Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


PhilPapersPhilPeoplePhilArchivePhilEventsPhilJobs

Results for 'Indestructibility'

172 found
Order:

1 filter applied
  1.  65
    Indestructibility of Vopěnka’s Principle.Andrew D. Brooke-Taylor -2011 -Archive for Mathematical Logic 50 (5-6):515-529.
    Vopěnka’s Principle is a natural large cardinal axiom that has recently found applications in category theory and algebraic topology. We show that Vopěnka’s Principle and Vopěnka cardinals are relatively consistent with a broad range of other principles known to be independent of standard (ZFC) set theory, such as the Generalised Continuum Hypothesis, and the existence of a definable well-order on the universe of all sets. We achieve this by showing that they are indestructible under a broad class of forcing constructions, (...) specifically, reverse Easton iterations of increasingly directed closed partial orders. (shrink)
    Direct download(5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  2.  123
    Indestructible Strong Unfoldability.Joel David Hamkins &Thomas A. Johnstone -2010 -Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 51 (3):291-321.
    Using the lottery preparation, we prove that any strongly unfoldable cardinal $\kappa$ can be made indestructible by all.
    Direct download(5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  3.  24
    Indestructible Weakly Compact Cardinals and the Necessity of Supercompactness for Certain Proof Schemata.J. D. Hamkins &A. W. Apter -2001 -Mathematical Logic Quarterly 47 (4):563-572.
    We show that if the weak compactness of a cardinal is made indestructible by means of any preparatory forcing of a certain general type, including any forcing naively resembling the Laver preparation, then the cardinal was originally supercompact. We then apply this theorem to show that the hypothesis of supercompactness is necessary for certain proof schemata.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  4.  19
    (1 other version)WeakIndestructibility and Reflection.James Holland -2024 -Journal of Symbolic Logic 89 (3):980-1006.
    We establish an equiconsistency between (1) weakindestructibility for all $\kappa +2$ -degrees of strength for cardinals $\kappa $ in the presence of a proper class of strong cardinals, and (2) a proper class of cardinals that are strong reflecting strongs. We in fact get weakindestructibility for degrees of strength far beyond $\kappa +2$, well beyond the next inaccessible limit of measurables (of the ground model). One direction is proven using forcing and the other using core model (...) techniques from inner model theory. Additionally, connections between weakindestructibility and the reflection properties associated with Woodin cardinals are discussed. This work is a part of my upcoming thesis [7]. (shrink)
    Direct download(2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  5.  57
    Fragility andindestructibility of the tree property.Spencer Unger -2012 -Archive for Mathematical Logic 51 (5-6):635-645.
    We prove various theorems about the preservation and destruction of the tree property at ω2. Working in a model of Mitchell [9] where the tree property holds at ω2, we prove that ω2 still has the tree property after ccc forcing of size \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\aleph_1}$$\end{document} or adding an arbitrary number of Cohen reals. We show that there is a relatively mild forcing in this same model which destroys the tree property. Finally we (...) prove from a supercompact cardinal that the tree property at ω2 can be indestructible under ω2-directed closed forcing. (shrink)
    Direct download(4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  6.  85
    Strongly unfoldable cardinals made indestructible.Thomas A. Johnstone -2008 -Journal of Symbolic Logic 73 (4):1215-1248.
    I provideindestructibility results for large cardinals consistent with V = L, such as weakly compact, indescribable and strongly unfoldable cardinals. The Main Theorem shows that any strongly unfoldable cardinal κ can be made indestructible by <κ-closed. κ-proper forcing. This class of posets includes for instance all <κ-closed posets that are either κ -c.c, or ≤κ-strategically closed as well as finite iterations of such posets. Since strongly unfoldable cardinals strengthen both indescribable and weakly compact cardinals, the Main Theorem therefore (...) makes these two large cardinal notions similarly indestructible. Finally. I apply the Main Theorem forcing extension preserving all strongly unfoldable cardinals in which every strongly unfoldable cardinal κ is indestructible by <κ-closed. κ-proper forcing. (shrink)
    Direct download(5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  7.  44
    Forcingindestructibility of MAD families.Jörg Brendle &Shunsuke Yatabe -2005 -Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 132 (2):271-312.
    Let A[ω]ω be a maximal almost disjoint family and assume P is a forcing notion. Say A is P-indestructible if A is still maximal in any P-generic extension. We investigate P-indestructibility for several classical forcing notions P. In particular, we provide a combinatorial characterization of P-indestructibility and, assuming a fragment of MA, we construct maximal almost disjoint families which are P-indestructible yet Q-destructible for several pairs of forcing notions . We close with a detailed investigation of iterated Sacks (...)indestructibility. (shrink)
    Direct download(5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  8.  6
    On Indestructible Strongly Guessing Models.Rahman Mohammadpour &Boban Veličković -forthcoming -Journal of Symbolic Logic:1-27.
