pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.27618 · v4 · submitted 2025-10-31 · 🧮 math.LO

Compactness for small cardinals in mathematics: principles, consequences, and limitations

Radek Honzik This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 02:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.LO
keywords compactness principlestree propertiesRado's conjectureSuslin hypothesisWhitehead conjectureforcing preservationlarge cardinalsset theory axioms
0
0 comments X

The pith

Strong compactness principles at ω₂ leave Suslin's hypothesis and Whitehead's conjecture undecided.

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

The paper reviews compactness principles that apply to uncountable structures of small regular sizes such as ω₂ and similar cardinals, obtained from large cardinals like weakly compact or supercompact ones. It separates these into logical forms such as tree properties and direct mathematical forms that assert compactness for groups, graphs, and topological spaces. Using existing preservation results under forcing, the paper shows that the strongest versions of these principles at ω₂ remain consistent with either positive or negative answers to several classic problems. A reader would care because this clarifies the reach and limits of compactness statements when considered as possible extensions of ZFC.

Core claim

The central claim is that many traditional problems such as the Suslin Hypothesis, Whitehead's Conjecture, Kaplansky's Conjecture, and Baumgartner's Axiom are independent from some of the strongest forms of compactness at ω₂. This independence follows from indestructibility or preservation results under forcing extensions. Additionally, Rado's Conjecture together with 2^ω = ω₂ is consistent with the negative solutions to some of these problems, as verified in suitable Mitchell models where the properties of V = L hold.

What carries the argument

Indestructibility and preservation results for compactness principles under forcing extensions, which keep the compactness true while the model is adjusted to satisfy or violate the classical conjectures.

Load-bearing premise

The compactness principles admit preservation or indestructibility under the forcing extensions that establish the independence of the classical problems.

What would settle it

A model in which one of the strong compactness principles at ω₂ holds but directly implies a definite positive or negative answer to the Suslin Hypothesis, contradicting the claimed independence.

read the original abstract

We discuss some well-known compactness principles for uncountable structures of small regular sizes ($\omega_n$ for $2 \le n<\omega$, $\aleph_{\omega+1}$, $\aleph_{\omega^2+1}$, etc.), consistent from weakly compact (the size-restricted versions) or strongly compact or supercompact cardinals (the unrestricted versions). We divide the principles into logical principles (various tree properties) and mathematical principles, which directly postulate compactness for structures like groups, graphs, or topological spaces (for instance, countable chromatic and color compactness of graphs, compactness of abelian groups, $\Delta$-reflection, Fodor-type reflection principle, and Rado's Conjecture). We focus on indestructibility, or preservation, of these principles in forcing extensions. Using the existing preservation results we observe that many traditional problems such as Suslin Hypothesis, Whitehead's Conjecture, Kaplansky's Conjecture, and Baumagartner's Axiom, are independent from some of the strongest forms of compactness at $\omega_2$. Additionally, we observe that Rado's Conjecture plus $2^\omega = \omega_2$ is consistent with the negative solutions of some of these conjectures (as they hold in $V = L$), verifying that they hold in suitable Mitchell models. Finally, we comment on whether the compactness principles under discussion are good candidates for axioms. We consider their consequences and the existence or non-existence of convincing unifications (such as Martin's Maximum or Rado's Conjecture). This part is a modest follow-up to the articles by Foreman ``Generic large cardinals: new axioms for mathematics?'' (1998) and Feferman et al. ``Does mathematics need new axioms?'' (2000).

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript surveys compactness principles for uncountable structures of small regular cardinal size (ω_n for n≥2, ℵ_{ω+1}, etc.), distinguishing logical principles such as tree properties from mathematical ones including graph chromatic compactness, abelian group compactness, Δ-reflection, Fodor-type reflection, and Rado's Conjecture. These principles are shown consistent from weakly compact, strongly compact, or supercompact cardinals, with emphasis on their indestructibility and preservation under forcing extensions. The central observations are that Suslin's Hypothesis, Whitehead's Conjecture, Kaplansky's Conjecture, and Baumgartner's Axiom remain independent from strong forms of compactness at ω₂, and that Rado's Conjecture together with 2^ω=ω₂ is consistent with the negative solutions to some of these problems in suitable Mitchell models. The paper concludes by assessing whether these compactness principles are viable new axioms, in light of their consequences and possible unifications such as Martin's Maximum.

