cantors-attic

Climb into Cantor’s Attic, where you will find infinities large and small. We aim to provide a comprehensive resource of information about all notions of mathematical infinity.

View the Project on GitHub neugierde/cantors-attic

Quick navigation
The upper attic
The middle attic
The lower attic
The parlour
The playroom
The library
The cellar

Sources
Cantor's Attic (original site)
Joel David Hamkins blog post about the Attic
Latest working snapshot at the wayback machine

Ramsey cardinal

Ramsey cardinals were introduced by Erdős and Hajnal in (Erdős & Hajnal, 1962). Their consistency strength lies strictly between $0^\sharp$ and measurable cardinals.

There are many Ramsey-like cardinals with strength between weakly compact and measurable cardinals inclusively. (Feng, 1990; Gitman, 2011; Sharpe & Welch, 2011; Holy & Schlicht, 2018; Nielsen & Welch, 2018)

Ramsey cardinals

Definitions

A cardinal $\kappa$ is Ramsey if it has the partition property $\kappa\rightarrow (\kappa)^{\lt\omega}_2$.

For infinite cardinals $\kappa$ and $\lambda$, the partition property $\kappa\to(\lambda)^n_\gamma$ asserts that for every function $F:[\kappa]^n\to\gamma$ there is $H\subseteq\kappa$ with $|H|=\lambda$ such that $F\upharpoonright[H]^n$ is constant. Here $[X]^n$ is the set of all $n$-elements subsets of $X$. The more general partition property $\kappa\to(\lambda)^{\lt\omega}_\gamma$ asserts that for every function $F:[\kappa]^{\lt\omega}\to\gamma$ there is $H\subseteq\kappa$ with $|H|=\lambda$ such that $F\upharpoonright[H]^n$ is constant for every $n$, although the value of $F$ on $[H]^n$ may be different for different $n$. Indeed, if $\kappa$ is Ramsey, then $\kappa\rightarrow (\kappa)^{\lt\omega}_\lambda$ for every $\lambda<\kappa$. Ramsey cardinals were named in honor of Frank Ramsey, whose Ramsey theorem for partition properties of $\omega$ motivated the generalizations of these to uncountable cardinals. A Ramsey cardinal $\kappa$ is exactly the $\kappa$-Erdős cardinal.

Ramsey cardinals have a number of other characterizations. They may be characterized model theoretically through the existence of $\kappa$-sized sets of indiscernibles for models meeting the criteria discussed below, as well as through the existence of $\kappa$-sized models of set theory without power set with iterable ultrapowers.

Indiscernibles: Suppose $\mathcal A=(A,\ldots)$ is a model of a language $\mathcal L$ of size less than $\kappa$ whose universe $A$ contains $\kappa$ as a subset.

If a cardinal $\kappa$ is Ramsey, then every such model $\mathcal A$ has a $\kappa$-sized set of indiscernibles $H\subseteq\kappa$, that is, for every formula $\varphi(\overline x)$ of $\mathcal L$ and every pair of tuples $\overline \alpha$ and $\overline \beta$ of elements of $H$, we have $\mathcal A\models\varphi (\overline \alpha)\leftrightarrow \varphi(\overline \beta)$. (Jech, 2003)

Good sets of indiscernibles: Suppose $A\subseteq\kappa$ and $L_\kappa[A]$ denotes the $\kappa^{\text{th}}$-level of the universe constructible using a predicate for $A$. A set $I\subseteq\kappa$ is a good set of indiscernibles for the model $\langle L_\kappa[A],A\rangle$ if for all $\gamma\in I$,

A cardinal $\kappa$ is Ramsey if and only if for every $A\subseteq\kappa$, there is a $\kappa$-sized good set of indiscernibles for the model $\langle L_\kappa[A], A\rangle$. (Dodd & Jensen, 1981)

