.2 derives the boldface Resurrection Axiom $\mathrm{RA}^P_{H(\kappa_{\mathrm{refl}})}$, Theorem 4.3 derives the Recurrence/Maximality principle $(P,H(\kappa_{\mathrm{refl}}))_\Gamma\text{-RcA}^+$ for $\Gamma = \Sigma_2 \wedge \Pi_2$, and Theorem 4.7 derives the Absoluteness Theorem, while Theorem 4.6 shows that the super-$C^{(\infty)}$ version gives $\mathrm{MP}(P,H(\kappa_{\mathrm{refl}}))$. The key transfer is Lemma 4.1(2): a tightly $P$-Lg extendible cardinal is already a tightly $P$-Lg supercompact cardinal, provided the completing forcing is small enough, so the known supercompact consequences apply. The consistency theorems (Theorem 5.2) show these axioms can be forced from an extendible cardinal, and the strong variant from a model with cofinally many strong super-$C^{(\infty)}$-extendible cardinals below an almost-huge cardinal.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the class of posets being transfinitely iterable and on the tightness bound $|\mathrm{RO}(P * \dot{Q})| \le j(\kappa)$; if those fail, the transfer from extendibility to the ultrahuge-style consequences is not established, and the unrestricted all-posets version is either inconsistent or forces $\mathsf{CH}$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under the $P$-LgLCA for extendible, no forcing in $P$ can permanently change the $\Sigma_2 \wedge \Pi_2$ theory of $H(\kappa_{\mathrm{refl}})$ with parameters from $H(\kappa_{\mathrm{refl}})$; any such statement forced over the universe is already true in some $P$-ground of the universe.
  • The same axiom gives the boldface Resurrection Axiom: every $A \subseteq H(\kappa_{\mathrm{refl}})$ and every $P \in \mathcal{P}$ admits a further $P$-forcing after which $(H(\kappa_{\mathrm{refl}})^V, A, \in)$ becomes an elementary substructure of the corresponding structure in the extension.
  • If the super-$C^{(\infty)}$ version holds, the full Maximality Principle $\mathrm{MP}(P,H(\kappa_{\mathrm{refl}}))$ holds, meaning every formula forced by a $P$-poset with parameters in $H(\kappa_{\mathrm{refl}})$ is already true in some $P$-ground.
  • The consistency strength of these consequences drops to a single extendible cardinal for $\Sigma_2$-definable transfinitely iterable poset classes, so the whole package is compatible with large-cardinal assumptions far weaker than ultrahuge.
  • For the all-posets variant at critical point $2^{\aleph_0}$, the analogous axioms imply $\mathsf{CH}$ and reproduce the resurrection, maximality, and absoluteness results at $H(\aleph_1)$.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: if the tightness bound $|\mathrm{RO}(P * \dot{Q})| \le j(\kappa)$ is genuinely indispensable, then the axioms are sensitive to the cardinal arithmetic of $\kappa_{\mathrm{refl}}$; changing $2^{\aleph_0}$ while keeping the bound can move the axioms between consistency and inconsistency, so the boundary may reflect a real structural limitation rather than a proof artifact.
  • Editorial inference: the same reduction pattern suggests a general template—any large-cardinal notion whose generic embedding can place $V_{j(\lambda)}^{V[H]}$ into the target model and satisfy a size bound should automatically absorb the resurrection and maximality consequences of stronger notions, so extendibility may not be special among such closure-rich large cardinals.
  • Editorial inference: a natural testable extension is to weaken the poset class to non-transfinitely-iterable but still useful classes, for example subclasses defined only by chain conditions, and ask whether the $\Sigma_2 \wedge \Pi_2$ recurrence theorem still goes through; the current proof uses transfinitely iterable closure in an essential way.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Laver-generic large cardinal axioms for extendibility (P-LgLCA for extendible) and their super-C(∞) variants, with κ_refl = max{ℵ2, 2^ℵ0} fixed as the critical point. The main claims are: the P-LgLCA for extendible yields the boldface Resurrection Axiom RA^P_{H(κ_refl)} (Theorem 4.2), the recurrence/maximality principle (P,H(κ_refl))_{Σ2∧Π2}-RcA+ (Theorem 4.3), and a Viale-style absoluteness theorem (Theorem 4.7); the super-C(∞) version yields full MP(P,H(κ_refl)) (Theorem 4.6). It further claims consistency of the P-LgLCA for extendible from an extendible cardinal for every transfinitely iterable Σ2-definable class P satisfying the hypotheses of Theorem 5.2, and consistency of the super-C(∞) version from a strongly super-C(∞)-extendible cardinal. The paper also surveys reflection consequences (RP*, MA**, FRP, GRP, Rado's Conjecture, SCH) under LgLCAs for supercompact, proves separation results under CCA, and introduces the all-posets variant LgLCAA with critical point 2^ℵ0, which implies CH.