    In [15] we defined and proved the consistency of the principle $\mathrm {GM}^+(\omega _3,\omega _1)$ which implies that many consequences of strong forcing axioms hold simultaneously at $\omega _2$ and $\omega _3$. In this paper we formulate a strengthening of $\mathrm {GM}^+(\omega _3,\omega _1)$ that we call $\mathrm {SGM}^+(\omega _3,\omega _1)$. We also prove, modulo the consistency of two supercompact cardinals, that $\mathrm {SGM}^+(\omega _3,\omega _1)$ is consistent with ZFC. In addition to all the consequences of $\mathrm {GM}^+(\omega _3,\omega _1)$, (...) the principle $\mathrm {SGM}^+(\omega _3,\omega _1)$, together with some mild cardinal arithmetic assumptions that hold in our model, implies that any forcing that adds a new subset of $\omega _2$ either adds a real or collapses some cardinal. This gives a partial answer to a question of Abraham [1] and extends a previous result of Todorčević [16] in this direction. (shrink)
    Direct download(2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9.  31
    Indestructibility of the tree property.Radek Honzik &Šárka Stejskalová -2020 -Journal of Symbolic Logic 85 (1):467-485.
    In the first part of the article, we show that if $\omega \le \kappa< \lambda$ are cardinals, ${\kappa ^{< \kappa }} = \kappa$, and λ is weakly compact, then in $V\left[M {\left} \right]$ the tree property at $$\lambda = \left^{V\left[ {\left} \right]} $$ is indestructible under all ${\kappa ^ + }$-cc forcing notions which live in $V\left[ {{\rm{Add}}\left} \right]$, where ${\rm{Add}}\left$ is the Cohen forcing for adding λ-many subsets of κ and $\left$ is the standard Mitchell forcing for (...) obtaining the tree property at $\lambda = \left^{V\left[ {\left} \right]} $. This result has direct applications to Prikry-type forcing notions and generalized cardinal invariants. In the second part, we assume that λ is supercompact and generalize the construction and obtain a model ${V^{\rm{*}}}$, a generic extension of V, in which the tree property at ${\left^{{V^{\rm{*}}}}}$ is indestructible under all ${\kappa ^ + }$-cc forcing notions living in $V\left[ {{\rm{Add}}\left} \right]$, and in addition under all forcing notions living in ${V^{\rm{*}}}$ which are ${\kappa ^ + }$-closed and “liftable” in a prescribed sense. (shrink)
    Direct download(2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  10.  63
    On theindestructibility aspects of identity crisis.Grigor Sargsyan -2009 -Archive for Mathematical Logic 48 (6):493-513.
    We investigate theindestructibility properties of strongly compact cardinals in universes where strong compactness suffers from identity crisis. We construct an iterative poset that can be used to establish Kimchi–Magidor theorem from (in The independence between the concepts of compactness and supercompactness, circulated manuscript), i.e., that the first n strongly compact cardinals can be the first n measurable cardinals. As an application, we show that the first n strongly compact cardinals can be the first n measurable cardinals while the (...) strong compactness of each strongly compact cardinal is indestructible under Levy collapses (our theorem is actually more general, see Sect. 3). A further application is that the class of strong cardinals can be nonempty yet coincide with the class of strongly compact cardinals while strong compactness of any strongly compact cardinal κ is indestructible under κ-directed closed posets that force GCH at κ. (shrink)
    Direct download(4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  11.  78
    Indestructibility and level by level equivalence and inequivalence.Arthur W. Apter -2007 -Mathematical Logic Quarterly 53 (1):78-85.
    If κ< λ are such that κ is indestructibly supercompact and λ is 2λ supercompact, it is known from [4] that {δ< κ | δ is a measurable cardinal which is not a limit of measurable cardinals and δ violates level by level equivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness}must be unbounded in κ. On the other hand, using a variant of the argument used to establish this fact, it is possible to prove that if κ< λ are (...) such that κ is indestructibly supercompact and λ is measurable, then {δ< κ | δ is a measurable cardinal which is not a limit of measurable cardinals and δ satisfies level by level equivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness}must be unbounded in κ. The two aforementioned phenomena, however, need not occur in a universe with an indestructibly supercompact cardinal and sufficiently few large cardinals. In particular, we show how to construct a model with an indestructibly supercompact cardinal κ in which if δ< κ is a measurable cardinal which is not a limit of measurable cardinals, then δ must satisfy level by level equivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness. We also, however, show how to construct a model with an indestructibly supercompact cardinal κ in which if δ< κ is a measurable cardinal which is not a limit of measurable cardinals, then δ must violate level by level equivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness. (shrink)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  12.  30
    Indestructibility and measurable cardinals with few and many measures.Arthur W. Apter -2008 -Archive for Mathematical Logic 47 (2):101-110.