Significance. If the cited preservation and indestructibility theorems apply as stated, the work provides a useful compilation that clarifies the limitations of strong compactness principles at small cardinals: they do not decide several classical set-theoretic problems even when combined with 2^ω=ω₂. This supplies concrete evidence for the discussion of new axioms initiated by Foreman (1998) and Feferman et al. (2000), by exhibiting both the independence results and the consistency of Rado's Conjecture with V=L-like behavior in Mitchell models.

major comments (1)
  1. [Discussion of preservation results and independence observations] The independence claims for Suslin's Hypothesis, Whitehead's Conjecture, Kaplansky's Conjecture, and Baumgartner's Axiom from compactness at ω₂ rest on the preservation of the relevant compactness principles (tree property, Rado's Conjecture, etc.) in the forcing extensions or Mitchell models that produce the negative solutions. The manuscript should explicitly identify, for each principle, the preservation theorem invoked (including the reference and the precise forcing or model construction used), as the central observation that these problems are independent from the strongest forms of compactness at ω₂ is load-bearing and currently relies on external results without sufficient internal cross-reference.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: 'Baumagartner's Axiom' contains a typographical error and should read 'Baumgartner's Axiom'.
  2. [Introduction] The manuscript would benefit from a short table or enumerated list in the introduction that maps each compactness principle to the large cardinal from which it is consistent and to the specific preservation result used for the independence arguments.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and the helpful suggestion on clarifying the independence observations. We will revise the manuscript to address this point explicitly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The independence claims for Suslin's Hypothesis, Whitehead's Conjecture, Kaplansky's Conjecture, and Baumgartner's Axiom from compactness at ω₂ rest on the preservation of the relevant compactness principles (tree property, Rado's Conjecture, etc.) in the forcing extensions or Mitchell models that produce the negative solutions. The manuscript should explicitly identify, for each principle, the preservation theorem invoked (including the reference and the precise forcing or model construction used), as the central observation that these problems are independent from the strongest forms of compactness at ω₂ is load-bearing and currently relies on external results without sufficient internal cross-reference.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript would benefit from more explicit internal cross-references for these load-bearing independence claims. In the revised version we will add a short dedicated paragraph (or a compact table) immediately following the statement of the independence observations. For each conjecture we will list: (i) the specific compactness principle whose preservation is used, (ii) the precise preservation theorem and its reference, and (iii) the forcing or Mitchell-model construction that yields the negative solution while keeping the compactness intact. This addition draws only on results already cited in the paper and does not alter any proofs or conclusions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; survey applies external results

full rationale

The paper is a survey of known compactness principles for small cardinals, their consistency from large cardinals, and preservation/indestructibility under forcing. It combines these with Mitchell models to observe independence of classical problems (Suslin, Whitehead, etc.) without claiming new derivations, equations, or self-referential definitions. All central steps cite prior published preservation theorems and standard forcing constructions as external support, rendering the argument self-contained against benchmarks outside the paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on standard ZFC, the existence of weakly compact, strongly compact, or supercompact cardinals for consistency, and known forcing preservation theorems from the literature. No new free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc axioms are introduced.

axioms (3)
  • standard math ZFC set theory
    The ambient foundation assumed throughout the discussion of cardinals and forcing.
  • domain assumption Existence of weakly compact cardinals (for size-restricted compactness)
    Invoked to obtain consistency of the compactness principles at ω_n and similar small regulars.
  • domain assumption Existence of strongly compact or supercompact cardinals (for unrestricted versions)
    Used for the stronger, size-unrestricted compactness statements.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5850 in / 1427 out tokens · 42712 ms · 2026-05-18T02:59:32.514969+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

191 extracted references · 191 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Pure Appl

    Uri Abraham,Aronszajn trees onℵ 2 andℵ 3, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic24(1983), no. 3, 213–230

    work page 1983

  2. [2]

    William Adkisson,Tree properties at successors of singulars of many cofinalities, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.01762

    work page arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    8, 2463–2488

    Carolin Antos, Sy-David Friedman, Radek Honzik, and Claudio Ternullo,Multiverse conceptions in set theory, Synthese192(2015), no. 8, 2463–2488. MR 3400617

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    London Math

    Yushiro Aoki,Discontinuous homomorphsims onC(X)with the negation ofCHand a weak forcing axiom, J. London Math. Soc.110(2024), no. 1