Significance. Assuming the stated theorems, the paper makes a valuable reduction: many consequences previously obtained from (super-C(∞)-)LgLCAs for ultrahuge or hyperhuge are claimed to follow already from the corresponding axioms for extendible, and consistency of the non-super-C(∞) axioms is claimed from a single extendible cardinal. The paper also gives useful boundary information (inconsistency of the all-posets LgLCA at κ_refl, CH under the LgLCAA) and contains explicit proofs of the extendibility characterizations and of the Laver-function construction. However, the consistency proof is written only for proper forcing, and the proofs of Theorems 4.3 and 4.7 contain mismatches between the stated axiom and the closure conditions actually used. These gaps are load-bearing for the abstract's central claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5, Theorem 5.2(1)] The proof is given only for the class of all proper posets; the text states that the general case follows by replacing the CS-iteration by 'the type of iteration for which the class P is transfinitely iterable', but no such argument is supplied for e.g. the class of ccc posets or the class of σ-closed posets. The subsequent step that V[Gκ] |= κ = κrefl is justified by a citation to Section 5 of [13], which concerns proper forcing. Since the axiom is defined as 'κrefl is tightly P-Lg extendible', failure to verify κ = κrefl would only yield a model with some tightly P-Lg extendible cardinal, not the P-LgLCA for extendible. The proof of part (3) is also deferred as 'Similarly to (2)'. Thus the consistency assertion in the abstract is not certified in its stated generality.
  2. [Proof of Theorem 4.3] The proof opens with 'Assume that κ := κrefl is tightly P-Laver generically ultrahuge', whereas the theorem is stated for the P-LgLCA for extendible. Subsequent steps also use '|P * Q| ≤ j(κ)' at (ℵ4.10), while the definition of tightly P-Laver generically extendible gives |RO(P * Q)| ≤ j(κ). The argument is probably repairable, but as written it does not prove the stated theorem.
  3. [Theorem 4.7, proof of (4.15)] The proof uses (ℵ4.19) j''j(κ) ∈ M to produce a P-name of the witness b inside M. This condition is not among the closure properties of a tightly P-Laver generically extendible embedding, whose defining condition is V_{j(λ)}^{V[H]} ∈ M for the chosen λ. The proof needs to show that this condition, or a suitable choice of λ, yields the needed closure, or to revise the coding argument; without such a step the absoluteness theorem does not follow from the stated axiom.
  4. [Theorem 6.1(2)] In the proof, P is taken to be Col(ℵ1, λ+) and the text says 'Since P is proper'. Col(ℵ1, λ+) collapses ω1 and is not proper. The intended argument presumably uses that this poset is σ-closed and stationary-preserving, but as written this is a mathematical error in the proof of RP*.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The text contains many typos and OCR artifacts, including 'Asdumr' in Lemma 4.1(2), 'exitendibility' in Section 2, 'follos' in Lemma 4.1, 'soncistency' in Section 8, and 'huperhuge' in the diagram; the manuscript should be proofread carefully.
  2. [Proposition 3.2] The notation Vμ↾Vη is not defined; it seems to denote the restriction of the structure Vμ to Vη, and later 'Vμ↾Vα' appears in elementarity claims. Please define this notation and make the use of the predicates Cα explicit.
