How is it possible and how does one prove that the least huge cardinal is less then the least compact cardinal (if both exist) but at the same time huge has higher consistency strength then the compact cardinal?
2026-03-25 20:06:35.1774469195
Huge vs. compact cardinal
265 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
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 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?
A cardinal $\kappa$ is huge if and only if it is uncountable and there is a $\kappa$-complete normal ultrafilter $\mathcal U$ over some $\mathcal P(\lambda)$ such that $\{x\in\mathcal P(\lambda)\mid \mathrm{ot}(x\cap \lambda)=\kappa\}\in\mathcal U$. The immediate advantage of this formulation over the one in terms of elementary embeddings is that it shows that "there is a huge cardinal" is a $\Sigma_2$ statement, that is, its truth can be witnessed in some $V_\alpha$ (in fact, any $\alpha$ large enough to see the relevant sets will be correct about the fact that $\kappa$ is huge).
Being supercompact, or even strongly compact, is not a local property, it does not admit a formulation verifiable in any $V_\alpha$. It also happens that if $\kappa$ is supercompact, then $V_\kappa\prec_{\Sigma_2} V$, which gives us that, if there is a huge cardinal, then $V_\kappa$ thinks that there is one, and therefore there really is a huge cardinal below $\kappa$.
Now, if $\kappa$ is huge then there is a normal ultrafilter $U$ on $\kappa$ such that there are $U$-many $\alpha<\kappa$ such that $V_\alpha\models\mathsf{ZFC}+$''there is a supercompact cardinal". In fact, any $\rho$ such that any such $V_\alpha$ believes supercompact is actually $\mu$-supercompact for all $\mu<\alpha$, but it is not necessarily true supercompact.
In any case, the first result says that the first huge cardinal is strictly smaller than the first supercompact cardinal, should both exist. The second says that, in consistency strength, being huge is much stronger than being supercompact, because it implies the existence of many set models of $\mathsf{ZFC}+$"there is a supercompact cardinal".
All that said, when people talk of "compact cardinals" I would typically understand "strongly compact" rather than "supercompact". Any supercompact cardinal is strongly compact and "usually" both classes of cardinals essentially coincide. However, it is consistent (via an elaboration of a famous result of Magidor) that there are strongly compact cardinals and huge cardinals, and the least strongly compact is (much) smaller than the least huge cardinal, see
The point is that Magidor proved that it is consistent that the least strongly compact is also the least measurable cardinal. In essence, Morgenstern proved that Magidor's argument preserves huge cardinals, if they exist, but the least huge cardinal is always larger than the least measurable.