$M$-ultrafilters: Suppose a transitive $M\models {\rm ZFC}^-$, the theory ${\rm ZFC}$ without the power set axiom (and using collection and separation rather than merely replacement) and $\kappa$ is a cardinal in $M$. We call $U\subseteq P(\kappa)^M$ an $M$-ultrafilter if the model $\langle M,U\rangle\models$“$U$ is a normal ultrafilter on $\kappa$”. In the case when the $M$-ultrafilter is not an element of $M$, the model $\langle M,U\rangle$ of $M$ together with a predicate for $U$ often fails to satisfy much of ${\rm ZFC}$. An $M$-ultrafilter $U$ is said to be weakly amenable (to $M$) if for every $A\in M$ of size $\kappa$ in $M$, the intersection $A\cap U$ is an element of $M$. An $M$-ultrafilter $U$ is countably complete if every countable sequence (possibly external to $M$) of elements of $U$ has a non-empty intersection (even if the intersection is not itself an element of $M$). A weak $\kappa$-model is a transitive set $M\models {\rm ZFC}^- $ of size $\kappa$ and containing $\kappa$ as an element. A modified ultrapower construction using only functions on $\kappa$ that are elements of $M$ can be carried out with an $M$-ultrafilter. If the $M$-ultrafilter happens to be countably complete, then the standard argument shows that the ultrapower is well-founded. If the $M$-ultrafilter is moreover weakly amenable, then a weakly amenable ultrafilter on the image of $\kappa$ in the well-founded ultrapower can be constructed from images of the pieces of $U$ that are in $M$. The ultrapower construction may be iterated in this manner, taking direct limits at limit stages, and in this case the countable completeness of the $M$-ultrafilter ensures that every stage of the iteration produces a well-founded model. (Kanamori, 2009) (Ch. 19)

A cardinal $\kappa$ is Ramsey if and only if every $A\subseteq\kappa$ is contained in a weak $\kappa$-model $M$ for which there exists a weakly amenable countably complete $M$-ultrafilter on $\kappa$. (Dodd & Jensen, 1981)

Ramsey cardinals and the constructible universe

Ramsey cardinals imply that $0^\sharp$ exists and hence there cannot be Ramsey cardinals in $L$. (Kanamori, 2009)

Relations with other large cardinals

Weaker Ramsey-like:

Stronger Ramsey-like:

Ramsey cardinals and forcing

Completely Romsey cardinals etc.

(All information in this section are from (Feng, 1990) unless otherwise noted)

Basic definitions

$Π_α$-Ramsey and completely Ramsey

Suppose that $κ$ is a regular uncountable cardinal and $I \supseteq \mathcal{P}_{<κ}(κ)$ is an ideal on $κ$. For every $X \subseteq $κ, $X \in \mathcal{R}^+(I)$ iff for every regressive function $f:\mathcal{P}_{<ω}(κ) \to κ$, for every club $C \subseteq κ$, there is a $Y \in I^+f$ such that $Y \subseteq X \cap C$ and $Y$ is homogeneous for $f$.

$\mathcal{R}(I) = \mathcal{P}(κ) - \mathcal{R}^+(I)$

$\mathcal{R}^*(I) = \{ X \subseteq κ : κ - X \in \mathcal{R}(I) \}$

A regular uncountable cardinal $κ$ is Ramsey iff $κ \not\in \mathcal{R}(\mathcal{P}_{<κ}(κ))$. If it is Ramsey, we call $\mathcal{R}(\mathcal{P}_{<κ}(κ))$ the Ramsey ideal on $κ$, its dual $\mathcal{R}^*(\mathcal{P}_{<κ}(κ))$ the Ramsey filter and every element of $\mathcal{R}^+(\mathcal{P}_{<κ}(κ))$ a Ramsey subset of $κ$.

For a regular uncountable cardinal $κ$, we define

Regular uncountable cardinal $κ$ is $Π_α$-Ramsey iff $κ \not\in I_α^κ$ and completely Ramsey iff for all $α$, $κ \not\in I_α^κ$.

If $κ$ is $Π_α$-Ramsey, we call $I_α^κ$ the $Π_α$-Ramsey ideal on $κ$, its dual the $Π_α$-Ramsey filter and every subset of $κ$ not in $I_α^κ$ a $Π_α$-Ramsey subset. If $κ$ is completely Ramsey, we call $I_{θ_κ}^κ$ the completely Ramsey ideal on $κ$, its dual the completely Ramsey filter and every subset of $κ$ not in $I_{θ_κ}^κ$ a completely Ramsey subset. ($θ_κ$ is the least $α$ such that $I_α^κ = I_{α+1}^κ$ — it must exist before $(2^κ)^+$ for every regular uncountable $κ$ — even if the ideals are trivial)

$α$-hyper completely Ramsey and super completely Ramsey

A sequence $⟨f_α:α<κ^+⟩$ of elements of $^κκ$ is a canonical sequence on $κ$ if both

Note four facts:

For a regular uncountable cardinal $κ$, let $\vec f = ⟨f_α:α<κ^+⟩$ be the canonical sequence on $κ$.

