In ZF, are there any useful large cardinal that cannot be well-ordered? I think that some of the partition cardinals are that way, since with AC, we cannot have $\kappa \to (\omega)^{\omega}$. Are there any other cases like this?
2026-03-29 09:11:45.1774775505
Are there any large cardinals that are not ordinals?
156 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in REFERENCE-REQUEST
- Best book to study Lie group theory
- Alternative definition for characteristic foliation of a surface
- Transition from theory of PDEs to applied analysis and industrial problems and models with PDEs
- Random variables in integrals, how to analyze?
- Abstract Algebra Preparation
- Definition of matrix valued smooth function
- CLT for Martingales
- Almost locality of cubic spline interpolation
- Identify sequences from OEIS or the literature, or find examples of odd integers $n\geq 1$ satisfying these equations related to odd perfect numbers
- property of Lebesgue measure involving small intervals
Related Questions in SET-THEORY
- Theorems in MK would imply theorems in ZFC
- What formula proved in MK or Godel Incompleteness theorem
- Proving the schema of separation from replacement
- Understanding the Axiom of Replacement
- Ordinals and cardinals in ETCS set axiomatic
- Minimal model over forcing iteration
- How can I prove that the collection of all (class-)function from a proper class A to a class B is empty?
- max of limit cardinals smaller than a successor cardinal bigger than $\aleph_\omega$
- Canonical choice of many elements not contained in a set
- Non-standard axioms + ZF and rest of math
Related Questions in AXIOM-OF-CHOICE
- Do I need the axiom of choice to prove this statement?
- Canonical choice of many elements not contained in a set
- Strength of $\sf ZF$+The weak topology on every Banach space is Hausdorff
- Example of sets that are not measurable?
- A,B Sets injective map A into B or bijection subset A onto B
- Equivalence of axiom of choice
- Proving the axiom of choice in propositions as types
- Does Diaconescu's theorem imply cubical type theory is non-constructive?
- Axiom of choice condition.
- How does Axiom of Choice imply Axiom of Dependent Choice?
Related Questions in LARGE-CARDINALS
- Target of a superstrong embedding
- Possibility of preserving the ultrafilter on $\mathcal{P}_{\kappa}(\lambda)$ in V[G] after forcing with a <$\kappa$ directed closed poset?
- If $G$ is $P$-generic over $V$ and $G^*$ is $j''P$-generic over $M$ then $j$ can be extended to $V[G]$.
- Normality of some generic ultrafilter
- Does ZFC + the Axiom of Constructibility imply the nonexistence of inaccessible cardinals?
- Inaccessibility in L vs. Inaccessibility in ZFC
- Proof that the cofinality of the least worldly cardinal is $\omega$
- Inaccessible side-effects in MK
- Definition of an $\omega$-huge cardinal
- Regarding Extenders
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
The question is what do you mean by large cardinals and what do you mean by useful?
For example, it is consistent that there exists a set $A$ such that the cofinite filter on $A$ is an ultrafilter. We can even show that such ultrafilter is closed under intersection of ordinal-indexed sequences (mainly because under this assumption every such sequence is actually finite).
But what happens when we try to take an ultrapower of the universe with this $A$ and this ultrafilter? Well, it turns out that every function $A$ into the ordinals has a finite range. So every function to the ordinals is constant on a cofinite set. We can show, if so, that the ultrapower embedding is in fact the identity from this.
So a set which is "like a measurable" can exist, but is it useful in the same way? Not really. It is not to say that these sets are entirely useless. Eilon Bilinski wrote his masters thesis about using such sets in order to sort of mimic Prikry forcing and obtain all sort of interesting choiceless results. But it is certainly not the same thing.
Similarly we can get sets which are going to satisfy all sort of strange Ramsey properties, but not because they are "large" in any sense, but because of some silly reason like here. They don't have enough subsets, or something like this. Which in turn means that we cannot use them like we would use normal large cardinals.
Generally speaking we can get results which state that the continuum is "large" in some sense. For example $\sf AD$ has all sort of interesting implications about the continuum which say that it is somewhat large, but one might argue that these things also come from the fact that there are plenty of ordinals which are large in some good sense (for example, the club filter on $\omega_1$ is an ultrafilter).
I hope this answer helped to dispel some of the confusion and create a new one regarding what does it mean for something to be useful, or large. With or without choice.