Reinhard cardinals are the largest cardinals yet defined that are consistent with ZF. This suggests that there are large cardinals that are inconsistent with ZF - are there in fact any?

  • The last time I checked, Reinhardt Cardinals were not known to be inconsistent with ZF. Have you come across an article or link that says otherwise? – Everett Piper May 2 '14 at 1:58
  • @Piper: no; I haven't claimed that they were. I'd be very suprised if there are any any as they seem to be defined within the language of ZF; and presumably similar definitions can be made for other set theories like NBG. – Mozibur Ullah May 2 '14 at 3:29

So, there is a very facetious answer to your question; it depends what you mean by large cardinal axiom.

For instance 0-sharp is something like a large cardinal axiom without asserting the existence of a cardinal explicitly. It's rather about sets of indiscernibles that code the construction of L, and is very naturally viewed as a (Delta^1)_3 non-constructible real. However, 0-sharp fits very nicely into the large cardinal hierarchy, so is something like a large cardinal axiom; it's a principle of strength.

If we're talking about principles of strength then, there is a very obvious axiom that is inconsistent with ZF, namely 0=1. However, this is obviously not what you're looking for, rather you want an axiom that is in some sense "natural" or "conceivable" or "contentful" (or some other similarly philosophically problematic notion; cans of worms everywhere!), but that is inconsistent with ZF. Hugh Woodin and Peter Koellner have been working on thinking up such a large cardinal notion inconsistent with ZF; the hierarchy is roughly outlined in the Wikipedia article you cite (I would be somewhat careful of that, however; there are a couple of errors in the text). No inconsistency has yet been found, however.

  • This possible belongs in meta, but why on earth doesn't this forum support LaTeX? – Neil Barton Apr 22 '14 at 2:55
  • I don't know why this forum doesn't support it, but I've edited to look a bit clearer. – Mozibur Ullah Apr 22 '14 at 2:59
  • Thanks. Just quickly; the in Delta^1_3, the 1 is a superscript on the Delta and the 3 is a subscript. I'll edit it now (rather than Delta^(1/3) which might be a little confusing). Nice to see people interested in this stuff! – Neil Barton Apr 22 '14 at 3:01
  • It's not a forum, and see here. – Nikolaj-K Sep 29 '14 at 0:30

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.