Terminology

(This subsection compares (Sharpe&Welch, 2011) and (Feng, 1990))

$Π_α$-Ramsey cardinals correspond to $α$-Ramsey and $α$-Ramsey$^s$ in (Sharpe & Welch, 2011; Holy & Schlicht, 2018) (The “$^s$” stands for “stationary”.(Sharpe & Welch, 2011))

$Π_{2 n}$-Ramsey cardinals are Sharpe-Welch $n$-Ramsey and $Π_{2 n + 1}$-Ramsey cardinals are $n$-Ramsey$^s$.

For infinite $α$, $Π_α$-Ramsey, Sharpe-Welch $α$-Ramsey and $α$-Ramsey$^s$ are identical.

Results

Absoluteness:

Hierarchy:

Upper limit of consistency strength:

Indescribability:

Equivalence:

Relation with other variants of Ramseyness:

Almost Ramsey cardinal

cf. (Vickers&Welch, 2001)

An uncountable cardinal $\kappa$ is almost Ramsey if and only if $\kappa\rightarrow(\alpha)^{<\omega}$ for every $\alpha<\kappa$. Equivalently:

($\eta_\alpha$ is the $\alpha$-Erdős cardinal.)

Every almost Ramsey cardinal is a $\beth$-fixed point, but the least almost Ramsey cardinal, if it exists, has cofinality $\omega$. In fact, the least almost Ramsey cardinal is not weakly inaccessible, worldly, or correct. However, if the least almost Ramsey cardinal exists, it is larger than the least $\omega_1$-Erdős cardinal. Any regular almost Ramsey cardinal is worldly, and any worldly almost Ramsey cardinal $\kappa$ has $\kappa$ almost Ramsey cardinals below it.

The existence of a worldly almost Ramsey cardinal is stronger than the existence of a proper class of almost Ramsey cardinals. Therefore, the existence of a Ramsey cardinal is stronger than the existence of a proper class of almost Ramsey cardinals. The existence of a proper class of almost Ramsey cardinals is equivalent to the existence of $\eta_\alpha$ for every $\alpha$. The existence of an almost Ramsey cardinal is stronger than the existence of an $\omega_1$-Erdős cardinal.

The existence of an almost Ramsey cardinal is equivalent to the existence of $\eta^n(\omega)$ for every $n<\omega$. On one hand, if a almost Ramsey cardinal $\kappa$ exists, then $\omega<\kappa$. Then, $\eta_\omega$ is less than $\kappa$. Then, $\eta_{\eta_\omega}$ exists and is less than $\kappa$, and so on. On the other hand, if $\eta^n(\omega)$ exists for every $n<\omega$, then $\text{sup}\{\eta^n(\omega):n<\omega\}$ is almost Ramsey, and in fact the least almost Ramsey cardinal. Note that such a set exists by replacement and has a supremum by union.

The Ramsey cardinals are precisely the Erdős almost Ramsey cardinals and also precisely the weakly compact almost Ramsey cardinals.

If $κ$ is a $2$-weakly Erdős cardinal, then $κ$ is almost Ramsey.(Sharpe & Welch, 2011)

Strongly Ramsey cardinal

Strongly Ramsey cardinals were introduced by Gitman in (Gitman, 2011) (all information from there unless otherwise noted). They strengthen the $M$-ultrafilters characterization of Ramsey cardinals from weak $\kappa$-models to $\kappa$-models.

A cardinal $\kappa$ is strongly Ramsey if every $A\subseteq\kappa$ is contained in a $\kappa$-model $M$ for which there exists a weakly amenable $M$-ultrafilter on $\kappa$. An $M$-ultrafilter for a $\kappa$-model $M$ is automatically countably complete since $\langle M,U\rangle$ satisfies that it is $\kappa$-complete and it must be correct about this since $M$ is closed under sequences of length less than $\kappa$.

Properties:

Super Ramsey cardinal

Super Ramsey cardinals were introduced by Gitman in (Gitman, 2011) (all information from there unless otherwise noted). They strengthen one definition of strong Ramseyness.

A weak $\kappa$-model $M$ is a $\kappa$-model if additionally $M^{\lt\kappa}\subseteq M$.

A cardinal $\kappa$ is super Ramsey if and only if for every $A\subseteq\kappa$, there is some $\kappa$-model $M$ with $A\subseteq M\prec H_{\kappa^+}$ such that there is some $N$ and some $\kappa$-powerset preserving nontrivial elementary embedding $j:M\prec N$.