    If κ< λ are such that κ is indestructibly supercompact and λ is measurable, then we show that both A = {δ< κ | δ is a measurable cardinal which is not a limit of measurable cardinals and δ carries the maximal number of normal measures} and B = {δ< κ | δ is a measurable cardinal which is not a limit of measurable cardinals and δ carries fewer than the maximal number of normal measures} are unbounded (...) in κ. The two aforementioned phenomena, however, need not occur in a universe with an indestructibly supercompact cardinal and sufficiently few large cardinals. In particular, we show how to construct a model with an indestructibly supercompact cardinal κ in which if δ< κ is a measurable cardinal which is not a limit of measurable cardinals, then δ must carry fewer than the maximal number of normal measures. We also, however, show how to construct a model with an indestructibly supercompact cardinal κ in which if δ< κ is a measurable cardinal which is not a limit of measurable cardinals, then δ must carry the maximal number of normal measures. If we weaken the requirements onindestructibility, then this last result can be improved to obtain a model with an indestructibly supercompact cardinal κ in which every measurable cardinal δ< κ carries the maximal number of normal measures. (shrink)
    Direct download(3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  13.  50
    Indestructibility and stationary reflection.Arthur W. Apter -2009 -Mathematical Logic Quarterly 55 (3):228-236.
    If κ< λ are such that κ is a strong cardinal whose strongness is indestructible under κ -strategically closed forcing and λ is weakly compact, then we show thatA = {δ< κ | δ is a non-weakly compact Mahlo cardinal which reflects stationary sets}must be unbounded in κ. This phenomenon, however, need not occur in a universe with relatively few large cardinals. In particular, we show how to construct a model where no cardinal is supercompact up to a (...) Mahlo cardinal in which the least supercompact cardinal κ is also the least strongly compact cardinal, κ 's strongness is indestructible under κ -strategically closed forcing, κ 's supercompactness is indestructible under κ -directed closed forcing not adding any new subsets of κ, and δ is Mahlo and reflects stationary sets iff δ is weakly compact. In this model, no strong cardinal δ< κ is indestructible under δ -strategically closed forcing. It therefore follows that it is relatively consistent for the least strong cardinal κ whose strongness is indestructible under κ -strategically closed forcing to be the same as the least supercompact cardinal, which also has its supercompactness indestructible under κ -directed closed forcing not adding any new subsets of κ. (shrink)
    Direct download(2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  14.  34
    Universalindestructibility for degrees of supercompactness and strongly compact cardinals.Arthur W. Apter &Grigor Sargsyan -2008 -Archive for Mathematical Logic 47 (2):133-142.
    We establish two theorems concerning strongly compact cardinals and universalindestructibility for degrees of supercompactness. In the first theorem, we show that universalindestructibility for degrees of supercompactness in the presence of a strongly compact cardinal is consistent with the existence of a proper class of measurable cardinals. In the second theorem, we show that universalindestructibility for degrees of supercompactness is consistent in the presence of two non-supercompact strongly compact cardinals, each of which exhibits a significant (...) amount ofindestructibility for its strong compactness. (shrink)
    Direct download(3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  15.  51
    Indestructibility, measurability, and degrees of supercompactness.Arthur W. Apter -2012 -Mathematical Logic Quarterly 58 (1):75-82.
    Suppose that κ is indestructibly supercompact and there is a measurable cardinal λ > κ. It then follows that A1 = {δ< κ∣δ is measurable, δ is not a limit of measurable cardinals, and δ is not δ+ supercompact} is unbounded in κ. If in addition λ is 2λ supercompact, then A2 = {δ< κ∣δ is measurable, δ is not a limit of measurable cardinals, and δ is δ+ supercompact} is unbounded in κ as well. The large cardinal (...) hypotheses on λ are necessary, as we further demonstrate by constructing via forcing two distinct models in which either equation image or equation image. In each of these models, there is an indestructibly supercompact cardinal κ, and a restricted large cardinal structure above κ. If we weaken theindestructibility requirement on κ toindestructibility under partial orderings which are both κ-directed closed and -distributive, then it is possible to construct a model containing a supercompact cardinal κ witnessing this degree ofindestructibility in which every measurable cardinal δ< κ is δ+ supercompact. (shrink)
    Direct download(2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  16.  68
    Indestructibility, HOD, and the Ground Axiom.Arthur W. Apter -2011 -Mathematical Logic Quarterly 57 (3):261-265.