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Joan Bagaria and Menachem Magidor,Onω1-strongly compact cardinals, J. Symb. Log.79(2014), no. 1, 266–278. MR 3226024

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Barwise and S

    J. Barwise and S. Feferman (eds.),Model-theoretic logics, Perspectives in Logic, As- sociation for Symbolic Logic, Ithaca, NY; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Baumgartner,Allℵ 1-dense sets of reals can be isomorphic, Fund

    James E. Baumgartner,Allℵ 1-dense sets of reals can be isomorphic, Fund. Math. 79(1973), no. 2, 101–106. MR 317934

    work page 1973

  8. [8]

    Kunen and J

    ,Aplication of the proper forcing axiom, Handbook of set theoretic topology (K. Kunen and J. E. Vaughan, eds.), North-Holland Publishing Co., 1984, pp. 913– 959

    work page 1984

  9. [9]

    Beaudoin,The proper forcing axiom and stationary set reflection, Pacific J

    Robert E. Beaudoin,The proper forcing axiom and stationary set reflection, Pacific J. Math.149(1991), no. 1, 13–24. MR 1099782

    work page 1991

  10. [10]

    Omer Ben-Neria, Yair Hayut, and Spencer Unger,Stationary reflection and the failure of the SCH, J. Symb. Log.89(2024), no. 1, 1–26. MR 4725661

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    Jeffrey Bergfalk, Michael Hrušák, and Chris Lambie-Hanson,Simultaneously van- ishing higher derived limits without large cardinals, J. Math. Log.23(2023), no. 1, Paper No. 2250019, 40. MR 4568267

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    Pi9(2021), Paper No

    Jeffrey Bergfalk and Chris Lambie-Hanson,Simultaneously vanishing higher derived limits, Forum Math. Pi9(2021), Paper No. e4, 31. MR 4275058 75In this setting, one can define a three-parameter version of Rado’s Conjecture, RC(κ, λ, µ), which asserts that every tree of heightκ+ which is not special and has size at mostλhas a subtree of size< µwhich is not ...

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Jeffrey Bergfalk, Chris Lambie-Hanson, and Jan Šaroch,Whitehead’s problem and condensed mathematics, https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.09122, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    Andreas Blass,Ramsey’s theorem in the hierarchy of choice principles, J. Symb. Log.42(1977), no. 3, 387–390

    work page 1977

  15. [15]

    Math.236 (2020), no

    Will Boney,Model theoretic characterizations of large cardinals, Israel J. Math.236 (2020), no. 1, 133–181. MR 4093885

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    Will Boney, Stamatis Dimopoulos, Victoria Gitman, and Menachem Magidor,Model theoretic characterizations of large cardinals revisited, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.377 (2024), no. 10, 6827–6861. MR 4855327

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    3, 525–561

    Ari Meir Brodsky and Assaf Rinot,A remark on Schimmerling’s question, Order36 (2019), no. 3, 525–561. MR 4038796

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    Pure Appl

    ,A microscopic approach to Souslin-tree construction, Part II, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic172(2021), no. 5, Paper No. 102904, 65. MR 4228336

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    SeanCox,Adjoining only the things you want: a survey of Strong Chang’s Conjecture and related topics, https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.05334, 2020

    work page arXiv 1908

  20. [20]

    Sean Cox and John Krueger,Quotients of strongly proper forcings and guessing models, J. Symb. Log.81(2016), no. 1, 264–283. MR 3471139

    work page 2016

  21. [21]

    Math.239(2017), 221–258

    ,Indestructible guessing models and the continuum, Fund. Math.239(2017), 221–258

    work page 2017

  22. [22]

    Math.239(2017), no

    ,Indestructible guessing models and the continuum, Fund. Math.239(2017), no. 3, 221–258. MR 3691206

    work page 2017

  23. [23]

    3, 251–282

    James Cummings,Notes on singular cardinal combinatorics, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic46(2005), no. 3, 251–282

    work page 2005

  24. [24]

    James Cummings, Matthew Foreman, and Menachem Magidor,Squares, scales and stationary reflection, J. Math. Log.1(2001), no. 1, 35–98. MR 1838355 (2003a:03068)

    work page 2001

  25. [25]

    James Cummings, Sy-David Friedman, Menachem Magidor, Assaf Rinot, and Dima Sinapova,The eightfold way, J. Symb. Log.83(2018), no. 1, 349–371

    work page 2018

  26. [26]

