Mitchell order

Abstract: Let E ⊲ F iff E and F are extenders and E ∈ Ult(V, F). Intuitively, E ⊲ F implies that E is weaker—embodies less reflection—than F. The relation ⊲ was first considered by W. Mitchell in [M74], where it arises naturally in connection with inner models and coherent sequences. Mitchell showed in [M74] that the restriction of ⊲ to normal ultrafilters is well-founded. The relation ⊲ is now known as the Mitchell order, although it is not actually an order. It is irreflexive, and its restriction to normal ultrafilters is transitive, but under mild large cardinal hypotheses, it is not transitive on all extenders. Here is a counterexample. Let κ be (λ + 2)-strong, where λ > κ and λ is measurable. Let E be an extender with critical point κ and let U be a normal ultrafilter with critical point λ such that U ∈ Ult(V, E). Let i: V → Ult(V, U) be the canonical embedding. Then i(E) ⊲ U and U ⊲ E, but by 3.11 of [MS2], it is not the case that i(E) ⊲ E. (The referee pointed out the following elementary proof of this fact. Notice that i ↾ Vλ+2 ∈ Ult(V, E) and X ∈ Ea ⇔ X ∈ i(E)i(a). Moreover, we may assume without loss of generality that = support(E). Thus, if i(E) ∈ Ult(V, E), then E ∈ Ult(V, E), a contradiction.) By going to much stronger extenders, one can show the Mitchell order is not well-founded. The following example is well known. Let j: V → M be elementary, with Vλ ⊆ M for λ = joω(crit(j)). (By Kunen, Vλ+1 ∉ M.) Let E0 be the (crit(j), λ) extender derived from j, and let En+1 = i(En), where i: V → Ult(V, En) is the canonical embedding. One can show inductively that En is an extender over V, and thereby, that En+1 ⊲ En for all n < ω. (There is a little work in showing that Ult(V, En+1) is well-founded.)

Abstract: The Main Theorem is the equiconsistency of the following two statements: (1) κ is a measurable cardinal and the tree property holds at κ; (2) κ is a weakly compact hypermeasurable cardinal From the proof of the Main Theorem, two internal consistency results follow: If there is a weakly compact hypermeasurable cardinal and a measurable cardinal far enough above it, then there is an inner model in which there is a proper class of measurable cardinals, and in which the tree property holds at the double successor of each strongly inaccessible cardinal If 0 exists, then we can construct an inner model in which the tree property holds at the double successor of each strongly inaccessible cardinal We also find upper and lower bounds for the consistency strength of there being no special Aronszajn trees at the double successor of a measurable cardinal The upper and lower bounds differ only by 1 in the Mitchell order

Abstract: We show from an abstract comparison principle (the Ultrapower Axiom) that the Mitchell order is linear on sufficiently strong ultrafilters: normal ultrafilters, Dodd solid ultrafilters, and assuming GCH, generalized normal ultrafilters. This gives a conditional answer to the well-known question of whether a 2κ-supercompact cardinal κ must carry more than one normal measure of order 0. Conditioned on a very plausible iteration hypothesis, the answer is no, since the Ultrapower Axiom holds in the canonical inner models at the finite levels of supercompactness.

Abstract: We show that Mitchell order on downward closed extenders below rank-to-rank type is wellfounded. 1