  3. [Theorem 4.2] The proof replaces P * Q by an isomorphic poset with underlying set j(κ) and then writes j(κ) = |RO(P * Q)|, while the definition only supplies |RO(P * Q)| ≤ j(κ). This is likely harmless, but it should be justified explicitly, for instance by adjoining trivial conditions and using closure under forcing equivalence.
  4. [Section 8, Theorem 8.2] The statement says the result 'can be proved similarly to Theorem 5.2' but no details are given; since the critical point changes from κ_refl to 2^ℵ0, the iteration and the verification of κ = 2^ℵ0 should be sketched or the claim should be marked as deferred.
  5. [Diagram on pages 28–29] The diagram is garbled in the text, with labels such as '9ahyperhuge', '9an extendible', repeated 'BA' entries, and incomplete phrases like 'P-LgLC for'; please replace it with a clean typeset version.
  6. [References] Several load-bearing results are cited to preprints or papers in preparation ([8]-[11], [13], [20]). A brief statement of which theorems are proved in the present paper and which are quoted from those sources would help the reader verify the arguments.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No by-construction circularity: the claimed consequences are proved from the LgLCA axioms, and the consistency proof's deferred cases are gaps, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular in the sense of the review rules. Theorems 4.2, 4.3, 4.6, and 4.7 take the P-LgLCA for extendible (or its super-C(infinity) version) as an input that supplies a generic elementary embedding j: V -> M with prescribed closure and tightness conditions; the advertised conclusions (resurrection, recurrence/maximality, and Viale-style absoluteness) are then obtained by elementarity, transitivity of M, and forcing-ground arguments. These conclusions are not definitions of the LgLCA, and Section 7 explicitly separates forcing axioms such as MM++ and the Viale absoluteness conclusion from the LgLCAs, so the implications are not equivalences by construction. The consistency half (Theorem 5.2) is a genuine construction: it starts from an extendible or strongly super-C(infinity)-extendible cardinal, builds an iteration along a Laver function, and cites the authors' earlier [13] only for the cardinal-arithmetic fact that the final model has kappa = kappa_refl. That cited fact is an independent published result about the standard Laver-function iteration, not an assumption of the target axiom; hence it does not make the consistency claim circular. The main legitimate caveats are completeness and proof-hygiene issues rather than circularity: Theorem 5.2(1) explicitly says 'We show the assertion for the case that P is the class of all proper posets. The proof for the general case can be done by replacing the CS-iteration...', Theorem 5.2(3) is dismissed as 'Similarly to (2)', and Theorem 4.7's proof invokes the closure condition j''j(kappa) in M, which is stronger than the extendible definition as stated. These points should be raised as correctness/generality risks, not as circular reductions. No parameter is fitted and then renamed a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is used to force the central choice. The score of 2 reflects only the paper's heavy reliance on the author's own framework; no concrete circular step was isolated.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 3 invented entities