    James Cummings, Yair Hayut, Menachem Magidor, Itay Neeman, Dima Sinapova, and Spencer Unger,The ineffable tree property and failure of the singular cardinals hypothesis, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.373(2020), no. 8, 5937–5955. MR 4127897

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    James Cummings, Yair Hayut, Menachem Magidor, Itay Neeman, Dima Sinapova, and Spencer Unger,The tree property on long intervals of regular cardinals, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.08118

    work page arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    H. G. Dales and H Woodin,An introduction to independence for analysts, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, 115, Cambridge University Press, 1987

    work page 1987

  29. [29]

    Devlin,Constructibility, Springer, 1984

    Keith J. Devlin,Constructibility, Springer, 1984

    work page 1984

  30. [30]

    M. A. Dickmann,Larger infinitary languages, Model-theoretic logics (J. Barwise and S. Feferman, eds.), Perspectives in Logic, Association for Symbolic Logic, Ithaca, NY; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016, pp. 317–364

    work page 2016

  31. [31]

    Dumas,Discontinuous homomorphisms ofC(X)with2 ℵ0 >ℵ 2, J

    Bob A. Dumas,Discontinuous homomorphisms ofC(X)with2 ℵ0 >ℵ 2, J. Symb. Log.89(2024), no. 2, 665–696

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    Todd Eisworth,Successors of singular cardinals, Handbook of set theory. Vols. 1, 2, 3, Springer, Dordrecht, 2010, pp. 1229–1350. MR 2768694

    work page 2010

  33. [33]

    Eklof,Whitehead’s problem is undecidable, The American Mathematical Monthly83(1976), no

    Paul C. Eklof,Whitehead’s problem is undecidable, The American Mathematical Monthly83(1976), no. 10, 775–788

    work page 1976

  34. [34]

    Eklof and Alan H

    Paul C. Eklof and Alan H. Mekler,Almost free modules, revised ed., North-Holland Mathematical Library, vol. 65, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 2002, Set-theoretic methods. MR 1914985

    work page 2002

  35. [35]

    Paul Erdős and Alfred Tarski,On some problems involving inaccessible cardinals, Essays on the foundations of mathematics, Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew Univ., 1961, pp. 50–82

    work page 1961

  36. [36]

    Monroe Eskew,Generic large cardinals as axioms, Rev. Symb. Log.13(2020), no. 2, 375–387. MR 4092254

    work page 2020

  37. [37]

    Monroe Eskew and Yair Hayut,On the consistency of local and global versions of Chang’s conjecture, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.370(2018), no. 4, 2879–2905. MR 3748588 56 RADEK HONZIK

    work page 2018

  38. [38]

    Ilijas Farah,All automorphisms of the Calkin algebra are inner, Ann. of Math. (2) 173(2011), no. 2, 619–661. MR 2776359

    work page 2011

  39. [39]

    Feferman, H

    S. Feferman, H. M. Friedman, P. Maddy, and J. R. Steel,Does mathematics need new axioms?, Bull. Symb. Log.6(2000), no. 4, 401–446

    work page 2000

  40. [40]

    Fleissner and Saharon Shelah,Collectionwise Hausdorff: incompactness at sin- gulars, Topol

    G. Fleissner and Saharon Shelah,Collectionwise Hausdorff: incompactness at sin- gulars, Topol. App.31(1989), 101–107

    work page 1989

  41. [41]

    Laura Fontanella,Strong tree properties for small cardinals, J. Symb. Log.78(2012), no. 1, 317–333

    work page 2012

  42. [42]

    Pure Appl

    Laura Fontanella and Yair Hayut,Square and Delta reflection, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic167(2016), 663–683

    work page 2016

  43. [43]

    1, 272–291

    Laura Fontanella and Menachem Magidor,Reflection of stationary sets and the tree property at the successor of a singular cardinal, JSL82(2017), no. 1, 272–291

    work page 2017

  44. [44]

    Matthew Foreman,More saturated ideals, Proceedings of the Caltech-UCLA logic seminar held during the academic years 1979/1981, Cabal seminar 79–81 (A. S. Kechris, D. A. Martin, and Y. N. Moschovakis, eds.), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1019, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1983, pp. 1–27. MR 730583

    work page 1979

  45. [45]