The following are some facts about super Ramsey cardinals:

$\alpha$-iterable cardinal

The $\alpha$-iterable cardinals for $1\leq\alpha\leq\omega_1$ were introduced by Gitman in (Gitman & Welch, 2011). They form a hierarchy of large cardinal notions strengthening weakly compact cardinals, while weakening the $M$-ultrafilter characterization of Ramsey cardinals. Recall that if $\kappa$ is Ramsey, then every $A\subseteq\kappa$ is contained in a weak $\kappa$-model $M$ for which there exists an $M$-ultrafilter, the ultrapower construction with which may be iterated through all the ordinals. Suppose $M$ is a weak $\kappa$-model and $U$ is an $M$-ultrafilter on $\kappa$. Define that:

Using a theorem of Gaifman (Gaifman, 1974), if an $M$-ultrafilter is $\omega_1$-good, then it is already $\alpha$-good for every ordinal $\alpha$.

For $1\leq\alpha\leq\omega_1$, a cardinal $\kappa$ is $\alpha$-iterable if every $A\subseteq\kappa$ is contained in a weak $\kappa$-model $M$ for which there exists an $\alpha$-good $M$-ultrafilter on $\kappa$.

The $\alpha$-iterable cardinals form a hierarchy of strength above weakly compact cardinals and below Ramsey cardinals.

The $1$-iterable cardinals are sometimes called the weakly Ramsey cardinals.

Results

Lower limit:

Upper limit:

Hierarchy:

Between $1$- and $2$-iterable:

Absoluteness:

Mahlo–Ramsey cardinals

The property of being Mahlo–Ramsey (MR) is a slight strengthening of Ramseyness introduced in analogy to Mahlo cardinals in (Sharpe & Welch, 2011) (all information from there).

For a regular cardinal $κ$ and a sequence of canonical functions $⟨ f_α
α < κ^+ ⟩$

Any $\Pi_2$-Ramsey cardinal is $α$-MR for all $α < κ^+$.

Very Ramsey cardinals

For $X ⊆ κ$ and ordinal $α$, $G_R(X, α)$ is a certain game for two players with finitely many moves defined in (Sharpe&Welch11). $X$ is Sharpe-Welch $\alpha$-Ramsey iff (II) wins $G_R(X, α)$. $G_r(X, α)$ (also defined there) is a modification of the game allowing $1+α$ moves. $X$ is $\alpha$-very Ramsey iff (II) has a winning strategy in $G_r(X, α)$.(Sharpe & Welch, 2011)

For $n < ω$, the games $G_R(X, n)$ and $G_r(X, n)$ coincide.(Sharpe & Welch, 2011)

In analogy to coherent $<α$-very Ramsey, one can define coherent $<α$-very Ramsey cardinals. $α$-very Ramsey cardinals are equivalent to coherent $<α$-very Ramsey cardinals for limit $α$ and to $<(α+1)$-very Ramsey cardinals in general. (This just allows to “subtract one” for successor ordinals.)(Nielsen & Welch, 2018)

Results:

Additional results from (Nielsen & Welch, 2018):

Virtually Ramsey cardinal

Virtually Ramsey cardinals were introduced by Sharpe and Welch in (Sharpe & Welch, 2011). They weaken the good indiscernibles characterization of Ramsey cardinals and were motivated by finding an upper bound on the consistency strength of a variant of Chang’s Conjecture studied in (Sharpe & Welch, 2011). For $A\subseteq\kappa$, define that $\mathscr I=\{\alpha<\kappa\mid$ there is an unbounded good set of indiscernibles $I_\alpha\subseteq\alpha$ for $\langle L_\kappa[A],A\rangle\}$. A cardinal $\kappa$ is virtually Ramsey if for every $A\subseteq\kappa$, the set $\mathscr I$ contains a club of $\kappa$.

Virtually Ramsey cardinals are Mahlo and a virtually Ramsey cardinal that is weakly compact is already Ramsey. If $κ$ is Ramsey, then there is a forcing extension destroying this, while preserving that $κ$ is virtually Ramsey. It is open whether virtually Ramsey cardinals are weaker than Ramsey cardinals. (Gitman & Welch, 2011; Gitman & Johnstone, n.d.)