    Let φ1 stand for the statement V = HOD and φ2 stand for the Ground Axiom. Suppose Ti for i = 1, …, 4 are the theories “ZFC + φ1 + φ2,” “ZFC + ¬φ1 + φ2,” “ZFC + φ1 + ¬φ2,” and “ZFC + ¬φ1 + ¬φ2” respectively. We show that if κ is indestructibly supercompact and λ > κ is inaccessible, then for i = 1, …, 4, Ai = df{δ κ is inaccessible. We show it is also (...) the case that if κ is indestructibly supercompact, then Vκ⊨T1, so by reflection, B1 = df{δ κ is inaccessible, we demonstrate that it is possible to construct a model in which κ is indestructibly supercompact and for every inaccessible cardinal δ< κ, Vδ⊨T1. It is thus not possible to prove in ZFC that Bi = df{δ< κ∣δ is an inaccessible limit of inaccessible cardinals and Vδ⊨Ti} for i = 2, …, 4 is unbounded in κ if κ is indestructibly supercompact. © 2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim. (shrink)
    Direct download(2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  17.  70
    Indestructibility, instances of strong compactness, and level by level inequivalence.Arthur W. Apter -2010 -Archive for Mathematical Logic 49 (7-8):725-741.
    Suppose λ > κ is measurable. We show that if κ is either indestructibly supercompact or indestructibly strong, then A = {δ< κ | δ is measurable, yet δ is neither δ + strongly compact nor a limit of measurable cardinals} must be unbounded in κ. The large cardinal hypothesis on λ is necessary, as we further demonstrate by constructing via forcing two models in which ${A = \emptyset}$ . The first of these contains a supercompact cardinal κ and (...) is such that no cardinal δ > κ is measurable, κ’s supercompactness is indestructible under κ-directed closed, (κ +, ∞)-distributive forcing, and every measurable cardinal δ< κ is δ + strongly compact. The second of these contains a strong cardinal κ and is such that no cardinal δ > κ is measurable, κ’s strongness is indestructible under< κ-strategically closed, (κ +, ∞)-distributive forcing, and level by level inequivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness holds. The model from the first of our forcing constructions is used to show that it is consistent, relative to a supercompact cardinal, for the least cardinal κ which is both strong and has its strongness indestructible under κ-directed closed, (κ +, ∞)-distributive forcing to be the same as the least supercompact cardinal, which has its supercompactness indestructible under κ-directed closed, (κ +, ∞)-distributive forcing. It further follows as a corollary of the first of our forcing constructions that it is possible to build a model containing a supercompact cardinal κ in which no cardinal δ > κ is measurable, κ is indestructibly supercompact, and every measurable cardinal δ< κ which is not a limit of measurable cardinals is δ + strongly compact. (shrink)
    Direct download(5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  18. Man is the Indestructible: Blanchot's Obscure Humanism.John Dalton -2005 -Colloquy 10:150-170.
    In her Paroles suffoquØes, Sarah Kofman writes that Robert Antelme’s The Human Race shows us that the abject dispossession suffered by the deportees signifies theindestructibility of alterity, its absolute character, by establishing the possibility of a new kind of “we,” he founds without founding – for this “we” is always already undone, destabilized – the possibility of a new ethics. Of a new humanism. 1 By way of an apparently rhetorical, though necessary question, Kofman continues: in spite of (...) everything that calls humanism into question “after the death of God and the end of man that is its correlate,” she writes, “I nonetheless want to conserve it, while giving it a completely different meaning, displacing and transforming it. I keep it because what other, new ‘word’ could have as much hold on the old humanism?” 2 At once prophetic and contemporary, this question is surprising, if not disarming. Following the death of God, it is said, ‘Man’ takes the stage, his emergence the necessary event of history. Yet the end of man is the ‘correlate’ of the death of God. The space occupied by divinity, or the sacred, has withdrawn. Humanism attests to a mimesis of the transcendental theme, and unwittingly confirms the emptiness of a sign without origin. Humanismannounces nothing new: the nihilism at the heart of onto-theology emerges fully. Its hypocrisy and pretension fatally exposed, humanism may now – and ought to be – discarded as a ‘metaphysics of the subject,’ a regime of negativity, exclusion and violence. (shrink)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  19.  35
    Indestructible strong compactness and level by level inequivalence.Arthur W. Apter -2013 -Mathematical Logic Quarterly 59 (4-5):371-377.
    If are such that δ is indestructibly supercompact and γ is measurable, then it must be the case that level by level inequivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness fails. We prove a theorem which points to this result being best possible. Specifically, we show that relative to the existence of cardinals such that κ1 is λ‐supercompact and λ is inaccessible, there is a model for level by level inequivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness containing a supercompact cardinal in which κ’s (...) strong compactness, but not supercompactness, is indestructible under κ‐directed closed forcing. In this model, κ is the least strongly compact cardinal, and no cardinal is supercompact up to an inaccessible cardinal. (shrink)
    Direct download(2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  20.  26
    Indestructibility of ideals and MAD families.David Chodounský &Osvaldo Guzmán -2021 -Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 172 (5):102905.