No empirical free parameters appear anywhere; the central claims are theorems about newly defined axiom schemes. The free choices are the large-cardinal inputs (extendible, almost-huge, strongly super-C^(∞)-extendible) and the arbitrary class P of posets, which are assumptions rather than fitted values. The invented entities are new axiom schemes and cardinal notions whose consistency is tied, inside the paper, to standard large cardinals.

assumptions (7)
  • standard math ZFC as the underlying theory for all arguments, including classes, generic extensions, and elementary embeddings
    All results are proved in ZFC; the paper works with classes, forcing extensions, and elementary embeddings exactly as in standard set theory.
  • standard math Kunen's inconsistency theorem: there is no nontrivial elementary embedding j : V → V
    Used in the proof of Proposition 2.5, Cases 1 and 2, to derive contradictions from j ↾ V_{γ+2} or j ↾ V_{κω+2}; cited to Kanamori [31], Corollary 23.14.
  • domain assumption Existence of standard large cardinals (extendible, almost-huge, strongly super-C^(∞)-extendible) as consistency inputs
    Theorem 5.2 and Corollary 3.3 relativize the consistency of the new axioms to these established large cardinals. They are assumptions, not derived results.
  • domain assumption The class P of posets is transfinitely iterable, with closure conditions (1.1)-(1.3) and preservation and factor lemmas for an appropriate support
    Section 1 introduces this as standing infrastructure; Lemma 4.1 and Theorem 5.2 require it. The paper notes the all-posets instance at cp = κ_refl is inconsistent (remark after Theorem 4.5), so this restriction is load-bearing.
  • domain assumption Existence of Laver functions for extendibility (cited to Corazza [3]) and for super-C^(∞)-extendibility (Lemma 5.1)
    Lemma 5.1(1) is quoted from [3]; Lemma 5.1(2) is proved under the strongly super-C^(∞)-extendible hypothesis using a minimal-rank choice of witnesses. If these functions fail to exist, the consistency theorems of Section 5 do not go through.
  • standard math Vopěnka's Principle (second order) holds in Vµ, obtained from almost-hugeness via Powell's Lemma 3.1
    Lemma 3.1 is presented as classical (Powell [34]); Proposition 3.2 uses it to build strongly super-C^(∞)-extendible cardinals, which feed the consistency analysis.
  • ad hoc to paper The super-C^(∞) notions are formalized either as Lω1,ω sentences inside set models or as axiom schemes naming κ_refl, because C^(∞) is not first-order definable
    Section 2 and Section 4 note that 'super-C^(∞)-extendible' and 'tightly super-C^(∞)-P-Laver generically LC' are not formalizable in first-order logic in general; the paper introduces the scheme-based formalization so the axioms can be stated. This is a design choice specific to this paper.
invented entities (3)
  • P-LgLCA for extendible (Laver-generic large cardinal axiom for extendibility at κ_refl) independent evidence
    purpose: New generic large cardinal axiom claimed to have lower consistency strength than the ultrahuge and hyperhuge variants while still implying the strongest Resurrection, Maximality, and Absoluteness consequences
    Consistency is established in Theorem 5.2(1) from an extendible cardinal, a standard large cardinal, which provides an external benchmark. The axiom is defined at κ_refl = max{ℵ2, 2^ℵ0} and is a new postulate, not an observed phenomenon.
  • super-C^(∞)-P-LgLCA for extendible independent evidence
    purpose: Scheme version of the LgLCA designed to capture the full Maximality Principle MP(P, H(κ_refl)) in Theorem 4.6
    Consistency follows from a strongly super-C^(∞)-extendible cardinal in Vµ (Theorem 5.2(3)), which in turn is obtained cofinally often below almost-huge cardinals (Corollary 3.3). The chain gives a conditional relative-consistency handle.
  • strongly super-C^(∞)-extendible cardinals independent evidence
    purpose: Intermediate large-cardinal notion used to obtain Laver functions for super-C^(∞)-extendibility and to build models of the super-C^(∞)-LgLCA
    Vµ |= 'κ is strongly super-C^(∞)-extendible' is realized cofinally often below any almost-huge cardinal (Corollary 3.3), connecting the new notion to the established almost-huge hierarchy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extendible cardinals, and Laver-generic large cardinal axioms for extendibility." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JBZ5GYUC

@misc{pith2026250603572,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extendible cardinals, and Laver-generic large cardinal axioms for extendibility},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JBZ5GYUC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03572}
}
abstract