    II (Berlin, 1998), 1998, pp

    ,Generic large cardinals: new axioms for mathematics?, Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Vol. II (Berlin, 1998), 1998, pp. 11–21. MR 1648052

    work page 1998

  46. [46]

    Math.222(2009), no

    ,Smoke and mirrors: combinatorial properties of small cardinals equiconsis- tent with huge cardinals, Adv. Math.222(2009), no. 2, 565–595. MR 2538021

    work page 2009

  47. [47]

    Matthew Foreman and Akihiro Kanamori (eds.),Handbook of set theory. Vols. 1, 2, 3, Springer, Dordrecht, 2010. MR 2768678

    work page 2010

  48. [48]

    in Math.67(1988), no

    Matthew Foreman and Richard Laver,Some downwards transfer properties forℵ2, Adv. in Math.67(1988), no. 2, 230–238. MR 925267

    work page 1988

  49. [49]

    Math.127(1988), no

    Matthew Foreman, Menachem Magidor, and Saharon Shelah,Martin’s maximum, saturated ideals and nonregular ultrafilters, Ann. Math.127(1988), no. 1, 1–47

    work page 1988

  50. [50]

    Sy-David Friedman, Sakaé Fuchino, and Hiroshi Sakai,On the set-generic multi- verse, Thehyperuniverseprojectandmaximality, Birkhäuser/Springer, Cham, 2018, pp. 109–124. MR 3728994

    work page 2018

  51. [51]

    Pure Appl

    Sy-David Friedman and Radek Honzik,The tree property at theℵ2n’s and the failure of the SCH atℵω, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic166(2015), no. 4, 526–552

    work page 2015

  52. [52]

    Pure Appl

    Sy-David Friedman, Radek Honzik, and Lyubomyr Zdomskyy,Fusion and large cardinal preservation, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic164(2013), 1247–1273

    work page 2013

  53. [53]

    Sakaé Fuchino,Extendible cardinals, and laver-generic large cardinal axioms for ex- tendibility, in preparation, see https://fuchino.ddo.jp/papers/RIMS2024-extendible- y.pdf

    work page

  54. [54]

    ,Rado’s Conjecture implies the Fodor-type Reflection Principle, Submitted (2017), https://fuchino.ddo.jp/notes/RCimpliesFRP2.pdf

    work page 2017

  55. [55]

    8, 1415–1429

    Sakaé Fuchino, István Juhász, Lajos Soukup, Zoltán Szentmiklóssy, and Toshimichi Usuba,Fodor-type reflection principle and reflection of metrizability and meta- Lindelöfness, Topology Appl.157(2010), no. 8, 1415–1429. MR 2610450

    work page 2010

  56. [56]

    Sakaé Fuchino, André Ottenbreit Maschio Rodrigues, and Hiroshi Sakai,Strong downward Löwenheim-Skolem theorems for stationary logics, I, Arch. Math. Logic 60(2021), no. 1-2, 17–47. MR 4198354

    work page 2021

  57. [57]

    ,Strong downward Löwenheim-Skolem theorems for stationary logics, II: re- flection down to the continuum, Arch. Math. Logic60(2021), no. 3-4, 495–523. MR 4240755

    work page 2021

  58. [58]

    Math.212(2011), no

    Sakaé Fuchino and Assaf Rinot,Openly generated Boolean algebras and the Fodor- type reflection principle, Fund. Math.212(2011), no. 3, 261–283. MR 2784001

    work page 2011

  59. [59]

    Sakaé Fuchino and André Ottenbreit Maschio Rodrigues,Reflection principles, generic large cardinals, and the continuum problem, Advances in Mathematical Logic (Singapore) (Toshiyasu Arai, Makoto Kikuchi, Satoru Kuroda, Mitsuhiro Okada, and Teruyuki Yorioka, eds.), Springer Nature Singapore, 2021, pp. 1–25

    work page 2021

  60. [60]

    COMPACTNESS FOR SMALL CARDINALS IN MATHEMATICS

    Sakaé Fuchino, Hiroshi Sakai, Lajos Soukup, and Toshimichi Usuba, More about the Fodor-type reflection principle, Submitted (2019), https://fuchino.ddo.jp/papers/moreFRP-x.pdf. COMPACTNESS FOR SMALL CARDINALS IN MATHEMATICS . . . 57

    work page 2019

  61. [61]