If κ is virtually Ramsey then κ is greatly Erdős.(Sharpe & Welch, 2011)

Super weakly Ramsey cardinal

(All from (Holy & Schlicht, 2018))

A cardinal $κ$ is super weakly Ramsey iff every $A ⊆ κ$ is contained, as an element, in a weak κ-model $M ≺ H(κ^+)$ for which there exists a $κ$-powerset preserving elementary embedding $j∶ M → N$.

Strength:

$α$-Ramsey cardinal etc.

$α$-Ramsey cardinal for cardinal $α$

(All from (Holy & Schlicht, 2018))

For regular cardinal $α ≤ κ$, $κ$ is $α$-Ramsey iff for arbitrarily large regular cardinals $θ$, every $A ⊆ κ$ is contained, as an element, in some weak $κ$-model $M ≺ H(θ)$ which is closed under $<α$-sequences, and for which there exists a $κ$-powerset preserving elementary embedding $j∶ M → N$.

Note that, in the case $α = κ$, a weak $κ$-model closed under $<κ$-sequences is exactly a $κ$-model.

Alternate characterisation:

This characterisation works better for singular alpha $α$ (the original one would imply being $α^+$-Ramsey; well-founded $α$-filter property is better for countable cofinality).

Games for definitions

(from (Nielsen & Welch, 2018) unless otherwise noted)

For a weak $κ$-model $\mathcal{M}$, $μ$ is an $\mathcal{M}$-measure iff $(\mathcal{M}, \in, μ) \models \text{“$μ$ is a $κ$-complete ultrafilter on $κ$”}$.

Games $G_1$ and $G_2$ are equivalent when each of two players has a winning strategy in $G_1$ if and only if he has one in $G_2$.

The $α$-Ramsey cardinals are based upon well-founded filter games(Holy & Schlicht, 2018) $wfG^θ_γ(κ)$ (full definition in sources).

The games $wfG^{θ_0}_γ(κ)$ and $wfG^{θ_1}_γ(κ)$ are equivalent for any $γ$ with $\mathrm{cof}(γ) \neq ω$ and any regular $θ_0, θ_1 < κ$.

$\mathcal{G}^θ_γ(κ, ζ)$ is a similar family of games (again full definition in sources).

For convenience

$\mathcal{G}^θ_γ(κ)$, $\mathcal{G}^θ_γ(κ, 1)$ and $wfG^θ_γ(κ)$ are all equivalent for all limit ordinals $γ \leq κ$. $\mathcal{G}^θ_γ(κ, ζ)$ is equivalent to $\mathcal{G}^θ_γ(κ)$ whenever $\mathrm{cof}(γ) > ω$.

Generalisations

(from (Nielsen & Welch, 2018))

Now we can define $γ$-Ramsey cardinals for any ordinal $γ$ and other variants: Let $κ$ be a cardinal and $γ \leq κ$ an ordinal:

(Some of the notions defined in (Nielsen & Welch, 2018) were not new, but gained more convenient names.)

Filter property

(from (Holy & Schlicht, 2018))

$κ$ has the filter property iff for every subset $X$ of $\mathcal{P}(κ)$ of size $≤κ$, there is a $<κ$-complete filter $F$ on $κ$ which measures $X$. For normal filter we talk about normal filter property.

Strengthenings:

For $γ_1 > γ_0$, the $γ_1$-filter property implies the $γ_0$-filter property.

Results

Results in the finite case (for $n < ω$):(Nielsen & Welch, 2018)

Results for $ω$-Ramsey:(Holy & Schlicht, 2018)

Results for strategic $ω$-Ramsey:(Nielsen & Welch, 2018)

Equiconsistency with the measurable cardinal:

Being downwards absolute to the core model:(Nielsen & Welch, 2018)

Strategic $α$-Ramsey (including coherent $<α$-Ramsey) and $α$-very Ramsey:(Nielsen & Welch, 2018)

Hierarchy:(Holy & Schlicht, 2018)

Other:

$(α, β)$-Ramsey cardinals

(All information from (Nielsen & Welch, 2018))

$κ$ is $(α, β)$-Ramsey iff player I has no winning strategy in $\mathcal{G}^θ_α(κ, β)$ for all regular $θ > κ$.

Of course, this notion is interesting only for $\mathrm{cof}(α) = ω$.

$α$-Ramsey cardinals are by definition equivalent to $(α, 0)$-Ramsey cardinals.

