Jensen’s square principle has proven very useful in measuring the non-compactness of various successor cardinals as well as being an essential tool in finding new lower bounds for forcing axioms like the Proper Forcing Axiom. It should be noted however, that is not really about , but about . To remedy this confusion, Caicedo et al (’17) came up with the term square inaccessible instead, where is square inaccessible if fails. It seems as though we can only talk about successor cardinals being square inaccessible then, but results from Krueger (’13) and Todorčević (’87) allow us generalise this to all uncountable regular cardinals. I’ll introduce this generalisation here and note that the celebrated result of Jensen (’72), stating that there aren’t any successor square inaccessible cardinals in L, does not hold for all cardinals.
Inner model theory is all about constructing canonical inner models of set theory that inherits the complexity — i.e. the large cardinals — of the universe. In “classical”, or “pure”, inner model theory it’s clear that there’s been a lot of partial progress towards this goal, as the programme has resulted in explicit constructions of inner models inheriting a lot of the large cardinals present in V. But with the emergence of descriptive inner model theory this is suddenly not as clear. Where are the inner models containing large cardinals? I’ll do my best to give an overview of how this is accomplished and also how large cardinal theories, determinacy theories and arbitrary theories of interest (like forcing axioms) interact with each other.
Weakly compact cardinals have a great variety of properties, which are all interesting enough to warrant independent study. These properties include threadability, reflection and Mahlo properties. Studying these features in isolation leads to interesting (non-)interactions and gives us three distinct hierarchies of large cardinal notions below weakly compacts in terms of direct implication, where in terms of consistency strength two of the hierarchies simply collapse.
Previously I’ve only been talking about large cardinals and determinacy theories as if they were the only consistency hierarchies around. There is another important class of axioms, which has the added benefit of being, dare I say it, more useful to mathematicians not working in set theory. The reason for this is probably that these forcing axioms have a handful of consequences of a non-set theoretic nature, making them easier to apply in (mathematical) practice. When it comes to the consistency strength of these axioms though, things get a lot more hazy: we know very little about the strength of (almost all of) these axioms. I’ll introduce these axioms here and state what is known to date.