    In this survey paper we collect several known results on destroying tall ideals on countable sets and maximal almost disjoint families with forcing. In most cases we provide streamlined proofs of the presented results. The paper contains results of many authors as well as a preview of results of a forthcoming paper of Brendle, Guzmán, Hrušák, and Raghavan.
    Direct download(2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  21.  148
    Indestructibility and the level-by-level agreement between strong compactness and supercompactness.Arthur W. Apter &Joel David Hamkins -2002 -Journal of Symbolic Logic 67 (2):820-840.
    Can a supercompact cardinal κ be Laver indestructible when there is a level-by-level agreement between strong compactness and supercompactness? In this article, we show that if there is a sufficiently large cardinal above κ, then no, it cannot. Conversely, if one weakens the requirement either by demanding lessindestructibility, such as requiring onlyindestructibility by stratified posets, or less level-by-level agreement, such as requiring it only on measure one sets, then yes, it can.
    Direct download(13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   20 citations  
  22.  54
    Indestructibility properties of remarkable cardinals.Yong Cheng &Victoria Gitman -2015 -Archive for Mathematical Logic 54 (7-8):961-984.
    Remarkable cardinals were introduced by Schindler, who showed that the existence of a remarkable cardinal is equiconsistent with the assertion that the theory of L\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${L}$$\end{document} is absolute for proper forcing :176–184, 2000). Here, we study theindestructibility properties of remarkable cardinals. We show that if κ is remarkable, then there is a forcing extension in which the remarkability of κ becomes indestructible by all<κ-closed ≤κ-distributive forcing and all two-step iterations (...) of the form Add∗R˙\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${Add*\dot{\mathbb R}}$$\end{document}, where R˙\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\dot{\mathbb R}}$$\end{document} is forced to be<κ-closed and ≤κ-distributive. In the process, we introduce the notion of a remarkable Laver function and show that every remarkable cardinal carries such a function. We also show that remarkability is preserved by the canonical forcing of the GCH. (shrink)
    Direct download(5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  23.  52
    On certainindestructibility of strong cardinals and a question of Hajnal.Moti Gitik &Saharon Shelah -1989 -Archive for Mathematical Logic 28 (1):35-42.
    A model in which strongness ofκ is indestructible under κ+ -weakly closed forcing notions satisfying the Prikry condition is constructed. This is applied to solve a question of Hajnal on the number of elements of {λ δ |2 δ<λ}.
    Direct download(3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   55 citations  
  24.  50
    Indestructibility under adding Cohen subsets and level by level equivalence.Arthur W. Apter -2009 -Mathematical Logic Quarterly 55 (3):271-279.
    We construct a model for the level by level equivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness in which the least supercompact cardinal κ has its strong compactness indestructible under adding arbitrarily many Cohen subsets. There are no restrictions on the large cardinal structure of our model.
    Direct download(2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  25. Strong Cardinals can be Fully Laver Indestructible.Arthur W. Apter -2002 -Mathematical Logic Quarterly 48 (4):499-507.
    We prove three theorems which show that it is relatively consistent for any strong cardinal κ to be fully Laver indestructible under κ-directed closed forcing.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  26.  64
    “The indestructible, the barbaric principle”: The Role of Schelling in Merleau-Ponty’s Psychoanalysis.Dylan Trigg -2016 -Continental Philosophy Review 49 (2):203-221.
    The aim of this paper is to examine Merleau-Ponty’s idea of a “psychoanalysis of Nature”. My thesis is that in order to understand the creation of a Merleau-Pontean psychoanalysis, we need to ultimately understand the place of Schelling in Merleau-Ponty’s late thought. Through his dialogue with Schelling, Merleau-Ponty will be able to formulate not only a psychoanalysis of Nature, but also fulfil the ultimate task of phenomenology itself; namely, of identifying “what resists phenomenology—natural being, the ‘barbarous’ source Schelling spoke of” (...) and situating it precisely at the heart of phenomenology. The plan for studying this natural psychoanalysis is threefold. First, I provide an overview of the role psychoanalysis plays in the 1951 lecture, “Man and Adversity,” focusing especially on this lecture as a turning point in his thinking. Second, I chart how Merleau-Ponty’s psychoanalysis is informed by the various ways in which the unconscious is formulated in his thought, leading eventually to a dialogue with Schelling. Accordingly, in the final part of the paper, I trace the role of Schelling’s thought in the creation of a Merleau-Pontean psychoanalysis. As I argue, what distinguishes this psychoanalysis is the centrality of Schelling’s idea of the “barbaric principle,” which manifests itself as the notion of an unconscious indexing an “excess of Being” resistant to classical phenomenology. (shrink)
    Direct download(2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  27.  35
    Indestructibility and the linearity of the Mitchell ordering.Arthur W. Apter -2024 -Archive for Mathematical Logic 63 (3):473-482.