Position in the hierarchy of Erdős and iterable cardinals:

This means also that $(ω, α)$-Ramsey cardinals are consistent with $V = L$ if $α < ω_1^L$ and that they are not if $α = ω_1$ .

$(γ, θ)$-Ramsey cardinals

$κ$ is $(γ, θ)$-Ramsey iff player I has no winning strategy in $\mathcal{G}^θ_γ(κ)$ (i.e. $κ$ is $γ$-Ramsey iff it is $(γ, θ)$-Ramsey for every $θ > κ$). Not much is known about them in general.(Nielsen & Welch, 2018)

M-rank

(from (Carmody et al., 2016))

M-rank for Ramsey and Ramsey-like cardinals is analogous to Mitchell rank. A difference is that M-rank for Ramsey-like cardinals can be at most $\kappa^+$ (because an ultrapower of a weak $κ$-model has size at most $κ$) and Mitchell rank for measurable cardinals can be at most $(2^\kappa)^+$.

Definition of the M-order: For $κ$ having a large-cardinal property $\mathscr{P}$ with an embedding characterisation and for two witness collections $\mathcal{U}$ and $\mathcal{W}$ of $\mathscr{P}$-measures, we say that $U⊳W$ if

Results:

Ramsey and Ramsey-like M-orders can be softly killed (Rank $α$ can be turned into rank $β$ for any $β < α$) using cofinality-preserving forcing extension.

References

  1. Erdős, P., & Hajnal, A. (1962). Some remarks concerning our paper “On the structure of set-mappings\’\’. Non-existence of a two-valued σ-measure for the first uncountable inaccessible cardinal. Acta Math. Acad. Sci. Hungar., 13, 223–226.
  2. Feng, Q. (1990). A hierarchy of Ramsey cardinals. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 49(3), 257–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-0072(90)90028-Z
  3. Gitman, V. (2011). Ramsey-like cardinals. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 76(2), 519–540. http://boolesrings.org/victoriagitman/files/2011/08/ramseylikecardinals.pdf
  4. Sharpe, I., & Welch, P. (2011). Greatly Erdős cardinals with some generalizations to the Chang and Ramsey properties. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic, 162(11), 863–902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apal.2011.04.002
  5. Holy, P., & Schlicht, P. (2018). A hierarchy of Ramsey-like cardinals. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 242, 49–74. https://doi.org/10.4064/fm396-9-2017
  6. Nielsen, D. S., & Welch, P. (2018). Games and Ramsey-like cardinals.
  7. Jech, T. J. (2003). Set Theory (Third). Springer-Verlag. https://logic.wikischolars.columbia.edu/file/view/Jech%2C+T.+J.+%282003%29.+Set+Theory+%28The+3rd+millennium+ed.%29.pdf
  8. Dodd, A., & Jensen, R. (1981). The core model. Ann. Math. Logic, 20(1), 43–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4843(81)90011-5
  9. Kanamori, A. (2009). The higher infinite (Second, p. xxii+536). Springer-Verlag. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-540-88867-3
  10. Gitman, V., & Welch, P. (2011). Ramsey-like cardinals II. J. Symbolic Logic, 76(2), 541–560. http://boolesrings.org/victoriagitman/files/2011/08/ramseylikecardinalsii.pdf
  11. Gitman, V., & Johnstone, T. A. Indestructibility for Ramsey and Ramsey-like cardinals. https://victoriagitman.github.io/files/indestructibleramseycardinalsnew.pdf
  12. Cody, B., & Gitman, V. (2015). Eastonś theorem for Ramsey and strongly Ramsey cardinals. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 166(9), 934–952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apal.2015.04.006
  13. Gaifman, H. (1974). Elementary embeddings of models of set-theory and certain subtheories. In Axiomatic set theory (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Vol. XIII, Part II, Univ. California, Los Angeles, Calif., 1967) (pp. 33–101). Amer. Math. Soc.
  14. Gitman, V., & Shindler, R. Virtual large cardinals. https://ivv5hpp.uni-muenster.de/u/rds/virtualLargeCardinalsEdited5.pdf
  15. Bagaria, J., Gitman, V., & Schindler, R. (2017). Generic Vopěnkaś Principle, remarkable cardinals, and the weak Proper Forcing Axiom. Arch. Math. Logic, 56(1-2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00153-016-0511-x
  16. Carmody, E., Gitman, V., & Habič, M. E. (2016). A Mitchell-like order for Ramsey and Ramsey-like cardinals.
Main library