# A $\square(\kappa)$-like principle consistent with weak compactness

B. Cody, V. Gitman, and C. Lambie-Hanson, “A $\square(κ)$-like principle consistent with weak compactness,” *Submitted*.

In this paper, we introduce and investigate an incompactness principle we call $\square_1(\kappa)$, which is closely related to $\square(\kappa)$ but is consistent with weak compactness. Let us begin by recalling the basic facts about $\square(\kappa)$.

The principle $\square(\kappa)$ asserts that there is a $\kappa$-length coherent sequence of clubs $\vec{C}=\langle C_\alpha\mid\alpha\in\text{lim}(\kappa)\rangle$ that cannot be threaded. For an uncountable cardinal $\kappa$, a sequence $\vec{C}=\langle C_\alpha\mid\alpha\in\text{lim}(\kappa)\rangle$ of clubs $C_\alpha\subseteq\alpha$ is called *coherent* if whenever $\beta$ is a limit point of $C_\alpha$ we have $C_\beta=C_\alpha\cap\beta$. Given a coherent sequence $\vec{C}$, we say that $C$ is a *thread* through $\vec{C}$ if $C$ is a club subset of $\kappa$ and $C\cap\alpha=C_\alpha$ for every limit point $\alpha$ of $C$. A coherent sequence $\vec{C}$ is called a $\square(\kappa)$-sequence if it cannot be threaded, and $\square(\kappa)$ holds if there is a $\square(\kappa)$-sequence. It is easy to see that $\square(\kappa)$ implies that $\kappa$ is not weakly compact, and thus $\square(\kappa)$ can be viewed as asserting that $\kappa$ exhibits a certain amount of incompactness. The principle $\square(\kappa)$ was isolated by Todorčević [1], building on work of Jensen [2], who showed that, if $V = L$, then $\square(\kappa)$ holds for every regular uncountable $\kappa$ that is not weakly compact.

The natural ${\leq}\kappa$-strategically closed forcing to add a $\square(\kappa)$-sequence ([3], Lemma 35) preserves the inaccessibility as well as the Mahloness of $\kappa$, but kills the weak compactness of $\kappa$ and indeed adds a non-reflecting stationary set. However, if $\kappa$ is weakly compact, there is a forcing [4] which adds a $\square(\kappa)$-sequence and also preserves the fact that every stationary subset of $\kappa$ reflects. Thus, relative to the existence of a weakly compact cardinal, $\square(\kappa)$ is consistent with ${\rm Refl}(\kappa)$, the principle that every stationary set reflects. However, $\square(\kappa)$ implies the failure of the simultaneous stationary reflection principle ${\rm Refl}(\kappa,2)$ which states that if $S$ and $T$ are any two stationary subsets of $\kappa$, then there is some $\alpha<\kappa$ with ${\rm cf}(\alpha)>\omega$ such that $S\cap \alpha$ and $T\cap\alpha$ are both stationary in $\alpha$. In fact, $\square(\kappa)$ implies that every stationary subset of $\kappa$ can be partitioned into two stationary sets that do not simultaneously reflect ([4], Theorem 2.1).

If $\kappa$ is a weakly compact cardinal, then the collection of non-$\Pi^1_1$-indescribable subsets of $\kappa$ forms a natural normal ideal called the $\Pi^1_1$-indescribability ideal:
$$\Pi^1_1(\kappa)=\{X\subseteq\kappa\mid \text{$X$ is not $\Pi^1_1$-indescribable}\}.$$
A set $S\subseteq\kappa$ is *$\Pi^1_1$-indescribable* if for every $A\subseteq V_\kappa$ and every $\Pi^1_1$-sentence $\varphi$, whenever $(V_\kappa,\in,A)\models\varphi$ there is an $\alpha\in S$ such that $(V_\alpha,\in,A\cap V_\alpha)\models\varphi$. More generally, a $\Pi^1_n$-indescribable cardinal $\kappa$ carries the analogously defined $\Pi^1_n$-indescribability ideal. It is natural to ask the question: which results concerning the nonstationary ideal can be generalized to the various ideals associated to large cardinals, such as the $\Pi^1_n$-indescribability ideals? The work of Sun [5] and Hellsten [6] showed that when $\kappa$ is $\Pi^1_n$-indescribable the collection of \emph{$n$-club} subsets of $\kappa$ is a filter-base for the filter $\Pi^1_n(\kappa)^*$ dual to the $\Pi^1_n$-indescribability ideal, yielding a characterization of $\Pi^1_n$-indescribable sets that resembles the definition of stationarity: when $\kappa$ is $\Pi^1_n$-indescribable, a set $S\subseteq\kappa$ is $\Pi^1_n$-indescribable if and only if $S\cap C\neq\emptyset$ for every $n$-club $C\subseteq\kappa$. Several recent results have used this characterization ([7], [8], [9] and [10]) to generalize theorems concerning the nonstationary ideal to the $\Pi^1_1$-indescribability ideal. For technical reasons, there has been less success with the $\Pi^1_n$-indescribability ideals for $n>1$. In this article we continue this line of research: by replacing "clubs" with "$1$-clubs" we obtain a $\square(\kappa)$-like principle $\square_1(\kappa)$ that is consistent with weak compactness but not with $\Pi^1_2$-indescribability.