We introduce (super-$C^{(\infty)}$-)Laver-generic large cardinal axioms for extendibility ((super-$C^{(\infty)}$-)LgLCAs for extendible, for short), and show that most of the previously known consequences of the (super-$C^{(\infty)}$-)LgLCAs for ultrahuge, in particular, general forms of Resurrection Principles, Maximality Principles, and Absoluteness Theorems, already follow from (super-$C^{(\infty)}$\mbox{-)}LgLCAs for extendible. The consistency of LgLCAs for extendible (for transfinitely iterable $\Sigma_2$-definable classes of posets) follows from an extendible cardinal while the consistency of super-$C^{(\infty)}$-LgLCAs for extendible follows from a model with a strongly super-$C^{(\infty)}$-extendible cardinal. If $\mu$ is an almost-huge cardinal, there are cofinally many $\kappa<\mu$ such that\ $V_\mu\models$``$\kappa$ is strongly super-$C^{(\infty)}$ extendible''. Most of the known reflection properties follow already from some of the LgLCAs for supercompact. We give a survey on the related results. We also show the separation between some of the LgLCAs as well as between LgLCAs and their consequences. LgLCAs are generic large cardinal axioms in terms of generic elementary embeddings with the critical point $\kappa_{\mathfrak{refl}}=\max\{\aleph_2,2^{\aleph_0}\}$. We show that Laver generic large cardinal axioms for all posets\ in terms of generic elementary embeddings with the critical point $2^{\aleph_0}$ is also possible. We abbreviate this type of axiom for the notion of extendibility as the LgLCAA for extendible and examine its consequences.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [13]

    https://fuchino.ddo.jp/papers/SDLS-II-x.pdf14, 15, 27, 31, 35 40

    Saka´ e Fuchino, Andr´ e Ottenbreit Maschio Rodrigues, and Hiroshi Sakai, Strong downward L¨ owenheim-Skolem theorems for stationary logics, II — re- flection down to the continuum, Archive for Mathematical Logic, Volume 60, issue 3-4, (2021), 495–523. https://fuchino.ddo.jp/papers/SDLS-II-x.pdf14, 15, 27, 31, 35 40

    work page 2021

  2. [8]

    https://fuchino.ddo.jp/papers/RIMS2022-RA-MP-x.pdf15, 16, 18, 27

    Saka´ e Fuchino, Maximality Principles and Resurrection Axioms in light of a Laver-generic large cardinal, Pre-preprint. https://fuchino.ddo.jp/papers/RIMS2022-RA-MP-x.pdf15, 16, 18, 27

    work page

  3. [9]

    birthday of Professor Janos Makowsky, Birkh¨ auser, (2025)

    , Reflection and Recurrence, to appear in the festschrift on the occasion of the 75. birthday of Professor Janos Makowsky, Birkh¨ auser, (2025). https://fuchino.ddo.jp/papers/reflectionand recurrence-Janos-Festschrift-x.pdf 3, 15, 16, 22, 38

    work page 2025

  4. [11]

    Extended version of the paper: https://fuchino.ddo.jp/papers/generic-absoluteness-revisited-x.pdf15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24, 29

    Saka´ e Fuchino, Takehiko Gappo, and Francesco Parente, Generic Absolute- ness revisited, submitted. Extended version of the paper: https://fuchino.ddo.jp/papers/generic-absoluteness-revisited-x.pdf15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24, 29

    work page

  5. [20]

    https://fuchino.ddo.jp/papers/recurrence-axioms-x.pdf3, 7, 15, 16, 17, 19, 22, 29, 36, 38

    Saka´ e Fuchino, and Toshimichi Usuba, On recurrence axioms, submitted. https://fuchino.ddo.jp/papers/recurrence-axioms-x.pdf3, 7, 15, 16, 17, 19, 22, 29, 36, 38

    work page

  6. [10]

    , Laver-generic large cardinal axioms for extendibility, extended version of the present note, in preparation. 2

    work page

  7. [1]

    David Asper´ o, and Ralf Schindler, Martin’s Maximum implies Woodin’s axiom (∗), Annals of Mathematics, Vol.193 (2021), 793–835

    work page 2021

  8. [2]

    4, 9, 10, 11

    Joan Bagaria, C (n)-cardinals, Archive for Mathematical Logic, Vol.51, (2012), 213–240. 4, 9, 10, 11

    work page 2012

Show all 43 references
  1. [3]