    Suppose that \(\kappa \) is indestructibly supercompact and there is a measurable cardinal \(\lambda > \kappa \). It then follows that \(A_0 = \{\delta is a measurable cardinal and the Mitchell ordering of normal measures over \(\delta \) is nonlinear \(\}\) is unbounded in \(\kappa \). If the Mitchell ordering of normal measures over \(\lambda \) is also linear, then by reflection (and without any use ofindestructibility), \(A_1= \{\delta is a measurable cardinal and the Mitchell ordering of normal (...) measures over \(\delta \) is linear \(\}\) is unbounded in \(\kappa \) as well. The large cardinal hypothesis on \(\lambda \) is necessary. We demonstrate this by constructing via forcing two models in which \(\kappa \) is supercompact and \(\kappa \) exhibits anindestructibility property slightly weaker than fullindestructibility but sufficient to infer that \(A_0\) is unbounded in \(\kappa \) if \(\lambda > \kappa \) is measurable. In one of these models, for every measurable cardinal \(\delta \), the Mitchell ordering of normal measures over \(\delta \) is linear. In the other of these models, for every measurable cardinal \(\delta \), the Mitchell ordering of normal measures over \(\delta \) is nonlinear. (shrink)
    No categories
    Direct download(3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  28.  33
    Theindestructibility and immutability of substances.N. L. Wilson -1956 -Philosophical Studies 7 (3):46 - 48.
    No categories
    Direct download(3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  29.  34
    ForcingIndestructibility of Set-Theoretic Axioms.Bernhard König -2007 -Journal of Symbolic Logic 72 (1):349 - 360.
    Various theorems for the preservation of set-theoretic axioms under forcing are proved, regarding both forcing axioms and axioms true in the Lévy collapse. These show in particular that certain applications of forcing axioms require to add generic countable sequences high up in the set-theoretic hierarchy even before collapsing everything down to ‮א‬₁. Later we give applications, among them the consistency of MM with ‮א‬ω not being Jónsson which answers a question raised in the set theory meeting at Oberwolfach in 2005.
    Direct download(5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  30.  31
    A Co-Analytic Cohen-Indestructible Maximal Cofinitary Group.Vera Fischer,David Schrittesser &Asger Törnquist -2017 -Journal of Symbolic Logic 82 (2):629-647.
    Assuming that every set is constructible, we find a${\text{\Pi }}_1^1 $maximal cofinitary group of permutations of$\mathbb{N}$which is indestructible by Cohen forcing. Thus we show that the existence of such groups is consistent with arbitrarily large continuum. Our method also gives a new proof, inspired by the forcing method, of Kastermans’ result that there exists a${\text{\Pi }}_1^1 $maximal cofinitary group inL.
    Direct download(2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  31.  109
    An equiconsistency for universalindestructibility.Arthur W. Apter &Grigor Sargsyan -2010 -Journal of Symbolic Logic 75 (1):314-322.
    We obtain an equiconsistency for a weak form of universalindestructibility for strongness. The equiconsistency is relative to a cardinal weaker in consistency strength than a Woodin cardinal. Stewart Baldwin's notion of hyperstrong cardinal. We also briefly indicate how our methods are applicable to universalindestructibility for supercompactness and strong compactness.
    Direct download(7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  32. The Indestructible Soul.Geoffrey Parrinder -1974 -Religious Studies 10 (2):240-241.
  33.  43
    The Indestructible Beauty of Suffering: Diana and the Metaphor of Global Consumption.Scott Wilson -1997 -Theory and Event 1 (4).
    No categories
    Direct download(3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  34.  36
    Indestructibility and destructible measurable cardinals.Arthur W. Apter -2016 -Archive for Mathematical Logic 55 (1-2):3-18.
    Say that κ\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\kappa}$$\end{document}’s measurability is destructible if there exists a κ\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\kappa}$$\end{document}. It then follows that A1={δ<κ∣δ\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${A_{1} = \{\delta< \kappa \mid \delta}$$\end{document} is measurable, δ is not a limit of measurable cardinals, δ is not δ+ strongly compact, and δ’s measurability is destructible when forcing with partial orderings having rank below λδ} is unbounded (...) in κ\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\kappa}$$\end{document}. On the other hand, under the same hypotheses, A2={δ<κ∣δ\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${A_{2} = \{\delta< \kappa \mid \delta}$$\end{document} is measurable, δ is not a limit of measurable cardinals, δ is not δ+ strongly compact, and δ′s measurability is indestructible when forcing with either Add or Add} is unbounded in κ\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\kappa}$$\end{document} as well. The large cardinal hypothesis on λ is necessary, as we further demonstrate by constructing via forcing two distinct models in which either A1=∅\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${A_{1} = \emptyset}$$\end{document} or A2=∅\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${A_{2} = \emptyset}$$\end{document}. In each of these models, both of which have restricted large cardinal structures above κ\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\kappa}$$\end{document}, every measurable cardinal δ which is not a limit of measurable cardinals is δ+ strongly compact, and there is an indestructibly supercompact cardinal κ\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\kappa}$$\end{document}. In the model in which A1=∅\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${A_{1} = \emptyset}$$\end{document}, every measurable cardinal δ which is not a limit of measurable cardinals is<λδ strongly compact and has its<λδ strong compactness indestructible when forcing with δ-directed closed partial orderings having rank below λδ. The choice of the least beth fixed point above δ is arbitrary, and other values of λδ are also possible. (shrink)
    Direct download(2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  35.  95
    LaverIndestructibility and the Class of Compact Cardinals.Arthur W. Apter -1998 -Journal of Symbolic Logic 63 (1):149-157.