    Pure Appl

    Sakaé Fuchino and Toshimichi Usuba,On recurrence axioms, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 176(2025), no. 10, Paper No. 103631, 30. MR 4927442

    work page 2025

  62. [62]

    Gunter Fuchs,Errata: on the role of the continuum hypothesis in forcing principles for subcomplete forcing, Arch. Math. Logic63(2024), no. 5-6, 509–521. MR 4765799

    work page 2024

  63. [63]

    Hungar.155(2018), no

    Gunter Fuchs and Assaf Rinot,Weak square and stationary reflection, Acta Math. Hungar.155(2018), no. 2, 393–405. MR 3831305

    work page 2018

  64. [64]

    36, Academic press/ Elsevier, 1970

    László Fuchs,Infinite abelian groups, volume I, Pure and applied mathematics, A series of monographs and textbooks, no. 36, Academic press/ Elsevier, 1970

    work page 1970

  65. [65]

    Pure Appl

    Thomas Gilton and John Krueger,Mitchell’s theorem revisited, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic168(2017), no. 5, 922–1016. MR 3620064

    work page 2017

  66. [66]

    Pure Appl

    Thomas Gilton and Šárka Stejskalová,Club stationary reflection and other combi- natorial principles atℵω+2, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic176(2025), 103489

    work page 2025

  67. [67]

    Moti Gitik and John Krueger,Approachability at the second successor of a singular cardinal, J. Symb. Log.74(2009), no. 4, 1211–1224

    work page 2009

  68. [68]

    Volume 1, extended ed., De Gruyter Expositions in Mathematics, vol

    Rüdiger Göbel and Jan Trlifaj,Approximations and endomorphism algebras of mod- ules. Volume 1, extended ed., De Gruyter Expositions in Mathematics, vol. 41, Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin, 2012, Approximations. MR 2985554

    work page 2012

  69. [69]

    Volume 2, ex- tended ed., De Gruyter Expositions in Mathematics, vol

    ,Approximations and endomorphism algebras of modules. Volume 2, ex- tended ed., De Gruyter Expositions in Mathematics, vol. 41, Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin, 2012, Predictions. MR 2985654

    work page 2012

  70. [70]

    Kurt Gödel,What is Cantor’s continuum problem?, Amer. Math. Monthly54 (1947), 515–525

    work page 1947

  71. [71]

    Mohammad Golshani and Yair Hayut,The special Aronszajn tree property, J. Math. Log.20(2020), no. 1, 2050003, 26. MR 4094555

    work page 2020

  72. [72]

    Math.263(2024), no

    Osvaldo Guzmán and Stevo Todorčević,TheP-ideal dichotomy, Martin’s axiom and entangled sets, Israel J. Math.263(2024), no. 2, 909–963. MR 4819970

    work page 2024

  73. [73]

    Joel David Hamkins,The set-theoretic multiverse, Rev. Symb. Log.5(2012), no. 3, 416–449. MR 2970696

    work page 2012

  74. [74]

    Joel David Hamkins and Benedikt Löwe,The modal logic of forcing, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.360(2008), no. 4, 1793–1817. MR 2366963

    work page 2008

  75. [75]

    Formal Log.26(1985), no

    LeoHarringtonandSaharonShelah,Some exact equiconsistency results in set theory, Notre Dame J. Formal Log.26(1985), no. 2, 178–188

    work page 1985

  76. [76]

    Math.246(2019), no

    Yair Hayut,Partial strong compactness and squares, Fund. Math.246(2019), no. 2, 193–204. MR 3959249

    work page 2019

  77. [77]

    Yair Hayut and Chris Lambie-Hanson,Simultaneous stationary reflection and square sequences, J. Math. Log.17(2017), no. 2, 1750010, 27. MR 3730566

    work page 2017

  78. [78]

    Yair Hayut and Menachem Magidor,Destructibility of the tree property atℵω+1, J. Symb. Log.84(2019), no. 2, 621–631

    work page 2019

  79. [79]

    Yair Hayut and Spencer Unger,Stationary reflection, J. Symb. Log.85(2020), no. 3, 937–959. MR 4231611

    work page 2020

  80. [80]

    Pure Appl

    Radek Honzik, Chris Lambie-Hanson, and Šárka Stejskalová,Indestructibility of some compactness principles over models of PFA, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic175(2024), 103359

    work page 2024

Showing first 80 references.