    Paul Corazza, Laver Sequences for Extendible and Super-Almost-Huge Cardi- nals, The Journal of Symbolic Logic Vol.64 (3), (1999), 963–983. 25 39

    1999

  2. [4]

    Sean Cox, The diagonal reflection principle, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, Vol.140, No.8 (2012), 2893–2902. 30

    2012

  3. [5]

    , Forcing axioms, approachability, and stationary set reflection, The Journal of Symbolic Logic Volume 86, Number 2, June 2021, 499–530. 35

    2021

  4. [6]

    Tall and W.A.R

    Alan Dow, Franklin D. Tall and W.A.R. Weiss, New proofs of the consistency of the normal Moore space conjecture I, II, Topology and its Applications, 37 (1990) 33–51, 115-129. 34

    1990

  5. [7]

    Saka´ e Fuchino, On potential embedding and versions of Martin’s axiom, Notre Dame Journal of Logic, Vol.33, No.4, (1992), 481–492. 34

    1992

  6. [12]

    Saka´ e Fuchino, Istv´ an Juh´ asz, Lajos Soukup, Zolt´ an Szentmikl´ ossy, and Toshimichi Usuba, Fodor-type Reflection Principle and reflection of metrizabil- ity and meta-Lindel¨ ofness, Topology and its Applications, Vol.157, 8 (2010), 1415–1429. 33

    2010

  7. [14]

    https://fuchino.ddo.jp/papers/SDLS-III-xx.pdf

    , Strong downward L¨ owenheim-Skolem theorems for stationary logics, III — mixed support iteration, to appear in the Proceedings of the Asian Logic Conference 2019. https://fuchino.ddo.jp/papers/SDLS-III-xx.pdf

    2019

  8. [15]

    https://fuchino.ddo.jp/papers/reflprinciplesgenlargecardinalscontinuumproblem-x.pdf 15

    Saka´ e Fuchino, Andr´ e Ottenbreit Maschio Rodrigues, Reflection principles, generic large cardinals, and the Continuum Problem, Proceedings of the Symposium on Advances in Mathematical Logic 2018, Springer (2021), 1–26. https://fuchino.ddo.jp/papers/reflprinciplesgenlargecar...

    2021

  9. [16]

    Saka´ e Fuchino and Assaf Rinot, Openly generated Boolean algebras and the Fodor-type Reflection Principle, Fundamenta Mathematicae 212, (2011), 261-

    2011

  10. [17]

    Extended version of the paper: https://fuchino.ddo.jp/papers/definability-of-glc-x.pdf6

    Fuchino, Saka´ e, and Sakai, Hiroshi, The first-order definability of generic large cardinals, submitted. Extended version of the paper: https://fuchino.ddo.jp/papers/definability-of-glc-x.pdf6

  11. [18]

    https://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2433/275453/1/2213-08.pdf

    Saka´ e Fuchino, and Hiroshi Sakai, Generically supercompact cardinals by forcing with chain conditions, RIMS Kˆ okˆ uroku, No.2213, (2022), 94–111. https://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2433/275453/1/2213-08.pdf

    2022

  12. [19]

    Saka´ e Fuchino, Hiroshi Sakai, Lajos Soukup and Toshimichi Usuba, More about Fodor-type Reflection Principle, https://fuchino.ddo.jp/papers/moreFRP-x.pdf32

  13. [21]

    Gabriel Goldberg, Usuba’s theorem is optimal, Journal of Mathematical Logic, (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Martin Goldstern, and Saharon Shelah, The Bounded Proper Forcing Axiom, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, Vol.60, No.1 (1995), 58–73

    1995

  15. [23]

    Goodman, Sigma n-correct Forcing Axioms, CUNY Academic Works (2024)

    Benjamin P. Goodman, Sigma n-correct Forcing Axioms, CUNY Academic Works (2024). https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gcetds/5808/ 9 41