We will see that the principle $\square_1(\kappa)$ holds trivially at weakly compact cardinals $\kappa$ below which stationary reflection fails. (This is analogous to the fact that $\square(\kappa)$ holds trivially for every $\kappa$ of cofinality $\omega_1$.) Thus, the task at hand is not just to show that $\square_1(\kappa)$ is consistent with the weak compactness of $\kappa$, but to show that it is consistent with the weak compactness of $\kappa$ even when stationary reflection holds at many cardinals below $\kappa$, so that nontrivial coherence of the sequence is obtained. Recall that when $\kappa$ is $\kappa^+$-weakly compact, the set of weakly compact cardinals below $\kappa$ is weakly compact and much more, so, in particular, the set of inaccessible $\alpha<\kappa$ at which stationary reflection holds is weakly compact.

**Theorem:**
If $\kappa$ is $\kappa^+$-weakly compact and the ${\rm GCH}$ holds, then there is a cofinality-preserving forcing extension in which

- $\kappa$ remains $\kappa^+$-weakly compact
- and $\square_1(\kappa)$ holds.

We will also investigate the relationship between $\square_1(\kappa)$ and weakly compact reflection principles. The *weakly compact reflection principle* ${\rm Refl}_1(\kappa)$ states that $\kappa$ is weakly compact and for every weakly compact $S\subseteq \kappa$ there is an $\alpha<\kappa$ such that $S\cap\alpha$ is weakly compact. It is straightforward to see that if $\kappa$ is $\Pi^1_2$-indescribable, then ${\rm Refl}_1(\kappa)$ holds, and if ${\rm Refl}_1(\kappa)$ holds, then $\kappa$ is $\omega$-weakly compact (see [9]). However, the following results show that neither of these implications can be reversed. The first author [9] showed that if ${\rm Refl}_1(\kappa)$ holds then there is a forcing which adds a non-reflecting weakly compact subset of $\kappa$ and preserves the $\omega$-weak compactness of $\kappa$, hence the $\omega$-weak compactness of $\kappa$ does not imply ${\rm Refl}_1(\kappa)$. The first author and Hiroshi Sakai [10] showed that ${\rm Refl}_1(\kappa)$ can hold at the least $\omega$-weakly compact cardinal, and hence ${\rm Refl}_1(\kappa)$ does not imply the $\Pi^1_2$-indescribability of $\kappa$. Just as $\square(\kappa)$ and ${\rm Refl}(\kappa)$ can hold simultaneously relative to a weakly compact cardinal, we will prove that $\square_1(\kappa)$ and ${\rm Refl}_1(\kappa)$ can hold simultaneously relative to a $\Pi^1_2$-indescribable cardinal.

**Theorem:**
Suppose that $\kappa$ is $\Pi^1_2$-indescribable and the ${\rm GCH}$ holds. Then there is a cofinality-preserving forcing extension in which

- $\square_1(\kappa)$ holds,
- ${\rm Refl}_1(\kappa)$ holds and
- $\kappa$ is $\kappa^+$-weakly compact.

## References

- S. Todorčević, “Partitioning pairs of countable ordinals,”
*Acta Math.*, vol. 159, no. 3-4, pp. 261–294, 1987. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02392561 - R. B. Jensen, “The fine structure of the constructible hierarchy,”
*Ann. Math. Logic*, vol. 4, pp. 229–308; erratum, ibid. 4 (1972), 443, 1972. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0003-4843(72)90001-0 - C. Lambie-Hanson, “Squares and covering matrices,”
*Ann. Pure Appl. Logic*, vol. 165, no. 2, pp. 673–694, 2014. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apal.2013.10.001 - Y. Hayut and C. Lambie-Hanson, “Simultaneous stationary reflection and square sequences,”
*J. Math. Log.*, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 1750010, 27, 2017. Available at: https://doi-org.proxy.library.vcu.edu/10.1142/S0219061317500106 - W. Z. Sun, “Stationary cardinals,”
*Arch. Math. Logic*, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 429–442, 1993. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01270466 - A. Hellsten, “Diamonds on large cardinals,”
*Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. Diss.*, no. 134, p. 48, 2003. - A. Hellsten, “Orders of indescribable sets,”
*Arch. Math. Logic*, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 705–714, 2006. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00153-006-0015-1 - A. Hellsten, “Saturation of the weakly compact ideal,”
*Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.*, vol. 138, no. 9, pp. 3323–3334, 2010. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9939-2010-10399-4 - B. Cody, “Adding a non-reflecting weakly compact set,”
*Accepted at Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic*. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.04358 - B. Cody and H. Sakai, “The weakly compact reflection principle need not imply a high order of weak compactness,”
*Submitted*. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.08506