    Using an idea developed in joint work with Shelah, we show how to redefine Laver's notion of forcing making a supercompact cardinal $\kappa$ indestructible under $\kappa$-directed closed forcing to give a new proof of the Kimchi-Magidor Theorem in which every compact cardinal in the universe satisfies certainindestructibility properties. Specifically, we show that if K is the class of supercompact cardinals in the ground model, then it is possible to force and construct a generic extension in which the only (...) strongly compact cardinals are the elements of K or their measurable limit points, every $\kappa \in K$ is a supercompact cardinal indestructible under $\kappa$-directed closed forcing, and every $\kappa$ a measurable limit point of K is a strongly compact cardinal indestructible under $\kappa$-directed closed forcing not changing $\wp$. We then derive as a corollary a model for the existence of a strongly compact cardinal $\kappa$ which is not $\kappa^+$ supercompact but which is indestructible under $\kappa$-directed closed forcing not changing $\wp and remains non-$\kappa^+$ supercompact after such a forcing has been done. (shrink)
    Direct download(7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  36.  20
    Indestructibility when the first two measurable cardinals are strongly compact.Arthur W. Apter -2022 -Journal of Symbolic Logic 87 (1):214-227.
    We prove two theorems concerningindestructibility properties of the first two strongly compact cardinals when these cardinals are in addition the first two measurable cardinals. Starting from two supercompact cardinals $\kappa _1< \kappa _2$, we force and construct a model in which $\kappa _1$ and $\kappa _2$ are both the first two strongly compact and first two measurable cardinals, $\kappa _1$ ’s strong compactness is fully indestructible, and $\kappa _2$ ’s strong compactness is indestructible under $\mathrm {Add}$ for (...) any ordinal $\delta $. This provides an answer to a strengthened version of a question of Sargsyan found in [17, Question 5]. We also investigateindestructibility properties that may occur when the first two strongly compact cardinals are not only the first two measurable cardinals, but also exhibit nontrivial degrees of supercompactness. (shrink)
    Direct download(2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  37.  18
    Indestructibility properties of Ramsey and Ramsey-like cardinals.Victoria Gitman &Thomas A. Johnstone -2022 -Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 173 (6):103106.
    Direct download(2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  38.  30
    A Laver-likeindestructibility for hypermeasurable cardinals.Radek Honzik -2019 -Archive for Mathematical Logic 58 (3-4):275-287.
    We show that if \ is \\)-hypermeasurable for some cardinal \ with \ \le \mu \) and GCH holds, then we can extend the universe by a cofinality-preserving forcing to obtain a model \ in which the \\)-hypermeasurability of \ is indestructible by the Cohen forcing at \ of any length up to \ is \\)-hypermeasurable in \). The preservation of hypermeasurability is useful for subsequent arguments. The construction of \ is based on the ideas of Woodin and Cummings :1–39, (...) 1992) for preservation of measurability, but suitably generalised and simplified to achieve a more general result. Unlike the Laver preparation :385–388, 1978) for a supercompact cardinal, our preparation non-trivially increases the value of \, which is equal to \ in \ is still true in \ if we start with GCH). (shrink)
    No categories
    Direct download(2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  39.  39
    Some remarks onindestructibility and Hamkins? lottery preparation.Arthur W. Apter -2003 -Archive for Mathematical Logic 42 (8):717-735.
    .In this paper, we first prove several general theorems about strongness, supercompactness, andindestructibility, along the way giving some new applications of Hamkins’ lottery preparation forcing toindestructibility. We then show that it is consistent, relative to the existence of cardinals κ<λ so that κ is λ supercompact and λ is inaccessible, for the least strongly compact cardinal κ to be the least strong cardinal and to have its strongness, but not its strong compactness, indestructible under κ-strategically closed (...) forcing. (shrink)
    Direct download(3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  40.  27
    Indestructibility of some compactness principles over models of PFA.Radek Honzik,Chris Lambie-Hanson &Šárka Stejskalová -2024 -Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 175 (1):103359.