    2024

  16. [24]

    Gunter Fuchs, Joel David Hamkins, and Jonas Reitz, Set-theoretic geology, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 166(4), (2015), 464–501

    2015

  17. [25]

    Joel David Hamkins, A simple maximality principle, The Journal of Symbolic Logic Vol.68, No.7, (2003), 527–550

    2003

  18. [26]

    Johnstone, Resurrection axioms and up- lifting cardinals, Archive for Mathematical Logic, Vol.53, Iss.3-4, (2014), 463–

    Joel David Hamkins, and Thomas A. Johnstone, Resurrection axioms and up- lifting cardinals, Archive for Mathematical Logic, Vol.53, Iss.3-4, (2014), 463–

    2014

  19. [27]

    Johnstone, Strongly uplifting cardinals and the boldface resurrection axioms, Archive for Mathematical Logic Vol

    Joel David Hamkins, and Thomas A. Johnstone, Strongly uplifting cardinals and the boldface resurrection axioms, Archive for Mathematical Logic Vol. 56, (2017), 1115–1133. 16, 18

    2017

  20. [28]

    Yair Hayut, Menachem Magidor, and Ajejandro Poveda, Identity crisis be- tween supercompactness and Vopˇ enka principle, JSL, Vol.87 (2), 2022, 626- 648

    2022

  21. [29]

    57, (2018), 713–725

    Daisuke Ikegami and Nam Trang, On a class of maximality principles, Archive for Mathematical Logic, Vol. 57, (2018), 713–725

    2018

  22. [30]

    3, 6, 11, 29

    Thomas Jech, Set Theory, The Third Millennium Edition, Springer, (2003). 3, 6, 11, 29

    2003

  23. [31]

    3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14

    Akihiro Kanamori, The Higher Infinite, Springer–Verlag (1994/2003). 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14

    1994

  24. [32]

    Bernhard K¨ onig, Generic compactness reformulated, Archive for Mathematical Logic 43, (2004), 311–326. 33, 34

    2004

  25. [33]

    Kenneth Kunen, Set Theory, College Publications (2011). 3, 32

    2011

  26. [34]

    Powell, Almost huge cardinal and Vopenka’s principle, Notices of Mamer- ican Mathematical Society, 19 (1972), A-616

    W.C. Powell, Almost huge cardinal and Vopenka’s principle, Notices of Mamer- ican Mathematical Society, 19 (1972), A-616. 12

    1972

  27. [35]

    Jonas Reitz, The Ground Axiom, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, Vol. 72, No. 4 (2007), 1299–1317. 35

    2007

  28. [36]

    Farmer S, An answer to the question: Why are these two definitions of ex- tendible cardinal equivalent?, Mathematics StackExchange (2022). 8

    2022

  29. [37]

    Konstantinos Tsaprounis, On resurrection axioms, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, Vol.80, No.2, (2015), 587–608. 42

    2015

  30. [38]

    , Ultrahuge cardinals, Mathematical Logic Quarterly, Vol.62, No.1-2, (2016), 1–2. 36

    2016

  31. [39]

    , On C (n)-extendible cardinals, The Journal of Sym- bolic Logic, Vol.83, No.3, (2018), 1112–1131. 9

    2018

  32. [40]

    17(2) (2017), 1–24

    Toshimichi Usuba, The downward directed grounds hypothesis and very large cardinals, Journal of Mathematical Logic, Vol. 17(2) (2017), 1–24. 36

    2017

  33. [41]

    , Extendible cardinals and the mantle, Archive for Mathe- matical Logic, Vol.58, (2019), 71-75. 36

    2019

  34. [42]

    Matteo Viale, Martin’s maximum revisited, Archive for Mathematical Logic, Vol.55, (2016), 295–317. 17

    2016

  35. [43]

    Hugh Woodin, The Axiom of Determinacy, Forcing Axioms, and the Nonsta- tionary Ideal, De Gruyter, 2nd rev. ed. Edition (2010). 43

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.