    Direct download(2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  41.  56
    Indestructible plastic: the neuroscience of the new aging brain.Constance Holman &Etienne de Villers-Sidani -2014 -Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8.
  42.  40
    Universal partialindestructibility and strong compactness.Arthur W. Apter -2005 -Mathematical Logic Quarterly 51 (5):524-531.
    For any ordinal δ, let λδ be the least inaccessible cardinal above δ. We force and construct a model in which the least supercompact cardinal κ is indestructible under κ-directed closed forcing and in which every measurable cardinal δ< κ is< λδ strongly compact and has its< λδ strong compactness indestructible under δ-directed closed forcing of rank less than λδ. In this model, κ is also the least strongly compact cardinal. We also establish versions of this result (...) in which κ is the least strongly compact cardinal but is not supercompact. (shrink)
    Direct download(2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  43.  36
    Fragility andindestructibility II.Spencer Unger -2015 -Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 166 (11):1110-1122.
  44.  54
    The Solitary and Indestructible American Cowboy: Is This Symbolic Hero Standing in the Way of Universal Health Care in America and Riding Roughshod over it in the UK?Melissa McCullough -2011 -American Journal of Bioethics 11 (7):30 - 31.
    The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 11, Issue 7, Page 30-31, July 2011.
    Direct download(3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  45.  90
    Indestructible strong compactness but not supercompactness.Arthur W. Apter,Moti Gitik &Grigor Sargsyan -2012 -Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 163 (9):1237-1242.
  46.  3
    Universally Sacks-indestructible combinatorial families of reals.V. Fischer &L. Schembecker -2025 -Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 176 (6):103566.
  47.  44
    Plato on Food Poisoning and theIndestructibility of Soul in Pol. X 608d–611a.Niko Strobach -2022 -Ancient Philosophy Today 4 (1):30-45.
    This paper presents a passage from book 10 of Plato’s Republic as a text on food poisoning. The official aim of the passage is an argument for theindestructibility of the soul in the context of a theory of specific bad-makers. Food poisoning is treated in considerable theoretical detail as part of a complex body soul analogy. Focusing on this aspect uncovers an elaborate analysis of how things get worse and a remarkable view on disease.
    Direct download(4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  48.  23
    Reconsidering the Essential Nature andIndestructibility of the Soul in the Affinity Argument of thePhaedo.Stephanos Stephanides -2023 -Rhizomata 11 (1):77-104.
    This paper offers a fresh examination of a salient distinction located at the beginning of the Affinity Argument between the composite (τὸ σύνθετον) and the incomposite (τὸ ἀσύνθετον). I offer reasons for why Plato may have intended for us to assume that the soul is an incomposite unity in its essential nature. I then substantiate this claim by reviving an ancient interpretation to the Affinity Argument according to which the soul is of the same metaphysical kind as the Forms. I (...) thus suggest that the argument may be seen as supporting the basicindestructibility cum immortality of all souls. (shrink)
    No categories
    Direct download(2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  49.  16
    A universalindestructibility theorem compatible with level by level equivalence.Arthur W. Apter -2015 -Archive for Mathematical Logic 54 (3-4):463-470.
    We prove anindestructibility theorem for degrees of supercompactness that is compatible with level by level equivalence between strong compactness and supercompactness.
    No categories
    Direct download(2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  50.  59
    Superstrong and other large cardinals are never Laver indestructible.Joan Bagaria,Joel David Hamkins,Konstantinos Tsaprounis &Toshimichi Usuba -2016 -Archive for Mathematical Logic 55 (1-2):19-35.
    Superstrong cardinals are never Laver indestructible. Similarly, almost huge cardinals, huge cardinals, superhuge cardinals, rank-into-rank cardinals, extendible cardinals, 1-extendible cardinals, 0-extendible cardinals, weakly superstrong cardinals, uplifting cardinals, pseudo-uplifting cardinals, superstrongly unfoldable cardinals, Σn-reflecting cardinals, Σn-correct cardinals and Σn-extendible cardinals are never Laver indestructible. In fact, all these large cardinal properties are superdestructible: if κ exhibits any of them, with corresponding target θ, then in any forcing extension arising from nontrivial strategically<κ-closed forcing Q∈Vθ\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} (...) \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mathbb{Q} \in V_\theta}$$\end{document}, the cardinal κ will exhibit none of the large cardinal properties with target θ or larger. (shrink)
    Direct download(5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
1 — 50 / 172
Export
Limit to items.
Filters





Configure languageshere.Sign in to use this feature.

Viewing options


Open Category Editor
Off-campus access
Using PhilPapers from home?

Create an account to enable off-campus access through your institution's proxy server or OpenAthens.


[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp